THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH DEFENDED: Against a Crying Evil in these Times of the Antisabitarians of our Age: Wherein is shewed that the Morality of the fourth Com­mandement is still in force to bind Christians unto the Sanctification of the Sabbath Day. Written by that learned Assertor of the Truth, William Twisse D. D. late Prolocutor to the Assembly of Divines.

Exod. 20 8. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.

Matth. 5.17. Think not I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Verse 18. For verily, I say unto you, till Heaven and Earth passe, one jot, or one title shall in no wise passe from the Law, till all be fulfilled

Verse 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Comman­dements, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

LONDON. Printed for Thomas Pierrepont, and are to be sold at the signe of the Sun in Pauls Church-yard, 1652.




The Contents of the chiefe matters handled herein.

IN the answer to the Prefacer.

Section. 1.
1. The ancients are alleadged in vaine to oppose the Institution of the Sabbath, as from the be­ginning.
Section 2.
2. The untruth of the Praefacers legends concerning Peter Bruis, Fulco, and Eustathius and others, disco­vered.
Section 3.
3. Calvin abused by the Prefacer, and misconstrued.
Section 3.
2. What credite Barclay deserves, relating a con­sultation of Calvin, about transferring the Sab­bath to the Thursday.
Section. 3.
3. Of the force of Apostolicall example.
Section 4.
4. The vanity of the Prefacers pretence, in saying Cata­rinus opposed Tostatus with ill successe, while he [Page] maintained the Institution of the Sabbath from the Creation. It is made apparant, that his successe was far beyond that of Tostatus.
Section 4.
2. Whether Adam fell the first day wherein he was created.
  • 1. Pererius his arguments for the ne­gative. Sect. 4.
  • 2. Doctor Willet his arguments for the affirmative. Sect. 4.
Section 4.
3. Pererius his reasons against the institution of the Sabbath from the Creation, answered.
Section 4.
4. Two Digressions in answer to Rivetus in two particulars.
  • 1. By way of reply upon his answer to Walaeus his arguments, justifying the morality of one day in seven.
  • 2. To his arguments opposing the morality of one day in seven to be consecrated to the Lord.
Section 5.
Pa. 78.
5. A consideration of Walaeus his discourse in answer to those, who conceave the institution of the Lords Day, to have beene ordered by Christ himselfe.
Section 5.
Pa. 70.
2. An examination of that phrase of some of our Divines, affirming the ancients to have changed the Iewes Sabbath unto the Lords Day for a pro­bable cause: wherein it is shewed that the cause hereof was more then probable.
Section 6.
6. An examination of Chemnitius his discourse, concer­ning the authority of the Lords Day.
[Page] Section 6.
  • 2. A reply upon Doctor Rivets answer to Master Perkins his arguments standing for the Divine authority of the Lords Day.
  • 3. That the Lords Day, and the Lords Supper are so called in the same notion. 1. affirmed by Doctor Andrewes, Perkins, Thysius. 2. justified by good reason.
Section. 7.
  • 7. A briefe of the arguments on each side for every point.
    • 1. As touching the originall institution of the Sab­bath.
    • 2. As touching the Morality of one day in seven to be consecrated to Gods solemne worship.
    • 3. As touching the authority of the celebration of the Lords Day, and the immutability thereof.
  • 8. The Prefacer, and M. Rogers opposing D. Bownde are shewed in every particular to oppose D. Andrewes.

IN the consideration of D. Prideaux his Lecture.

Section 2.
1. How far light of nature doth direct, as touching the time which ought to be set apart for Gods solemne service.
Section 2. & 6.
2 Reasons why the Creator should prescribe the proporti­on of time to be consecrated unto himselfe.
Section 2. & 6.
3. How far light of nature doth direct as touching the particularity of the day under the proportion of one in seven, Sect. the same.
Section 3.
4. That Enosh with his holy company apparting them­selves from others, had a set time for divine worship.
[Page] Section. 5.
5. That it becomes not us to affect liberty to designe the day for the Sabbath.
Section. 6.
6 The danger of leaving it to man to make choyse of the day.
Section 7.
7. That the celebration of the Lords Day is of divine in­stitution, and how far justified by the old Testament, and particularly by the fourth Commandement.
Section 8.
8. That it is nothing strange, the Lords Day should be called by the name of the sabbath.
Section 8.
2. Sensuall pleasures are cleanly caried under the title of recreation.

The Preface.

I Have now a long time taken notice of much difference and contention about the morality of the fourth Commandement, but I never gave my selfe to looke into the bottome of it till now. I ever conceived it for the substance to be Morall; other­wise, what should it make among the ten Commande­ments, which all account the Law morall, in distinction both from the law judiciall, and the law ceremoniall given by Moses unto the Jewes. These ten Commandements the Lordspake from the top of mount Sina, in the hearing of all the people; and by way of preparation to so notable a ser­vice, as to meet with God, and to heare him speake unto them,Exod. 19.10. two dayes were given them to sanctifie themselves and to wash their cloathes; 11. that they might be ready on the third day: for the third day the Lord would come downe on mount Sina. And so it came to passe. For when Moses brought forth the people out of the Campe to meet with God, 17. and they stood at the ne­ther part of the Mount: 18. Mount Sina was altogether on a smoake, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoake thereof ascended as the smoake of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. And all the people saw the thundrings and the light­nings, and the noise of the trumpet, Exod. 20.18. and the moun­taine smoaking: and when the people saw it, they removed and stood a farre off. In such heavenly state was this Law delivered, and remember the Sabbath [Page] day to keep it holy, amongst the rest, without all example of the like, in all the generations that went before. And the Lord thought it fit, to mind them hereof by his servant Moses: Deut. 4.32. Aske now of the dayes that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and aske from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it. Did ever people heare the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, 33. as thou hast heard, and live. Out of heaven he made thee to heare his voice, 36. that he might instruct thee; and upon the earth he shewed thee his great fire, and thou heardst his words out of the midst of the fire: And because he loved thy Fa­thers, therefore he chose their seed after them. And in his last blessing upon the people, when now he was going out of the world, Moses, as a King, putteth them in mind of this, saying:Deut. 33.2, 3, 4, 5. The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them, he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of Saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Yea, he loved the people: all his Saints are in thy hands, and they sate downe at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words. Moses commanded a Law, even the in­heritance of the congregation of Jacob. And he was King in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people, and the Tribes of Israel were gathered together It is true, there is an hole pickt in the fourth Commandement, con­cerning the sanctifying of the Sabbath; as if that among all the rest, were not morall, but ceremoniall. Yet this ho­nour it hath from God, that immediatly after the Creation, the Lord resting on the seventh day from his works, there­fore he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Gen. 2.3. And therefore Doctor Andrewes, ere he died Bishop of Win­chester, [Page] in his patterne of Catecheticall doctrine (I com­monly cite it under his name, because it is commonly re­ceived to bee his) and as I have heard upon divers good grounds, treating upon this Commandement; and having proposed this question; But is not the Sabbath a Cere­mony, and so abrogated by Christ? Makes answer to it in this manner, Doe as Christ did in the cause of di­vorce; look whether it were so from the beginning; Now the beginning of the Sabbath was in Paradise, before there was any sinne, and so before there nee­ded any Saviour, and so before there was any Cere­mony or figure of a Saviour. And if they say, it pre­figured the rest that we shall have from our sinnes in Christ, we grant it, and therefore the day is changed, but no ceremony proved. And yet we are not ignorant, how Papists have practised to raze the second commande­ment also out of the Law given on mount Sina, as if that also were out of date, being (as they conceive) but of a po­sitive nature at first, so little evidence doe they finde for it by the light of Nature; and now the world is growne so wise, that they know how to worship God by Images, without committing any idolatry at all; though this mystery of re­ligious state is not thought fit to be communicated unto the vulgar. But doe we not all acknowledge the light of Nature to be much corrupted since the fall of Adam? how much more our judgement of morall things; wherein A­ristotle confesseth that [...],Eth. 1. c. 3. demonstration is not to be expected, but only [...] perswasion. And if way be given to mens wanton wils for the gratifying of corrupt affections, more breaches than these are like to be made in the Decalogue. I have heard that Cardinall Cusanus un­dertooke to justifie the sin of Sodome. Sure I am, amongst the Lacedemonians wives were common: And Brennus that Ancient Invader of other Nations made profession, [Page] that he knew no other Law of Nature but this, that The weaker should be in subjection to the stronger; like as King Pyrrhus, in his death-bed, being demanded, who should succeed him in the Kingdom, made answer, even He whose sword is the longest. Carneades I thinke was the man, who having on a day made a singular speech in commendation of Justice; afterwards discoursed as elo­quently to the contrary, shewing that there was no justice at all by the law of nature; every naturall thing seeking to maintaine it selfe by the destruction of others. So the fire maintaines it selfe by the combustion of each combustible thing whereunto it approacheth; and the water overflowes all naturally, and beats downe all dammes, it can, to make roome for it selfe. And the greatest Beasts maintain them­selves by praying on those that have no power to resist them. The more cause have wee to blesse God for giving us the Law Morall in writing, which grew so miserably defaced in the hearts of men. And that herein the sancti­fying of the Sabbath is mentioned among the rest, this hath ever satisfied mee, and assured that the substance thereof is Morall; and that accordingly wee ought to inure our selves to the sanctification of the Sabbath, though na­turally we find in our selves no greater reluctation to any Commandement than to this: Pardon me if I judge of o­thers by my selfe in this particular. Nay, upon this very con­sideration have we not the more cause to strive against this intestine corruption of ours? His Majesty is much deligh­ted in hunting; it is a recreation mixt with manly exer­cise, well becomming a King; but I heare he never useth to hunt on the Lords day. And so much the rather should the Lords Sabbaths be deare unto us, because the goodnesse and mercy of God appeares no where more, than in giving us his Sabbaths; calling upon us thereby to rest from the world un­to him (and God knowes, a Christian soule finds no rest any where but in him) and to walke with him in holy medita­tion, [Page] as he is pleased to walk in the midst of us, asHos. 11.9. the Holy One of Israel: so to draw us away from worldly cares and pleasures, to the entertaining of heavenly and holy cares, to enrich our selves with the knowledge of God, and to re­create our soules in the Lord, as hee solaceth himselfe in us, according to that,Prov. 8.31. Hee tooke his solace in the com­passe of the earth, and his delight was in the chil­dren of men. On the Lords day it is, that in speciall sort we Christians take hold of that holy Cōmunion, which God in great mercy in his Son Jesus Christ vouchsafeth unto us with himselfe, speaking unto us as from heaven in his holy Word, and giving us liberty to speak unto him. The Lord pit­cheth his Tabernacle amongst us here on earth, and we are as it were taken up into the mount of God, there to be transfi­gured before him. When the Lord appeared unto Jacob in a vision by night, when he fled from his brother Esau, and he saw a ladder erected between heaven and earth, and the Lord on the top of it, the Angels ascending and descending by it; when he awoke, How dreadfull (saith he) is this place; Gen. 28.16, 17. The Lord was here, and I was not a ware; surely it is no other than the house of God, and the gate of hea­ven. And are not our Temples the houses of God? are they not the very gates of heaven? In our solemne assemblies is not a ladder erected betweene earth and heaven? is not the Lord on the top of it,Deut. 33.3. and are not we humbled at his feet to heare his Word? The gracious instructions which we receive from him, are they not as so many Angels descen­ding unto us, the gracious motions that arise in our hearts, upon meditation of his Word, of thankesgiving to him, of rejoycing in him yea, of sorrowing for our sins, are they not as so many Angels ascending to him? Our teares have a dou­ble motion, one naturall, downwards, another spiritual, up­wards, for the Lord puts them into his bottels: the hairs of our head are numbred, how much more the sighes of our [Page] heart, and groanes of our spirit? And have we not great cause to inure our selves betimes thus to sabbatize with God, as he sabbatizeth with us? that we may be the fitter to keepe our eternall Sabbath with him: (for so is our eter­nall happinesse represented unto us) in the enjoying of him for ever,Es. 66.23. and being filled with his glory; which Austin callsDe civit. Dei. lib. 22. c. 30. Sabbatum maximum, our greatest Sabbath; andQuaest. supra Exo. quaest. 173. 1 Cor. 15.24.28. Plenitudo Sabbati; and to that purpose casts his eye upon that Sabbatum Sabbatorum, Sabbath of Sab­baths, Revel. 25. For when Christ hath put downe all rule, and all authority and power, then shall he deli­ver up the Kingdome to God, even the Father, and God shall be all in all.

Yet I willingly confesse, that in my observation, two things there are, which seeme to be of great moment, in op­position to the morality of the fourth Commandement: 1. The change of the day. 2. The generall opinion of the Fa­thers pronouncing in an indefinit manner the fourth Com­mandement to be ceremoniall. Yet notwithstanding, the registring of it in the Decalogue, which is generally ac­compted the Law morall, I say, this consideration hath even prevailed more with mee, to accompt the substance thereof morall. Neverthelesse for the honour I owe, and respect I beare to Antiquity, I have endevoured to understand the Antients aright, and to enquire in what respect they ac­compted it ceremoniall. For to my understanding, the san­ctification of the rest, or the service of the day, especially unto us Christians is meerely morall. But as concerning the rest it selfe, it may be, some ceremoniality may be found therein, especially considered in conjunction with the time appointed for the worship and service of God. And herein I thanke God, I have found good satisfaction unto my selfe, at last; how I shall satisfie others I know not. And when sometimes I had waded thorow the Epistle to the Romans [Page] unto the fourteenth Chapter; there occasion was given me to consider further of this controversie, so farre, as a few dayes would give libertie to provide my next Sermon: and therein I made use of Hospinian, and of Pererius, and no more as I remember; but in Pererius I came acquainted with Tostatus his Arguments, directed against the anci­ent institution of the Sabbath from the Creation, which till then I imagined had been generally received without con­tradiction; according to that which the story of Genesis at first sight seemes to commend unto us. And by this occasion my mind working hereupon in my meditations, I thought fit, for opening a way, to the better clearing of the truth, to distinguish three things, in subordination, the latter to the former. 1. The first was a time in generall to be set apart for Gods service. 2. The second was the proportion of this time. 3. The third, the particularity of the day according to the specified proportion. 1. The first seemed to me of neces­sary duty by the very light of nature, to as many as know God, and acknowledge him to be their Creator: and this I tooke, and doe take to be the highest degree of morality in this precept, and herein hitherto I have found no opposi­tion. 2. As touching the second, by light of nature we are somewhat to seeke, as whether one day in a weeke or more; or one day in a month or more; or one day in a yeare or more, ought to be set apart for the solemne worship and ser­vice of God. So that herein it is fit we should expect dire­ction from God, the Lord of the Sabbath. 1. Because the service of the day is his, and it seemes fit he should cut out what proportion of time he thinkes convenient. 2. For the maintenance of uniformitie therein; and lest otherwise there might be as many divisions hereabouts, as there are Churches in the world, and contentions also consequently, each standing for their owne election. For reason of a con­jecturall nature is very various, and therein commonly af­fection [Page] beares the greatest sway, and drawes the judgement to comply with it. But when God hath determined a cer­taine proportion of time, it may be we shall find great con­gruitie therein, even to naturall reason, and farre more than in any other. D. Field, as Master Broad reports, pro­fesseth, that to one who knowes the story of the Creation, it is evident by light of nature, that one day in seven is to be consecrated to Gods service.Part. 2. lib. 1. cap. 2. And Azorius the Jesuit in his morall Institutions acknowledgeth that It is most a­greeable to reason, that after six work dayes, one day should be consecrated to divine worship. The least di­vision of dayes is into a weeke, the next greater division is into a month, the next into a yeare. Now by light of na­ture it seemes farre more reasonable, that one day in seven should be imployed in Gods service, than one day in a mo­neth. And if a seventh part of our time be to be consecra­ted unto God, better a seventh day, than a seventh part of every day, because the worldly occupations of each of those dayes, must needs cause miserable distraction. Thus reason may discourse in probable manner, when God hath gone be­fore us to open a way unto us. Certainly, when God hath once determined the proportion of time, it is so farre from being accounted morall, as perpetuall, and still to hold, un­till God himselfe shall alter it. 3. As for the particularity of the day according to the forenamed proportion; there­in we should be farre more to seeke, were wee left unto our selves; time consisting in a continuall flux and succession, one part afore, and another after. As namely, supposing one day in seven is to be consecrated to Gods service; yet wee shall still be to seeke, which day of the seven is to be set apart for an holy use. And no marvell; for in it selfe it is nothing materiall. For a proportion of service being required with­in a certaine compasse, so it be done within that compasse, every Master rests satisfied with his servants worke. But [Page] as for difference in the proportion, every one accounts that a matter of great moment. God himselfe acknow­ledgeth this; therefore to whom he gives but little, at their hands he expects but little; to whom hee gives much, of them he expects much, as our Saviour teacheth. And Saint John exhorts Christians so to carry themselves in the Lords service, that they may receive a full reward. 2 Iohn. 8 Yet both for our assurance that our service shall be acceptable with God (for of Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made Israel to sin, we reade, that Hee offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had de­vised of his owne heart, which latter clause undoubtedly is added by way of exprobration) as also to prevent divi­sions by reason of different opinions thereabouts, and as different courses therin; it is fit that herein we should wait for the Lords direction, and designation of the particular day. And even this also was so ordered by God himselfe, and that in great congruitie, as appeares to as many, as are ac­quainted with the story of the Creation. For the Lord ha­ving dispatched all his workes in six dayes, and resting on the seventh, commanded man to imitate him. For in this respect it was, that at the first the Lord blessed the se­venth day and sanctified it: and some thousand of yeares after gives this reason, why after six dayes of labour the se­venth being the Sabbath of the Lord our God, no manner of worke should be done therein: which being once thus ordered by the Lord of the Sabbath, it must be in force of perpetuall observation, as a requisite determination of the morality of this Law; and not of an alterable nature, save only by the same authority whereby it was ordained. Now to my understanding, by the fourth Commandement it is cleare: First, that God commanded some time to bee set apart, and sanctified unto his service. Secondly, that [Page] the proportion of this time he hath defined to be one day in seven. Thirdly, that the particular day under this propor­tion was designed to be the seventh, and that unto the Iews in correspondencie to the seventh day from the first creati­on, whereon God commanded them to rest from all their workes, like as on that day the Lord rested from his works. And I thinke, there is no question amongst Christians, but that all this ought to be religiously observed by the people of God, untill the Lord himselfe manifest his pleasure for al­teration, and no farther, in any particular, than God shall manifest his pleasure for alteration. As for example. First for the time, then son the rest, lastly, for the service of the day it selfe. First, If God hath not manifested his will for any alteration, of setting apart some time for divine ser­vice; we must still continue to set some time apart for di­vine service. Likewise, if God hath not manifested his pleasure, to have the proportion of time altered, which hath bin originally allotted unto his service; we must not presume to allow a lesse proportion of time for his service, than hath been formerly prescribed by him. Only both Gomarus and Rivet concur in this, that we may allow more; and that in reason, it is fit now under the Gospell to allow more time for Gods service, rather than lesse, in comparison to that which he would have allowed him under the Law. And as for the particularity of the day, if God hath manifested his plea­sure to have it altered, it must be altered, (as in case it ap­peare to have been ceremoniall, in respect of the rest com­manded thereon) and another in the seven substituted in the place thereof, and that according to Gods direction, and not otherwise. Secondly, so as touching the rest of the day commanded upon Mount Sina unto the Jewes (not so unto Adam upon the Creation; but onely wee reade that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, which sanctification yet on mans part drawes a rest with it) if there be found a just distinction betweene a rest morall, (so [Page] far forth as the sanctification of the day requireth) and a rest ceremonial, of a more rigorous nature, and that prefigu­ring some thing in Christ; it will follow herehence that the rest morall still continueth, together with the sanctificati­on of the day, as much as ever, and that the rigorous rest must fall and be abolished. Thirdly, so in the last place, as touching the service of the day; whatsoever was prescri­bed unto the Jewes thereon as ceremoniall, is at end; as namely the Sabbath sacrifice which doubled the daily sacri­fice. Only the publique ministery of the Word and Prayer, as morall, still continueth, together with our Sacramentall ceremonies which Christ hath given unto his Church, Bap­tisme and the Lords Supper; and therefore the Lords day was called by the Ancients the day of light, in reference unto Baptisme, Baptisme being called [...], illumination, the first worke of grace, and the day of Bread, in reference to the Lords Supper. Now all this I hope to make appeare, before I give over this taske which I have taken in hand. And I was the more confirmed in my meditations, when I heard by one of my Auditors, a Divine, that in this doctrine of mine concerning the Sabbath, as touching the substance of that which was delivered by me, I nothing differed from the opinion of D. Prideaux, whose discourse on that argu­ment, at that time I had not been acquainted with. But since I finde that Sect. 8. of that his Lecture, be professeth that the Jewish rest cannot stand with our Christian libertie; I say so too, and withall endevour to give evi­dence for the abrogation thereof. Further, the same Reve­rend Doctor professeth, That we only are so farre to ab­staine from worke, as it is an impediment to the per­formance of such duties as are then commanded. I am not only of his opinion herein, but withall desire no more than this to be granted for the maintenance of the morall rest of the fourth Commandement.

[Page]But I have observed some to deny any thing in the Iewish Sabbath to have been ceremoniall, yet will not have that fourth Commandement morall, but positive rather, as tou­ching both the observation of one day in seven, and as tou­ching the particularity of the day. And therefore they deny it to be morall, because it hath not evidence by light of na­ture. But was it evident to the Jewes by light of nature, that the God of their Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Ja­cob, and that brought them out of the land of Aegypt, was the true God of the world, and that therefore they ought to have no other gods but him? Is it evident by the light of na­ture that God is not to be worshipped by an Image? Or if naturall evidence hereof faile us in this state of corrupt na­ture wherein we are, shall these lawes be denied to be the morall Law of God? yet I nothing doubt but the proportion of time allowed for Gods service, much more the particula­rity of the day appointed thereunto, is alterable at the plea­sure of God. And ceremonials, I confesse, are in such a sense positive, or rather more than positive; namely, such as not only may, but must like shadowes fly away when the body of them comes in place. And yet I find that Cajetan in this point confounds ceremoniall with positive; though I think he would not call it ceremoniall, unlesse he conceived, that this which he cals positive, had some ceremoniality in it. But their reason whereupon they deny the ceremoniality of it, in my judgment is not sufficient. 1. Because they ground it up­on a supposition very questionable, namely, that the Sabbath was instituted before the fall, which some deny, and that with very great probability in my judgment. 2. Their con­sequence is not good. For though it were no ceremony at the first; yet others say it might be afterwards, and give instance in the rain-bow, which though in course of nature extant before, yet was not a signe till after the Flood: and though I know some who would not admit of this instance, yet the [Page] Thesis seemes very possible; and clearely of such a condition was matrimony, ordained without all question before the fall. 3. What is that which they say is not ceremoniall? is it the service of the day in the sanctifying of it? None that I know, maintains that to be necessarily ceremoniall. Or is it the rest of the day? Observe well, and you shal find no rest expresly commanded at the first, but only it is signified, that God dedicated it to his service; which yet, I confesse wil­lingly, draws after it a rest from all works opposite or impe­dimentall to the sanctification of it. 4. Thus they take little care to satisfie the Fathers, who generally concurre in ac­knowledging the ceremoniality of it. And we are too weak in these dayes, to beare up an opinion in flat contradiction to the Ancients, and to keepe our selves blamelesse. Yet Do­ctor Andrews (Bishop of Winchester, ere hee died) in his pattern of Catechetical doctrine professeth against the cere­moniality of it; but so as acknowledging it to prefigure the rest we shall have from our sins in Christ, and that therefore the day is changed, though (as he thinks) the ceremony not thereby proved. Yet pag. 241. having proposed such a que­stion, Whether we must observe the Sabbath as the Jewes did, not to kindle a fire, nor to dresse any meat on that day, answereth thus; We say No; for this was but ceremoniall, and belonged only unto them. 5. Ʋp­on this ground (to wit, upon the denying of the ceremonia­lity of the particular day) they will hardly be able to justifie the abrogation of it. For albeit, they find some ground for observation of the Lords day, yet no ground at all for the abrogation of the seventh. And that which is only positive, must still continue, till it be abrogated by as good authori­ty, as whereby it was made. 1. And wee find the practise of the Church for the observation of both some hundreds of yeares continued. 2. And it seemes congruous to reason in the judgement of those, who oppose both the institution of it [Page] forthwith after the creation, and the morality of one day in seven, that wee should consecrate to Gods service rather more dayes than fewer.

And surely to discover as good ground, for observation of the Lords day now, as for observation of the seventh for­merly, is the greatest difficulty that I find in this argument, if not insuperable; whereof yet wee shall find our selves in greater measure eased, if we can shew manifest evidence for the abrogation of the seventh, which was sabbaticall to the Jewes. Now first, this is clearly performed by acknowledge­ing the ceremoniality of it, which yet I doe not affect should be acknowledged without proofe. Secondly, thus also the Fathers shall fairely be satisfied. Thirdly, and the Introdu­ction of the Lords day in the place therof advanced. Fourth­ly, especially if the ceremoniality be so cleared, as plainly to manifest, that the body thereof was Christ, which is a very hard taske to performe of all other ceremonies, yea, of all other Sabbaths or any other Sabbath save of the weekely Sabbath. But of all these, to wit: 1. Of the originall insti­tution of it. 2. Of the morality of one day in seven, as per­petually to be observed. 3. Of the authority of the Lords day, introduced into the place of the seventh, by more than Ecclesiasticall or Humane constitution, we shall speak more by occasion of the severall passages in this discourse, which comes to be examined, so to make way to enquire about the sanctification of the Lords day, whether in opposition as much to worldly sports and pastimes (or more rather) as to the works of our calling. For to the consideration hereof we are now driven; it being now held that they who speak or write against such sports and pastimes upon the Lords day, our Christian Sabbath, doe oppose truth. Now whether we do oppose truth in standing for the sanctification of the Lords day, and maintaining these pastimes specified to be an impe­diment thereunto; we desire to commend our selves to the [Page] judgement of every Christian conscience, upon considerati­on of our reasons herein represented. Our Savior commands us to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods; and wee hold our selves bound to hearken unto his voice, as we hope to be saved by his grace. And because in some cases it may bee doubtfull, what belongs unto Caesar, and what belongs unto God, by reason of the darknesse of our understanding, and weak­nesse of our judgement; it behooves us so much the more to labour in the investigation of this difference, and carefully looke unto it, that under colour of giving unto Caesar, that which is Caesars, we doe not give unto Caesar that which is not Caesars, and not give unto God that which is Gods: and under colour of giving unto God that which is Gods, we doe not give unto God that which is not Gods, and not give unto Caesar that which is Caesars. And albeit D. Pri­deaux his Lecture was neither delivered (as I am perswa­ded) by word of mouth, nor afterwards set forth in print to strengthen so sharpe proceedings against the Ministers of God as now are in course; yet seeing it hath been of late translated and published in English, with a Preface, to the justifying of the same proceedings, even then (as it seemes) intended; and that neither according to any Law or Canon that we know of; therefore I am driven, (who otherwise, I am verily perswaded, should never have set hand unto this worke, but lest it unto others, who are better versed in pra­cticall and pastorall Divinity than my selfe) to give my self to the examination, both of the Preface, and of the Booke it selfe: for we labour, as it were, for life under the burthen of it; and this is set forth, as it seemes, to promote our condemnation.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE SABBATH DELIVERED in the Act at Oxenford, Anno 1622. By D. PRIDEAUX, His Majesties Professor in Divinity in that UNIVERSITIE. And now translated into English for the be­nefit of the common people, Marke 2.27. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Together with an Exa­mination thereof.

The Preface of the Translator to the Christian Reader.Preface.

1 OF all the Controversies which have exerci­sed Sect. 1 the Church of Christ, there is none more ancient than that of the Sabbath. So ancient, that it tooke beginning even in the Infancie of the Church, and grew up with it. For as we reade in the Acts, There rose up certaine of the Sect of the Pharises which beleeved, saying, That it was needfull to circumcise the people, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses, whereof the Sabbath was a part: which in the generall, as the Apostles laboured to suppresse in the first generall Councell holden in Jerusalem. 2. So did Saint Paul Sect. 2 (upon occasion of whose ministry this controversie first be­gan) endevour what he could against this particular; sharply reproving those, which allowed yet the Iewes Sabbath, Gal. 4.10, 11. or ob­served dayes, and months, and times, as if he had bestowed his la­bour in vaine upon them. But more particularly in his Epistle [Page 2] to the Colossians, Let no man judge you in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moone, or of the Sabbath dayes, which were a shadow of things to come, but the body was of Christ. Both which expres­sions of Saint Paul are in this following discourse produced to this very purpose. Yet notwithstanding all this care, both generally of the Apostles, and more especially of Saint Paul to suppresse this errour, it grew up still and had its patrons Sect. 3 and abettors. 3. Ebion and Cerinthus, two of the wretchedest Heretiques of the Primitive times,See August. de Haeres. & Epiph. and after them Apollinaris, are said to countenance and defend it, which doubtlesse made the Ancient Fathers declare themselves fully in it, as a dange­rous point: which seemed to confirme the Jewes in their in­credulity, and might occasion others to make question of our Sect. 4 Saviours comming in the flesh. 4. Hence was it that Irenaeus, Iustin Martyr, Tertullian and Eusebius, men of renowne for learning in the primitive times (three of which are cited in the text of this following discourse, and the fourth quoted in the margin) affirme for certaine, that never any of the Patriarches before Moses Law did observe the Sabbath: which question­lesse they must have done, had that Law been moral, and dicta­ted Sect. 5 by nature, as now some teach us 5. Afterwards by the opposition made by Epiphanius, in his Confutation of the he­resies of the Ebionites; and by the resolutions of Theodoret on the 20. of Ezech. Procopius Gazaeus on the 2. of Gen. by Da­mascen, and our Venerable Bede, (which two last are here also cited, Sect. 2.) concurring with the former Fathers, all talke and observation of the Jewish Sabbath vanished utterly; and the Lords day which had from the Apostles times been insti­tuted by the Church, in the place thereof, was hallowed with­out Sect. 6 any rivall. 6. Nor do I find but that all superstitious fan­cies about that day, were as wholly abrogated as the day it selfe. Save that S. Gregory tels us, how some in Rome were so superstitious in this kind, that they would neither work upon the Saturday, no nor so much as wash upon the Sunday.

Exam.I observe in the title first, that the Translator professeth, he hath performed his part, for the benefit of the common people. I doe not envie them that benefit, if it be a benefit: but if it be not so, but prove contrary, I shall grieve rather. No doubt the Translator thinks he hath an advantage thereby, so did [Page 3] Rabshakeh, when he refused to speak in the Aramites language, but chose rather to speake in the Jewes tongue in the audience of the people that were on the wall; that if they did not har­ken unto him, they might eat their owne dung, and drink their own pisse, with the rest. What will bee the condition of some of them who doe not hearken to this Praefacer; I know not, but according to my poore judgement, my opinion is, that as ma­ny as hearken to this Praefacer, if Christs comming shall bee on his owne day as Austin hoped,Sermon. de tem. serm. 154. it would bee (and what day more likely in all probabilitie?) and at his comming on the Lords day he should take them in their sports, their owne hearts would misgive them, that their comfort should bee as little as that the Orator threatned unto the Jewes upon the wall, in case they did not hearken unto him. In a book prin­ted not long ago I hear, there is alleaged a passage of one of theTheodoret. Fathers, for the free use of scripture by all sorts of the vul­gar people; and it is translated also into English, belike, for the benefit of the common people, but in a second edition the Greeke sentence isand by inquiry I find it true said to be reteined, but the English tran­slation quite omitted. Did the Author report of gratifying the people thus, and quench his care of providing for their benefit? This observation is none of mine, but accidentally brought unto my hands by one of some qualitie, by occasion of mutuall communication betweene us. But since, I heare the Author hath made amends for that another way. For having in the first edition professed, that Popish errours are not damnable in themselves, which with what respect it should bee delivered for the benefit of the common people, amongst Prote­stants, I know not; in the second edition it is corrected thus, popish errours are not damnable in the issue. But where corrected? not in the text, (that continuing the same still, that such er­rours are not damnable in themselves) but among the Errata at the end of the booke, although the Author was warned of the strangenesse of that assertion (as I heare) and that in contradiction to the doctrine of the Bishop of Canterbury in his Treatise of Councels, professing that the Papists with­holding the cup from thepeople. people, is a damnable errour. Here is brave jugling in the Text to comply with some, and in the Errata, to provide against afterclaps for himselfe, and to com­ply [Page 4] with others, and betray deep dissimulation in both, enough to make some man (when such courses are discovered) to be abhorred of al. But to proceed, the Translator doth not say, he hath performed this taske fot the benefit of himselfe, yet he plainly deales upon an advantagious argument. But if his Ma­jestie shall be pleased out of his gracious disposition (whereof he hath given many remarkable documents) to vouchsafe to receive information concerning the honor of the Lords day, in way of a just and necessary Apologie, which wee are driven to make, I trust (through Gods goodnesse (in whose hands are the hearts of Kings) it shall bee neither advantagious to him, nor disadvantagious to us; and his Majestie may perhaps bee found to absolve us in the Court of his owne conscience. But what is that benefit of the common people, whereof this Transla­tor is so zealous? I guesse it is in freeing them from superstiti­on; and that hereafter they may not bee so peevishly foolish, as out of any Cabalismes of conscience, to forbeare their may-games; and usuall dancings on the Lords day; yet some, and they no small ones, as I have heard, do professe them no o­therwise to be allowed then as they may be done to the praise and glory of God. Which calls to my remembrance what a Scotchman sometimes said, as he was going in one of London streets, and spying one of his acquaintance on the other side: for calling him aloud by his name; O Sir, saith he, when shall we meet at a Taverne, to give God thanks for our deliverance out of the Ile de Re? But how comes that to bee accounted superstitious, which all the Bishops of the land, and the whole Kingdome accounts the prophanation of the Sabbath, not to speake of particular Bishops, though as great for learning and place, as Bishop Andrewes, who in his patterne of catecheti­call doctrine, tells us of some, who on the Lords day, vacant nu­gis, specta [...]ulis, theatris, choreis, and approves the stiling of such a Sabbath, Sabbatū aurei vituli, the Sabbath of the golden Calf; I make bold to translate it for the benefit of the cōmon people; and B. Downham bestowes the like denomination upon such a Sabbath. Bishop Andrewes over and above cites Austin for the like saying, but that is more then any quotation of his doth make good, for ought I find hitherunto. But what should I alleage one or two Doctors opinions hereupon though [Page 5] never so great, when an whole Kingdome stands for the same in my judgement, even the Kingdome of England, as may appeare by the Act of Parliament 1. Caroli, concerning the Sabbath. The introduction thereunto, manifesteth three grounds whereupon they proceed to make that Act. 1 That there is nothing more acceptable to God, then his holy wor­ship and service. 2 That the due sanctification of the Lords day, is a great part of Gods holy woship and service. 3 That men are very prone to prophane it. Now to prevent this pro­phanation of the Sabbath, many things are there prohibited; and one amongst the rest is this, that none shall come forth out of his own parish about any sports or pastimes; whence I con­clude, that to come out of a mans parish on the Lords day, a­bout any sports or pastimes is to prophane the Sabbath. For to prevent the prophanation of our Christian Sabbath and to maintaine the sanctification thereof is this law made. Now to come out of a mans owne parish about what businesse so­ever, no wise man will say that it is to prophane the Sabbath; but according to the nature of the businesse, whereabout hee comes forth of his owne parish, so shall hee bee found, either to prophane the Sabbath, or not to prophane it. As for ex­ample, for a man to come forth of his owne parish to heare a sermon, no man I thinke, will say, that it is to prophane the Sabbath. In like manner, to come forth of his owne parish, into an other parish to fetch a Physitian or Surgeon in case of necessitie, no man will say that this is to prophane the Sab­bath, because the businesse about which hee comes is not to prophane the Sabbath. But for a man to come out of his own parish to buy or sell, to trade or traffique, no necessitie urging thereunto, this is to prophane the Sabbath; because in such sort to trade on the Sabbath day, is to prophane the Sabbath. In like sort, for a man to come out of his owne parish about any sports or pastimes, is therefore to Prophane the Sabbath in the judgement of the Parliament, because the keeping and performing of these sports and pastimes, is a manifest profa­nation of the Sabbath in the judgement of the King and his Parliament. Now if all sports and pastimes on the Lords day bee a prophanation of the Lords day our Christian Sab­bath; it followeth that may-games and moricings, and [Page 6] dancings, at such times usuall, are also a manifest profanation of the Sabbath. And hererin wee speake, as I conceive, in his Majesties meaning, assisted with the great Councell of his Kingdome, the Lords Spirituall and Temporall, and the House of Commons: and whosoever shall account it super­stition to say so, shall therewithall charge his royall Majestie, and all the Lords both Spirituall and Temporall; and in a word, the whole Parliament with superstition. Yet if it were onely the benefit of the common people, that this Tran­slator did intend, I for my part should bee content to suffer him to enjoy the honour of seeking the benefit of the people; onely admonishing the people commited to my charge, to consider well whether there bee any such benefit to bee reaped thereby as is pretended.2 Pet. 3. And seeing Saint Peter exhorts us to give diligence, that wee may bee found of Christ in peace, when hee comes in flaming fire to render vengeance on all them that know not God, nor obey not the Gospell of Christ Jesus: Let every one examine himselfe, whether hee could bee content to bee taken dancing about a may-pole on the Lords day, when the Lord, even the Lord of the Sabbath shall come, and that to be found of him in this condition, were to bee found of him in peace. But seeing this translation, and especially the Preface of this Author tends to the promoting of the most rigorous censures against many; it stands us upon to plead our owne cause, and to labour herein as for life: even in examination of the doctrine here delivered, that wee may finde upon how just ground it proceeds; otherwise wee may bee justly con­demned of all: and in the censures that passe upon us whether of Excommunication, or Suspension, or Deprivation, finde none to plead our cause, or to commiserate us. The se­cond thing I observe in this title, is the passage of Scripture here mentioned, as justifying the doctrine here delivered out of Mark. 2.27. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Now none of us makes question but that the Sab­bath was made for man: Nay wee nothing doubt but that all the dayes of the weeke were made for man, that is, for the good of man, but the Sabbath for the best good, not the basest good of man in following his worldly pleasures. The six dayes of the weeke are given us to labour in our ordinary cal­lings, [Page 7] for the maintenance of our life temporall: but the seventh is sanctified by God, that is, dedicated to holy ex­ercises in the service of God, and to inure us to recreate our selves and to delight in the Lord; that as his soule takes plea­sure in us, so our soules might be accustomed to take pleasure in him; and to make his Sabbaths our delight, to conse­crate them as glorious unto the Lord. It is true, there is an­other end of the Sabbath, and that was ut vires recolligeret, to recollect his strength which had been spent and wasted in the sixe dayes of labour; whence it followes evidently, that when a man was hungry as the disciples were, when they plucked the eares of corne, they were not bound by any reli­gion of the Sabbath to abstaine from such a course, whereby a mans strength would become more and more weakned and impaired. Not that these things were commanded on the Sabbath day, but permitted; as is often signified by the word [...] it is lawfull; and for good reason.Matth. 12.10.12. Mar 3.4. Luk. 6.9. For the Sab­bath being ordained to promote a mans bene esse, his well be­ing; and that in the best things it supposeth libertie to pro­vide for his esse in case of necessitie; lest otherwise he shall be found uncapable of those things that concerne his bene esse, his well being. For our nature wanting necessarie refreshment doth thereby many times become the more unfit for holy ex­cerises, and to performe that dutie which God requires, and hath deserved at our hands. How were Ionathans eyes en­lightned upon the tasting of a little honey, 1 Sam. 14.29. But this Translator desires, as it seemes, from the generalitie of mans good to seale up an opinion in the minds of his Rea­ders, that the Sabbath was made not onely for the service of God, and for the promoting of a man in the knowledge and feare of God, but for the furthering of his carnall pleasures also. But never was it knowne that our Saviour justified any libertie to such courses on the Sabbath: Neither were any such things, as it seemes in course, in the dayes of the Pro­phet Amos, who reprehends them for saying, Am. 8.5. When will the Sabbath be gone, that they might returne to their world­ly courses? Rather they could wish their sun might stand still on that day, as sometimes it did in the dayes of Ioshua, if libertie were given to sports, pastimes, and pleasures on that [Page 8] day: and it wvre wondrous strange that libertie should bee debarred them from kindling a fire to set forward the structure of the Sanctuarie,Exod. 35 3. Luke 33.25. [...]ast. made to this very end that the Lord might dwell among them: And from so precious a worke as the em­balming of the body of Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, and that at the very end of the day, if at that time they were not restrained from any sensuall course of recreation, accor­ding to the common fashion of the world. Undoubtedly, howsoever it stands now with us Christians; in the dayes of our Saviour, they that rested on their Sabbath from embal­ming the body of Christ,Luk. 23.56. and that according to the appoint­ment, which is as much as to say, according to the Law of God; surely they, by the same Law of God were much more restrai­ned from worldly pleasures, these standing far more in oppo­sition to the sanctification of the Lords Sabbath, then the em­balming of the body of the Sonne of God, who was Lord of the Sabbath. And therefore this text is most unseasonably and impertinently alleaged by the Translator to serve his turn, being farre more fit to crosse his purposes, then any way to promote them. So from the consideration of the title, I come to the preface.

1 If the antiquitie of this controversie concerning the Sab­bath, were any thing materiall; this Praefacer were founde­red at the first: For what if the Sabbath bee a part of the Law of Moses? Was not the law of sanctifying the name of God, the law forbidding images, the law commanding them to have no other Gods but him, that brought them out of the land of Aegypt: the law commanding to honour parents, to abstaine from murther, adultery, theft, were not all these the Law of Moses? Is not the law of sanctifying the Sab­bath one of the tenne Commandements delivered by God from Mount Sinai as well as the other nine? and was it not kept in the Arke as well as the rest? Circumcision was no law of Moses, and therefore albeit it be said Ioh. 7.22. That Moses gave unto them Circumcision, yet forthwith it is added, not because it is of Moses, but of the Fathers: so that Moses rather confirmed it, then was the first giver of it. So that the Law of Moses in this place is to bee understood of the ceremoniall law, not of the morall law contained in the [Page 9] Decalogue, and among these tenne Commandements, that of the Sabbath is one, and commended unto them in that state as none so much, Remember the Sabbath day to sanctifie it; and not onely before Moses, but before Abraham and Noah also, wee read,Gen. 2. [...], [...]. that the seventh day God rested from all the workes that hee had made, and that therefore God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.

Of any Minister or Pastor in the Church of England that 2 maintaines us Christians to be obliged to the observation and sanctification of the Jewish Sabbath, or of any Sabbath that is a shadow of things to come, the body whereof is of Christ, I never heard or read. Yet for some hundred yeares in the 3 Primitive Church, not the Lords day onely, but the seventh day also was religiously observed, not by Ebion and Cerin­thus onely, but by pious Christians also, as Baronius writeth and Gomarus confesseth, and Rivet also, that we are bound in conscience under the Gospell, to allow for Gods service a better proportion of time, than the Jewes did under the law, rather than a worse. And further it is well knowne, that besides the weekely Sabbath, there was variety of observation of times amongst the Jewes, and divers of them called Sab­baths also, as some think, not one whereof was mentioned in the Decalogue, or pronounced by the Lord from Mount Sinai, as the fourth Commandement was, for the sanctify­ing of the weekly Sabbath. So that this Praefacer every way sheweth miserable loosenesse in his discourse. And if Ebion and Cerinthus, and Apollinaris, how wretched heretickes so­ever did still inforce the sanctification of the Jewish Sabbath, (whose wretchednesse yet consisted not so much in inforcing this, as in inforcing all the ceremonies of Moses; the Jewish Sabbath long after Corinthus continuing to be obser­ved by many pious Christians, as Baronius observeth & others, and Saint Paul doth oppose all such doctrine and practise in these passages of his here mentioned: did not this Author know that upon these very passages of Saint Paul, the Ana­baptists and Socinians, as vile heretickes as Ebion and Ce­rinthus, and Apollinaris, for their blood have gone so farre, as not onely to overthrow the observation of the Jewish Sab­bath, but the sanctifying of the Lords day also. The opi­nion [Page] of the law ceremoniall standing still in force (which in­deed was the opinion of the heretickes mentioned) is I con­fesse, a dangerous point, and such as not onely seemed (as this Praefacer minceth it, out of what degree of wisdome or providence I know not) to confirme the Jewes in their incre­dulitie, but indeed justly might confirme them; nor onely occasion, but justly cause also others, to make question of our Saviours comming in the flesh; not so the observation of the seventh day to sanctifie it, for ought this Author hath hitherto manifested, or throughout this preface of his doth manifest; and the sanctification of this day is apparantly commanded in the moral law spoken from Mount Sinai. And those Christians who a long time kept this seventh day holy as well as the Lords day, had no opinion of any danger at all in this their observation. And it stood the ancient Fathers upon to op­pose the observation of the law ceremoniall. Yet what saith Austin against these heretickes, to whom this Author in the first place referreth us? All that hee delivers against the Ce­rinthians in reference to this particular is onely this: They say that wee ought to bee circumcised, and that other like precepts of the Law are to bee observed. I translate it for the benefit of the common people. Of the Ebionites thus, They observe the carnall commandements of the Law, to wit, Circumcision of the flesh and the rest, from whose burthens wee are freed by the new Testament. Of Appollinaris and his sect this way, Au­stin hath just nothing: but Danaeus who collects out of o­ther Authors also the hereticall opinions of the Apollinarists in the last place writes thus of them: After the last resur­rection (say they) Sabbaths, Circumcision, Iewish diffe­rence of meates, and all other legall ceremonies shall have place, yea also there shall bee a Temple amongst us. And is not this wilde stuffe, in reference to the sanctification of the Lords day, now in question amongst us?

4 Now let the Reader judge with what modesty it is avou­ched, That Hence it was that Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertulli­an, and Eusebius, doe affirme for certaine, that never any of the Patriarches before Moses Law did observe the Sabbath; D. Pri­deaux saith not that Hence it was; neither hath this Author gi­ven the least evidence hereof. Sure I am, that in those Patri­arches [Page 11] dayes Christ was not as yet come in the flesh, but rather to come long after their dayes; and consequently though it be a dangerous course in these dayes to lay any ground of sus­pition that Christ is not already come, but as yet to come; yet this was of no dangerous condition at all in the dayes of the Patriarchs, because in their dayes Christ was not come, but to come long after. D. Prideaux begins with Tertullian by this Author translated thus, Let them (saith he in a particular Tract against the Jewes) assure me if they can, that Adam ever kept the Sabbath: or Abel when he offered unto God his accepted sacrifice, had regard thereof; or that Noah kept the same, when he was bu­sied in preparing the Arke against the Deluge; or finally that A­braham in offering his sonne Isaak; or that Melchisedech in exe­cution of his Priest-hood tooke notice of it. Now I appeale to eve­ry sober mans judgement, whether to put the Jewes in those dayes to shew this, be to affirme for certaine, That never any of the Patriarches before Moses Law did observe the Sabbath. It is true indeed, we have no particular relation of the observation of the Sabbath in that Booke of Genesis, and this Tertullian knew full well; and againe it is as true that there is no testimo­ny of ought to the contrary. In the Booke of Josuah in like sort there is not any mention of the observation thereof (any more than in the Booke of Judges, of Ruth, of the two Bookes of Samuel) but rather something to the contrary, to wit, in the siege of Iericho, and marching round about the walls of Iericho seven dayes together. But yet in generall we reade in Genesis, that when God had finished all his works in six dayes, and re­sted the seventh, he therefore blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; and whether this hath not greater evidence, that even then God ordered, that that day should be sanctified, than that the meaning should be, that therefore God ordered this two thou­sand and certaine yeares after, I appeale to every Christian to judge betweene us. And if God did then order it, which could not be otherwise than by command, how could Adam be ig­norant hereof; and if he knew as much, how improbable is it, that he and his, at least Abel and Enosh, and his pious posterity should not observe it? And if a time had not been set apart even in Adams dayes for divine service, how improbable is it, that Cain and Abel should concurre at the same time, in bring­ing [Page 12] their offerings unto the Lord; and if not at the same time, how could Cain discern that Abels offering was respected and accepted of God, when his was not? Yet for certaine, it was observed before Moses Law, if by the Law we understand the Law given on mount Sina, as appeares manifestly Exod. 16. And withall it is thereby evident, that from the beginning of the world untill that time, the distinction of the yeare into weekes was observed, otherwise it were impossible to know, which day was the seventh in correspondencie to the seventh from the Creation, (save by particular revelation whereof we reade nothing) now that being unknowne, the reason of san­ctifying the seventh day by an holy rest, drawne from Gods rest on the seventh, that is, the last day of the first weeke from the Creation had been utterly void, and nothing at all agree­able. And this distinction of time into weekes was observed from all Antiquity by the Gentiles, as hath been confirmed by Wallaeus and Rivetus, with the helpe of Claudius Salmasius, that learned Antiquary; and likewise that the seventh day was a Festivall even among the Gentiles. And albeit divers others of the Ancients are alleaged to the same purpose, as affirming that the Patriarches did not observe the Sabbath, as namely Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 4. saying, They had no Circumcision of the body, nor ob­servation of the Sabbath, as we have not. And Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,Lib. 4. cap. 30. saying, Heretofore there were good men that pleased God, though they kept not Sabbathes. And Irenaeus in like manner, thus, Abraham himselfe without Cir­cumcision, and observation of the Sabbaths, beleeved God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse; Lid. Orthod. lib. 4. cap. 24. and lastly Damascen, When there was no Law nor Scripture of divine inspiration, nor Sabbath consecrated unto God. For as for Bede (alleaged by Pe­rerius to that purpose, in his Hexameron) I find in that place nothing answerable thereunto. Now Hospinian is of opinion that these passages of the Ancients are to be understood of the rigorous observation of the Sabbath among the Jewes; I adde, or in reference to the other Sabbaths commanded in the Law of Moses; or lastly in reference to the manner of solemnizing them among the Jewes, who we know had a peculiar Sacrifice ordained for the Sabbaths; and this I prove by these reasons. First, they deliver this as a thing well knowne; for they take [Page 13] no paines to prove it. Now consider, what ground could they have for the custome of the Patriarchs before the Flood, espe­cially considering that the testimony of Moses, Gen. 2.3. is far better evidence for the keeping of a weekly Sabbath, in a mo­rall way only, than any they could bring to the contrary. Se­condly, then againe, could they have better grounds for the practise of those ancient Patriarchs both before, and after the Floud than the Jewes themselves? I presume none will be so immodest as to affirme this; and if they had any such evidence, it stood them upon to produce it, especially in dealing against the Jewes. Thirdly, they deliver this as a thing undeniable by the Jewes themselves, with whom they deale in this particu­lar: but the Jewes had no such faith, as to beleeve that the an­cient Patriarchs never observed the weekly Sabbath. For none are of this opinion but such as thinke that passage Gen. 2.3. of Gods blessing the seventh day and hallowing it, was not deli­vered of that present time, as if then God ordained it should be sanctified, but only by way of anticipation for the time to come. But this was not the opinion of the Jewes. Manasseth Ben Israel a moderne Rabbin, in his booke intituled The Re­conciler, Conciliator, according to the argument of that his wri­ting, which is to reconcile places of Scripture, in shew disa­greeing; and that upon enquiry into all the Rabbins both an­cient and later; in his 36. Question upon Exodus, writes thus, as out of the opinion of the Ancients; those words, Thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in Egypt, observe how he ex­pounds them; Ac si diceret, cogita in Aegypto, ubi serviebas, eti­am ipso Sabbato per vim te coactum ad labores; as if he should say, thinke (with thy selfe) that in Egypt where thou servedst, thou wast by force constrained to labour, on the very Sabbath: Evident­ly manifesting not out of his owne particular opinion, but as out of the generall opinion of their ancient Rabbins, that the Sabbath and the observation thereof was a duty in the very dayes of the Patriarchs. And in the end concludes thus: Igitur Deus benedictus cupiens Sabbatum, cujus sanctimoniam tantis documentis approbaverat, in aeternum ab omnibus coli, dec [...]m prae­ceptis illud inseruit, quo scientes praecepta aeterna esse, etiam hoc in­ter ea habendum intelligerent. Therefore the blessed God (it is fit I should translate it for the benefit of the common people) desi­ring [Page 14] that the Sabbath might bee observed for ever of all (whose sanctity by so many documents he had commended, placed it in the Dealogue (that it made it one of the tenne Commandements) to the end that knowing those precepts to bee everlasting, they should understand that this Commandement also was to be ac­complished amongst them. And indeed Tertullian himselfe pro­fesseth that the Jewes were of this opinion, as Rivetus ob­serves out of his booke against the Jewes, thus translated, God from the beginning did sanctifie the seventh day, resting from all the workes that hee had made, and that thereupon Moses said unto the people, Remember yee the Sabbath day to sanctifie it. And therefore when Mercer saith concerning the meaning of these words, Genes. 2.3. Hebraei fere referunt in futurum: the Jewes for the most part referre it to the time to come: he is to be understood of the later Jewes; but of this more shall be spoken ere wee part from this section. 4 Fourthly, not one of the ancient Fathers is alleaged by our adversaries, de­livering his opinion upon that passage, Genes. 2.3. to shew what hee conceives to bee the true meaning thereof, which yet is the onely ground whereupon our doctrine is built con­cerning the originall institution of the Sabbath; and seeing it contains a meaning at first sight manifestly contradictious to that which they affirne, as wee interpret it of the weekely Sabbath, without reference unto the Jewish manner of obser­ving it: therefore in this case it stood them upon to take notice of that place, and by some faire interpretation vindi­cate themselves from suspition of contradicting the expresse Word of God. 5 Tertullian himselfe justifies our doctrine, namely, that God from the beginning sanctified the seventh day, as Rivetus shewes out of his fourth booke against Mar­cion, cap. 12. where hee sayth, Christum ipsum Sabbati diem, benedictione Patris à primordio sanctum benefactione sua efficere sanctiorem, That Christ himselfe made that day more holy by his well doing on that day, which by the benediction of the Father was made holy from the beginning. So that Tertullians mea­ning in the place alleaged to the contrary, cannot bee, that the ancient Patriarchs simply observed not the weekely Sab­bath, but onely that they observed it not after that manner the Jewes did; and that the like interpretation must bee gi­ven [Page 15] of the passages alleaged out of other of the Ancients. 6 For further proofe whereof, observe that Theodoret, albeit on the 20. of Ezekiel hee saith in like manner that God pre­scribed unto the Jewes the sabbaticall vacations, Ʋt haec civilis administrationis ratio peculiaris à Gentium quidem eos distingue­ret institutis: that this peculiar administration might di­stinguish them from the customes of the Gentiles: yet Wallaeus shewes that the same Theodoret in his questions upon Genesis,Dissert. de. 4. praecep. p. 44. doth manifestly declare, that even from the beginning of the creation, God did ordaine this day to rest and sanctification. As who having created the creatures in six dayes, by the rest of the seventh day manifested the creation to be perfected; like as in seven dayes hee concluded the whole circle of dayes. And that by blessing the seventh day and sanctifying it, he de­clared, Quod non illum diem inutilem putabat ad creandum, sed ad quietem accommodatum statuit. The meaning whereof in ef­fect is this, that hee did not thinke that day unfit to have any thing created therin, but onely it was his pleasure to ordaine it for a day of rest. The same Author shewes Chrysostome to bee of the same opinion in his 10. Homily on Genesis, whose words in Latine he rendreth thus, Iam hinc ab initio doctrinam hanc nobis insinuat Deus, erudiens in circulo hebdomedae diem unum inte­grum segregandum, & reponendum ad spiritualem operationem, Now from the beginning God insinuates this instruction, tea­ching that in the circle of the weeke one entire day is to bee seque­stred and imployed on spirituall actions. These authorities in my judgement should bee of the greater force, for as much as they deliver their opinion by way of interpretation of Gods Word, and that according to the plaine literall meaning, and that such as whereunto every Christians conscience, not fore-stalled with prejudice, is prone enough to yeeld by reason of the native evidence of the words. For they de­note an externall action and transient, not an internall and immanent in God, (all of which kinde are eternall) which externall action is the dedication of the day to holy uses, which cannot bee imagined to bee done any other way (as I should thinke) then by commanding it to bee sancti­fied. The same Author shewes Austin to have beene of the same judgement, writing thus,August. epist. 86. ad Casulanum. When God sanctified the seventh [Page 16] day, because thereon hee rested from all his workes, hee did not deliver ought concerning the Fast or Dinner of the Sabbath: nor afterwards, when to the Hebrew people hee gave commandement for the observation of the day it selfe, did hee mention ought as touching the receiving or not receiving of food: onely comman­dement is given concerning mens vacation, from their owne or from servile workes, which vacation the former people receiving as a shadow of things to come, in such manner rested from their workes as now wee behold the Iewes to rest. Hee citeth also Theophilus Patriarch of Antioch a most ancient writer in his second booke to Autolychus writing thus, Furthermore, as touching the seventh which amongst al people is celebrious, most men are in great ignorance. For this day which is celebrious amongst all is called the Sabbath; if a man interpret in Greeke, it is called Septimana; by this name all men call this day, but the cause of this denomination they know not. Now what was the cause hereof in his judgement, but the Lords resting thereon as the seventh; after hee had finished all his workes in six dayes, and thereupon blessing it and sanctifying it, whereupon it grew to bee a festivall day generally amongst all? Tertullian though alleaged on the other side, yet hath beene already shewed to bee of the same minde, in this particular with Chrysostome and Austin. Adde unto these Epiphanius haer. 51. Sabbatum primum est, quod ab initio decretum est ac dictum à Domino in mundi creatione quod per circuitum ab eo tempore us­que huc juxta septem dies revolvitur. The first Sabbath is that which the Lord from the beginning ordained and spake in the creation of the world, which by revolution from that time to this, according to the circle of seven dayes returneth. Athanasius also upon those words of our Saviour,Matth. 11.27. All things are given to mee of my Father, distinguisheth betweene the Sabbath day, and the Lords day; affirming the Sabbath day to have been the end of the first creation, and the Lords day the beginning of the second creation. Beda in his Hexameron professeth, that the rest of the seventh day after sixe dayes working, semper celebrari solebat, was alwayes wont to bee celebrated: If alwayes, then before the children of Israels comming out of Aegypt, before Abraham, before the flood, even from the be­ginning of the dayes of Adam the first of men. Adde unto this [Page 17] the received, and most currant opinion of the Jewes, by the testimonies of Philo and Josephus vouched by Wallaeus. Philo in his second book of Moses writing thus, Quis sacrum illum diem, per singulas hebdomadas recurrentem non honorat? Who doth not honour that holy day according to the weekely revo­lution thereof? and hee delivers this not of the Jewes onely, but of the Greekes and Barbarians, of inhabitants of Mayn­land, and Ilands, those of Europe, of Asia, and of the whole habitable part of the world to the very ends thereof. Iosephus l. 2. against Appion, professing that there is no City of Grecians or Barbarians, nor any Nation, to whom the customary obser­vation of the seventh, whereon the Jewes rested, had not rea­ched. Adde unto this the testimony of two Rabbins, men­tioned by Broughton in his Consent of Scriptures acknow­ledging this, and another Rabbin alleaged by Peter Martyr upon Genesis, both cited by Master Richard B [...]field in his an­swer to Master, Breerwood. Give me leave to adde my mite al­so of mine owne observation. The 92. Psalme hath this title. A Psalme and Song for the Sabbath. The Chalde paraphrase hereupon writes thus [...] A praise and Song which Adam (the first of men) spoke on the Sabbath day; manifestly evidencing that in the received opinion of the Jewes in those dayes, Adam sanctified the Sabbath. Rabbi David Kimchi testifies the same in his Commentary upon that Psalme, to be the do­ctrine delivered in their Darash, namely, that Adam the first conceived this Psalme after hee was created on the Sabbath day, and that afterwards he sinned, and so prophaned the Sabbath. So that notwithstanding all the bluster which this Author makes, this fourth Commandement may continue morall neverthelesse. And sure I am, Irenaeus puts this diffe­rence betweene the words of the Decalogue (so he speaks and consequently expungeth not, but rather includeth the fourth Commandement) and the ceremoniall lawes,Iren. l. 4. cap. 31. that Decalogi verba, the words of the Decalogue spoken by God himselfe unto all, doe therefore continue in like manner with us, receiving ex­tension and augmentation by the comming of Christ in the flesh, but no dissolution. But the precept of bondage (so he calls the ceremonials) by themselves hee commanded unto the people by [Page 18] Moses, fit for their instruction and discipline. And Doctor Andrewes I am sure, so great a Prelate in our Church, denies all ceremonialitie thereunto, save only so farre as may justifie the change of the day, and in reference to the rigorous rest of the Jewes. And Azorius confesseth (as before hath beene al­leaged) that after six dayes worke, one day should bee con­secrate to divine service is a thing most agreeable to reason. Yet I know none that accounteth this a Dictate of nature sim­ply, as this Author would faine obtrude upon us; but rather with Chrysostom, that God by creation hath taught us as much, and now God hath gone before us herein, wee conceive it to bee most agreeable to reason. And D. Field did professe as much upon acknowledgement of the Creation, as Master Brode confesseth.

5 If all talke of observation of the Jewish Sabbath vanished not till the daies of Bede, it was 700. years first in the account of Bellarmine. And of any resolutions made by Bede or Da­mascen hereabouts, in D. Prideux sect. 2. I finde no mention. Yet I thinke it likely enough, that both they and Procopius might easily contrive as many resolutions hereabouts, as either Theodoret upon the twentieth of Ezekiel, or Epiphanius against the Ebionites; for neither of them in the places men­tioned, make any resolutions on this point at al. He grants the Lords day to have beene instituted by the Church from the Apostles dayes, which latter clause is an ambiguous phrase. For it may bee applyed to the dayes after the Apostles. If in the Apostles dayes, then undoubtedly it was instituted by the Apostles, what meant hee then to say it was instituted by the Church, and not to bee so ingenuous as to confesse that it was instituted by the Apostles? How far off is he from ac­knowledging it to have beene instituted by the Lord? yet Athanasius openly professeth thus much. Olim certe priscis ho­minibus in summo pretio Sabbatum fuit, quam quidem solen­nitatem Dominus transtulit in diem Dominicum. Heretofore with men of old time the Sabbath day was in great price: which Festivitie truly the Lord hath translated unto the Lords day. And Cyrill in his 12. book on Iohn, chap. 58. considering the Lords appearance a second time on the eighth day, Thomas then be­ing present, and upon consideration finding it to have beene [Page 19] the first day of the weeke, concludes thus: Iure igitur sanctae Congregationes die octavo in Ecclesiis fiunt. By right therefore holy Congregations in the Churches are made on the eighth day, meaning thereby the first day of the week, that is the Lords day: and as hee concludeth thus, so undoubtedly his opini­on was the Apostles themselves did conclude in like manner.

Now albeit much had beene effected for the abroga­tion 6 as well of all superstitious fancies about that day, as of the day it selfe (that is of the Jewish sabbath) by the labours of the Fathers fore-mentioned, and particularly of Damascen and venerable Bede among the rest; yet there comes in an exception somewhat of the nature of a sixth fin­ger; and that is, Saint Gregory tells us notwithstanding how some in Rome were so superstitious in this kinde, that they would neither work upon the Saturday, no nor so much as wash upon the Sunday. So little effectuall were the labours of Damascen and venerable Bede, that they could not prevent the superstiti­ous fancies of some that lived an hundred yeares before. For Gregory by Bellarmines account dyed in the yeare of our Lord 604. and Damascen lived long after the yeare 731. and Bede was living in the yeare 731. as Bellarmine observes out of his fifth booke of Historia Anglicana. Who would desire an adversary should betray more weakenesse than this Author? but wee see manifestly whither he tends, and no marvell if God smites him with the spirit of giddinesse and confusion. His quotation of Gregory seemes to bee the same with that which wee finde in the decrees De consecrat. dist. 3. cap. Pervenit. Now whereas this Praefacer relates it as of the same persons, it is farre otherwise in Gregory, for apparantly the relation in Gregory is concerning different persons, for thus it runnes, Pervenit ad me, &c. Relation is made unto mee, that certaine men of a perverse spirit have sowed amongst you some cor­rupt doctrine contrary to our holy faith: so as to forbid any worke to be done on the Sabbath day: these men we may well call the Prea­chers of Antichrist. Then he sets downe what shall be the pra­ctise of Antichrist at his comming, namely to command the Sabbath day and the Lords day both to be kept free from all works. And why the Lords day? to wit, because he meanes to imi­tate Christ; and therefore will conforme himselfe to the pra­ctise [Page 20] of Christians, in celebrating the Lords day; his words are these; Quia enim mori se & resurgere simulat, haberi in ve­neratione vult diem Dominicum; that is, Because he counterfeits himselfe to die and rise againe, therefore he will have the Lords day to be had in veneration. Where by the way observe two things; 1. The practise of Christians in Gregories dayes, to keep them­selves from all worke on the Lords day. 2. That Antichrist would imitate Christ, as in pretending to dye and rise againe: so in commanding the Lords day to be kept holy. A shrewd evidence that both Gregory, and the whole Church in those dayes, were of opinion that the Lords day was of Christs in­stitution; which Antichrist perceiving would conforme there­to, the better to promote his owne counsailes. Now the rea­son why he would command the Jewes Sabbath to be obser­ved also, was Quia populum Judaizare compellet, ut exteriorem ritum revocet, & sibi Judaeorum perfidiam subdat; therefore coli vult Sabbatum. He will have the Iewes Sabbath kept also, com­pelling the people to Iudaize, and restoring the outward ceremonies of the Law, that so he may bring the Iewes in subjection unto him also. Then he makes mention of another relation; Aliud quo­que ad me perlatum est; Another report was brought unto mee; and what was that? Vobis à perversis hominibus esse praedicatum, ut Dominico die nullus debeat lavari: That some perverse persons preach among you, that on the Lords day none ought to be washed. This is clearly another point, maintained by other persons, different from the former, which yet this Prefacer confounds into one. And marke it well, that none ought to be washed lavari, on the Lords day; which this Author translates thus, No nor so much as wash upon the Sunday. What not so much as wash their hands or their face? here indeed were strange superstition. I willingly professe I was not a little moved at this his Transla­tion, nothing answerable to Gregories resolution, which is this; If any desire to be washed pro luxuria & pro voluptate, that is, out of a luxurious disposition and for pleasure; we doe not permit this to be done on any day. But if the bodies necessity require it, we doe not forbid this on the Lords day. Now I doe not find that any man useth to wash hands or face out of any luxurious disposi­tion, neither doe I know in what sense the necessity of the bo­dy can require it. For the necessity of the body in this place, [Page 21] seems to me to be spoken in reference to the recovery of a mans health, requiring no time to be neglected. Hereupon I am ve­rily perswaded, that by Lavari in Gregory, is to be understood a mans going into the Bath; which may be done out of a luxu­rious disposition, and meerely for pleasure. Then againe, the necessity of the body may require it, and according to these different cases it is by Gregory both permitted on the Lords day, to wit, in case of necessity, and denyed on any day, in case it be done only to satisfie a mans lusts. And I find a great dif­ference in the Latine phrase, betweene Lavare to wash, and La­vari to be washed, and that out of Varro his eight booke of the Latine tongue. For the active is of use, when a part only is wa­shed, as it is rightly said, I wash my hands and my feet. But the passive is in use only when the whole body is washed, as in the Bath. Quare & in Balneis non rectè dicunt lavi, sed lavor. Wherefore in the Bathes it is not well said, I have washed, but I am washed. And accordingly runnes that in Juvenal, Sat. 2. Nec pueri credunt nisi qui nondum aere lavantur. The Scholiast inter­prets this of Infants, quia pueri non dant Balneaticum; for the quadrant which was the usuall fee to bee paid of them that made use of the Bathes, was not exacted of such. Hence is that phrase, Mercede lavari, to goe into the Baths paying a fee; and dum te quadrante lavatum, in Horace, to the same purpose.

The second Section.

BUt after in the darker times, as it is thought by some,Preface. Peter de Bruis, the founder of the Petrobrusians (he was burnt for heresie 1126.) began to draw too deep on these lees of Judaisme, which here our Doctor intimates in the seventh Section, where he joynes the Petrobrusian with the Ebionites, who indeed were Jewish in this point.

2. And possibly from the remainders of this doctrine, Ful­co a French Priest, and a notable hypocrite, as our King Ri­chard compted him, lighted upon a new Sabbatarian specula­tion, which afterwards Eustachius, one of his associates, dis­persed in England. I call it new, as well I may. For whereas [Page 22] Moses gave commandement to the Jewes, that they should sanctifie one day only in the week, viz. that seventh whereon God rested: They taught the people that the Christian Sab­bath was to begin on Saturday at three of the clocke, and to continue till Sun-rising upon the Munday morning: During which latitude of time, it was not lawfull to doe any kind of worke what ever; no not so much as bake bread on Saturday for the Sundayes eating; to wash or dry linnen for the mor­rowes wearing. Yea, they had miracles in store, pretended to to be wrought on such as had not yeelded to their doctrine, thereby to countenance the superstitious, and confound the weake. And which was more than this, for the authority of their device, they had to shew a letter sent from God himselfe, and left prodigiously over the Altar in Saint Simeons Church in Golgotha: wherin the Sabbatarian dream was imposed for­sooth upon all the world, on paine of diverse plagues, and ter­rible comminations, if it were not punctually observed. The letter is at large reported by Roger Hoveden; Anno 1201.] and out of him, as I suppose, by Matthew Paris: who doe withall repeat the miracles, wherby this doctrine was confirmed. I adde no more but this, that could I either beleeve those miracles, which are there related: or saw I any now, like those to countenance the reviving of this strange opinion (for now it is received and published) I might perhaps perswade my selfe to entertain it.

Exam.It seemes this Author is not of their opinion, who thinke those times wherein Peter de Bruis lived, about the yeare 1126. to have been darker times than the dayes of Gregory; though some passe such censure on those times, accompting them times of darknesse, hee is more wise than to concurre in opinion with them; and it is a part of his wisedome (as it seemes) to affect, that the world should take notice of so much, namely, that he puts it upon some only to censure those times, as times of darknesse. Now who are those some? not Papists I presume, but Protestants rather; and what true Protestant can he name that thinkes otherwise? we have cause to feare that too many for their advantage, can be content to veile themselves under the vizard of Protestants, when in heart they are Papists▪ nei­ther is it possible, (I should thinke) that any other but such, should thinke any better of those times, than as of times of [Page 23] darknesse. It is very likely, this Author is not of opinion, that the man of sinne is yet revealed, or any such time the Apostle prophecyeth of 2 Thess. 2. of giving men over to illusions to beleeve lyes, for not receiving the love of the truth. I much doubt whether he beleeves that Rome is the whore of Baby­lon, whereof Saint Iohn speaketh, Revel. 17. though he profes­seth of that whore of Babylon, that it is that City, which in his dayes did rule over the Kings of the earth: yet in that which he accounts light, he can be content to concurre with Calvin, in denying the morality of the fourth Commande­ment, as touching one day in seven to be sanctified unto the Lord. But whatsoever this Peter de Bruis was, whom he pro­fesseth to have drawne too deepe on the lees of Judaisme, hee avoucheth no testimony hereof, but only D. Prideaux his joy­ning the Petrobrusians with the Ebionites, Sect. 7. Now Hospi­nian professeth that which is directly contrary, of the Petro­brusians; as whom he joynes with the Anabaptists, maintai­ning Festos lies omnes ad ceremonias Iudaeorum pertinere, & prop­terea nullos esse debere apud Christianos, quum ceremoniae veteris Testamenti omnes Christi adventu sint impletae, & ideo sublatae. Quorum etiam sententiae Anabaptistae hodie suffragari videntur. That all Holidayes belong to the ceremonies of the Iewes, and that therefore none such are to be observed by Christians, seeing all the ceremonies of the old Testament are fulfilled, and abrogated by the comming of Christ. And the Anabaptists now adayes seeme to be of the same opinion. In the third Tome of the Councels set forth by Binius, and 2. part, there is an enumeration of his opinions in five particulars, and that, as it seemes by the close, out of Petrus Cluniacensis; not one of them is any thing a kin to those Sabbatarian fancies, which this Prefacer insists upon. Petrus Cluniacensis, as it seemes, was the man that most oppo­sed this Petrus de Bruis. Against his errors he wrote a book in forme of an Epistle on these points. 1. Of the Baptisme of children. 2. Of the authority of the booke of the Acts of the Apo­stles. 3. Of the authority of the Epistles of Saint Paul. 4. Of the authority of the Church. 5. Of the authority of the old Testa­ment. 6. Againe, of the baptisme of children. 7. Of Temples, Churches, and Altars. 8. Of the veneration of the holy Crosse. 9. Of the sacrifice of the Masse, and of the truth of Transubstan­tiation. [Page 24] 10. Of prayers for the deceased. 11. Of praising God by Hymnes and musicall instruments. Thus Bellarmine relates the heads of that discourse of his; not any of which, for ought I perceive, savoureth of any such Sabbatarian fancie, as this Au­thor driveth it unto. At length I got into my hands Bibliothe­ca Cluniacensis, and therein the writing of Petrus Cluniacensis against the P [...]trobrusians. Upon all which, one Andreas Puer­cetanus Turonensis, hath written certaine notes, wherein upon these words in the Preface Contra haereses Petri de Bruis, hee writes thus; Of this Peter of Bruis who gave name to the Petro­brusian heretiques, no mention is found, neither in the historians, who write the story of those times, nor with them, who then, or a lit­tle after, contrived the Indices of heresies and heresiarches. Al­phonsus à Castro (as I thinke) was the first, who after this our Au­thor, remembred him, lib. 3.5. Baptisma. haeres. 5. and writes that he was a French man of the province of Narbon. Although Ber­nard the sonne of Guido writes that Pope Calixtus the second, in the yeare 1128. on the eight of the Ides of Iune held a Councell at Tolouse with Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Abbats of the Province of Gothia, Gascony, Spaine, and hither Britany. In which Councell, amongst other things ordered there, all those haeretiques were damned and driven out of the Church, who counterfeiting a shew of religion, did condemne the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood, the Baptisme of children, and all Ecclesiasticall Orders, and the bands of lawfull marriages. All which heresies as invented by Peter Bruis, and propagated by Henry his successour, our Peter in this Treatise of his doth pursue. So that this whole story seemes very obscure; and yet the two latter points mentioned by this Andreas, I doe not find to be any of the opinions laid to the charge of Peter Bruis by those that were contemporary with him. For Petrus Cluniacensis reduceth all his heresies (as hee calls them) but to these five heads. 1. He denyes that children before they come to the age of understanding can be saved by the Sacrament of Baptisme, and that anothers faith can profit him, who cannot use his owne; because by their opinion, not another mans faith but his owne with Baptisme saveth him, the Lord pro­fessing, that whosoever shall beleeve, and bee baptized, hee shall be saved; but whosoever will not beleeve shall be damned. 2. That there ought not to be any fabricke of Temples or Churches, that [Page 25] such as are made, ought to be throwne downe; that holy places for prayers are not necessary for Christians, because as well in a Ta­verne as in the Church, as well in the Market-place, as in the Tem­ple; before an Altar, or before a stable God doth heare being called upon, and heareth them who are worthy. 3. He commands holy crosses to be broken in peeces and burned, because the representation of such an instrument, whereupon Christ was so direfully tortured, and cruelly slaine is not worthy of any veneration or supplication; but in revenge of Christs torments and death, to be disgraced with all manner of ignominy, and to be bewen in peeces with swords, and burnt with fire. 4. He doth not only deny the truth of the Lords body and blood daily, and continually to be offered in the Church by the Sacrament; but determines it to be altogether nothing, and that it ought not to be offered unto God. 5. He mocks at the sacrifices, prayers, almes, and other good workes, which the faithfull that are living performe for the faithfull that are departed, and maintaines that they are nothing profitable to one that is dead. Now in all this I find nothing at all that savoureth of any Jewish opinion concerning the observation of the Sabbath. And more than that; when I consider the matter of these Articles for the most part, and the course of those times to make worse of their opi­nions (who spake or wrote against the superstitions of those times) then there was just cause, I begin to suspect that this Pe­ter of Bruis might be an honest man, and more orthodox than they who procured his death. And is it not wonderous strange, that none of the Historians of those times should make any mention of him? And that may be the reason, why we finde no mention at all made of him in the Booke of Acts and Mo­numents. And Philip Mornay in his mysterium iniquitatis, Pag. 309, 310. makes an apologie for this Peter de Bruis, as being a pious man, and thereupon hated, and finally martyred by the Papists.

2. Of any Sabbatarian speculation (as this Prefacer calleth it) that Fulco the French Priest lighted on, this Author gives no evidence. For as for Roger Hoveden, I doe not finde, that he attributes any such unto him. He writes much in his com­mendation, as that The Lord magnified him in the sight of Kings, Pol. 448. pag. 2. and gave him power to give sight to the blind, to cure the lame, the blind, and others of their diseases. That Harlots and Ʋsurers, [Page 26] were by his preaching taken off from their lewd courses. That hee foretold the Kings of France and England, that except they gave over their hostility the sooner, one of them should shortly dye of an evill death. But of any Sabbatarian speculation hee was addi­cted unto I finde no mention. It is true, King Richard some­time called him simply Hypocrite, not notable Hypocrite, as this Author expresseth it, affecting rather to speake with a full mouth, than according unto plaine truth And is it much if Kings take liberty to call men as they think good, especially when they are provoked by them, as King Richard was by this Priest, as appeares by the story which is well worth the rela­ting, to observe both the present wit of that King, and the li­berty of Priests with Princes in telling them their faults in those dayes of yore. For on a day that Priest Fulco came to King Richard, and in very bold manner spake to him thus: I tell thee O King as from Almighty God, that thou make speed to be­stow in marriage those three wretched daughters, that thou hast, lest some worse thing befall thee. Thou Hypocrite, quoth the King, thou lyest against thine owne head, for I have no daughter at all. Truly I doe not lye, quoth the Priest, for as I said, thou hast three wicked daughters, one of them is Pride, another Covetousnesse, the third Luxury. When the King heard this, he called his Earles and Barons that were about him, and said, Heare the admoni­tion of this hypocrite, who saith I have three wicked daughters, and commands me to marry them. Therefore I bestow my Pride upon the proud Templers; my Covetousnesse upon the Monkes of the Cistercian Order; and my Luxury upon the Prelates of the Chur­ches. Who though they professed single life, yet as Mr. Mou­lin observes in a like case of popish Priests, did not professe continencie, they might be luxurious enough, and that not only in wayes naturall, but in wayes unnaturall also. This was a biting answer of the King, which the Historian no way liked, and therefore he cryes out in a poeticall straine, O nimis indig­num miseris inferre cachinnum. But throughout no mention at all of any Sabbatarian speculation that Fulco was possessed with. Indeed of Eustachius, who was one of his followers, we reade afterwards, fol. 457. p. 2. what wonderous workes were wrought by him, and what were the effects of his prea­ching among them, namely, that In London and divers other [Page 27] places in England, they would no more presume to make the Lords dayes their market dayes. And that in every Church there should be a lampe, or some light burning continually before the Lords bo­dy; and that Citizens and others would have an Almes vessell up­on their table, to lay aside therein some provision for the poore. And that hereupon the Devill raised up against him some Ministers of iniquity, who said unto him, It is not lawfull for thee to put thy sithe into anothers harvest; to whom he answered, The harvest is great, but the labourers are few. Therefore the foresaid Abbat being thus rebuked by the ministers of Satan, hee would no longer trouble the Prelats of England with his preaching, but returned unto his owne home in Normandy from whence hee came. Seven leaves after this, we find in the same Author, to wit, fol. 466. p. 2. That this Abbat of Flay returned into England, and prea­ching the Word of God from City to Citie, forbade all to make the Lords dayes their market dayes. For he said that this Commande­ment for observation of the Lords day came from heaven. So that this speculation of his was dominicall rather than Sabbatari­an. And the mandate concerning this, is there set downe at large, pretended to have come from Heaven to Jerusalem, and to have been found on the Altar of Saint Simeon in Golgotha; which whether it were feigned by him, or by others, and re­ceived by him on the faith of others, the Author specifies not. But at the end thereof he shewes how that this Predicant com­ming to York, was there honourably entertained by the Arch­bishop, and Clergie, and whole people of that Citie; and al­beit these things, you will say, were acted in times of darknesse; yet this Prefacer seemes to be of another opinion, though lit­tle pleased with Eustachius his Sabbatarian speculation. Here alone is mention made of the bounds he set to the observation of the Lords day, namely, that it was to continue from Satur­day three of the clock in the afternoone, untill the Sun-rising on Munday, in which time he would have them doe nothing but that which was good, and if they did, to amend their er­rors by repentance. A very reasonable motion in my judge­ment; and if he had extended it to all the dayes of the weeke, yea, and houres too, I see no cause why for this hee should be censured either as an hypocrite, or heretique. But as for the strictnesse of observation here mentioned, as namely, That [Page 28] during the foresaid time, it was not lawfull to doe any kind of work what ever, no not so much as to bake bread for the Sundayes eating; to wash or dry linnen for the morrowes wearing. I finde no such thing prescribed by Eustachius, in the relation made by Roger Hoveden; and if Parisiensis hath any such, surely hee tooke it not out of Roger Hoveden; from whom yet this Prefacer af­firmes he tooke that which he writes hereof. Nay it is direct­ly contradictory to the Tenet of Eustachius, as who determi­neth the observation of the Lords day to begin at three of the clock in the afternoone of the Eve preceding, in which time is found space both to bake bread for the Sundayes eating, and to wash or dry linnen for the morrowes wearing, if the wea­ther hinder not. And as for the extension of the dominicall observation thus farre, in respect of the bounds thereof; I find no other doctrine preached by Eustachius, than by the Lawes of the Kings who governed this Land, was ordained long be­fore, even before the conquest. For not only King Ina comman­ded,Act. & Mon. fol. 114 col. 2. & fol. 715. col. 1. & 2. That no man lay or spirituall, free or bond, should labour on the Sunday: and Edward the elder with Gythrum the Dane, made a law against all labour, buying and selling upon the Sabbath. Item, for no execution to be done on the Sunday: but amongst King Edgars lawes, one was, That the Sunday should be kept ho­ly from Saturday at noone, till Munday in the morning. King Ca­nutus also commanded celebration of the Sabbath from Saturday at noone, till Munday morning, forbidding markets, huntings, la­bours, and Court-keepings during the said space. And it seemes to be the generall practise of Christendome to allow (or com­mand rather) a preparation for the sanctifying of the Lords day; as appeares by the observation of Evening prayers, the day before, warning whereunto is usually given at three of the clocke, by the ringing of a bell, or as in some places especial­ly in the winter season, an houre sooner, and schollars accor­dingly give up schoole, and present themselves at Evening prayer. And we commonly account Saturday to be halfe ho­liday, and warning thereof is usually given at noone by chi­ming the bells. And whereas we reade Exod. 31.15. Six dayes shalt thou doe thy worke, and the seventh day [...] Schindler renders it Sabbathum Sabbathuli, and interprets it thus; Sabbathum is from evening to evening, Sabbathulum is that [Page 29] which of the profane day is added as a little Sabbath. And as for the strict abstinence from dressing of meats on Saturday, which this Author imputes to Eustachius as his doctrine, but without all ground that I know: we are so farre from any such Sabba­tarian speculation, that none of us (in my knowledge) doe think it unlawful to dresse meats on the Lords day. And wher­as the Prefacer addes that they had miracles in store pretended to be wrought on such as had not yeelded to their doctrine, thereby to countenance the superstitious and confound the weake. What one of an hundred in reading this would not imagine, that Eusta­chius wrought these miracles for the countenancing of his for­mer strictnesse: whereas yet on the contrary, neither doth it appeare, that he taught or obtruded upon them any such strict­nesse, preaching onely against marketting on the Lords day. Neither were those strange accidents which here are called mi­racles, any miracles wrought by him: But the Monke, Roger of Hoveden writes, That the Lord Iesus Christ, whom wee must obey rather than men; who by his Nativity, Resurrection, and Ad­vent, and sending the Holy Ghost upon his Disciples, did ad­vance this day, which we call the Lords day, and dedicated (as) most celebrious; shewed miracles of his power, upon some transgressors of the Lords day in this manner. On a certaine Saturday after three of clocke, a certaine Carpenter of Beverlac, as he was making a woodden peg, contrary to the wholesome admonitions of his wife, fell to the ground, taken with a palsie. The like story followeth of a woman, which this Author, according to the Monks phrase, is content to call Miracles. Now when we heare of as strange a thing as this to have fallen out not long since in Bedfordshire; as namely, a match at Foot-ball, being appointed on the Lords day in the afternoone; while two were in the Belfrey, and one of them tolling a bell to call the company together, there was heard a clap of thunder and lightning, seene by some sitting in the Church-porch, as it came thorow a darke lane towards the Church, and flasht in their faces who sate in the Church-porch, and scared them; thence it went into the Church, and turning into the Belfery, tript up his heeles who was tolling the bell, and struck him starke dead; and the other with him blasted in such manner, that shortly after he dyed; we doe not call this a miracle, though we count it a remarkable judgement [Page 30] of God, and such as deserves to be considered, and seriously laid unto heart by all, to admonish them to take heed, that they be not found in like manner profaners of the Lords day. In like sort when upon fresh relation we heare of the like sport at Foot-ball on the Lords day, at a place called Tidworth, af­ter Evening prayer in the Church-yard, and that therein one had his legge broken, which thereupon gangrened, so that forthwith he died thereof; we doe not call this a miracle; only it calls to our mind that of the Prophet, The Lord hath so done his marvellous works, that they ought to be had in remembrance. And we find that such like judgements have been observed by Christian Emperours, thereupon moved more strictly to give in charge the observation of the Lords day, as Ludovicus Pius by name, as thus, Didicimus quosdam in hoc die opera ruralia ex­ercētes fulmine intèremptos, quosdam artuum contractione multa­tos, quosdam visibili igne absumptos, subito in cincrē resolutos, poe­naliter occubuisse. Proinde necesse est, ut primum Sacerdotes, Re­ges, & Principes, cunctique fideles huic dici debitam observatio­nem atque reverentiam devotissimè exhibeant; We have knowne some busied in workes of husbandry on this day, to have beene slaine with lightning, some punished with the contraction of their limbes, some with visible fire consumed, on a sudden turned into ashes, and so to have perished, as by way of punishment. Wherefore it is a ne­cessary duty that in the first place Priests, then Kings, Princes, and all faithfull persons, most devoutly exhibite due observation and re­verence unto this day. The other miracles mentioned by the Monke are of another nature; as of a cake bak't on the hearth on Saturday after three a clocke in the afternoone, and how that part of it reserved to the morning, and being then broken, blood came out of it, and another of the like nature; and two more. I say, these are of Roger Hovedens relation, not of Eu­stachius his preaching; whom the Monke relates to have been in great esteeme of the Clergie in those dayes, and to have pre­vailed much with many of the people, though for the generall he could not bring them off from their marketing on the Lords day. Yet what are these to be talkt of in comparison to those which are comprised in two bookes of miracles, written by Cluniacensis? and albeit those times may be accounted times of darknesse, in comparison of ages fore-going, yet this Prefacer [Page 31] is ready to make answer, that that is but the opinion of some. But whereas hee saith, That this strange opinion is now revived and published; first I desire to know his meaning. For as for a preparation to the Sabbath, and that to begin from about three a clock in the afternoone, the whole Kingdome observes it; as for the strict observation thereof, here mentioned, I have shewed that Eustachius speakes of no such thing. If hee did, what is that to those who suffer for standing for the strict ob­servation of the Sabbath, against those who would have the Lords day, at least in part to be a day of sports and pastimes? Can he shew this to be their opinion? If he can, why doth he not? And if from three a clock on Saturday in the afternoone, people doe prepare for the Lords day, and abstaine from such workes, dispatching both their baking bread, and other works in the morning, what danger or detriment is hereby likely to arise either to our faith or manners? What danger either to Prince, Church, or State?

The third Section.

BUt to proceed.Preface. Immediately upon the Reformation of Religion in these Westerne parts, the Controversie brake out a fresh; though in another manner than before it did. For there were some, of whom Calvin speakes,Instit. lib. 2. sect. 33. who would have had all dayes alike, all equally to be regarded; (he means the Anabaptists, as I take it) and reckoned that the Lords day, as the Church continued it, was a Jewish ceremony. Affirming it to crosse the doctrine of Saint Paul, who in the text before remembred, and in the fourteenth to the Romans did seeme to them to cry downe all such difference of dayes and times as the Church retained. To meet which vaine and peccant hu­mour, Calvin was faine to bend his forces, declaring how the Church might lawfully retaine set times for Gods service, without infringing any of Saint Pauls commandements.

But on the other side, as commonly the excesse is more ex­orbitant than the defect; there wanted not some others, who thought they could not honour the Lords day sufficiently, un­lesse they did affix as great a sanctitie unto it, as the Jewes did [Page 32] unto their Sabbath. So that the change seemed to be onely of the day; the superstition still remaining no lesse Jewish than before it was. These taught, as now some doe, moralem esse uni­us diei observationem in hebdomada, Ibid. sect. 34. the keeping holy to the Lord one day in seven, to bee the morall part of the fourth Commandement: which doctrine what else is it (so he pro­ceeds, as here the Doctor so repeats it in his third section) then in contempt of the Jews to change the day; and to affix a grea­ter sanctity to the day, than those ever did. As for himselfe, so farre was he from favouring any such wayward fancie, that as Iohn Barklay makes report, he had a consultation once, de trans­ferenda solennitate Dominica in feriam quintam, to alter the Lords day from Sunday to Thursday. How true this is, I can­not say. But sure it is that Calvin tooke the Lords day to be an ecclesiasticall and humane constitution only, Quem veteres in locum Sabbati subrogarunt, appointed by our Ancestors to supply the place of the Jewish Sabbath, and (as our Doctor tells us from him in his seventh section,) as alterable by the Church at this present time, as first it was, when from Saturday they translated it unto the Sunday. So that we see, that Calvin here resolves upon three Conclusions. First, that the keeping holy one day in seven, is not the morall part of the fourth Commandement. Secondly, that the day was changed from the last day of the weeke unto the first by this authority of the Church, and not by any divine Ordinance: And thirdly, that the day is yet alterable by the Church, as at first it was.

Exam.Thus at length this Prefacer observes, that look upon what Scripture passages some did contend the Jewish Sabbath to be ceremoniall, and accordingly to be abrogated by the Death and Resurrection of Christ: Upon the very same grounds o­thers contended against the observation of all Holy dayes, even of the Lords day also, as if that were Jewish. This is the course of the Anabaptists, unto whom Wallaeus addes the Soci­nians; and Hospinian the Petrobrusians. By what authoritie the Lords day was introduced, Calvin disputes not. He saith, Dominicum diem veteres in locum Sabbati substituerunt; Instit. lib. 2. c. 8. sect. 34. Calvin. in 1. ad Corin. cap. 16. The Ancients brought the Lords day into the place of the Sabbath, and that the day the Apostle prescribed to the Corinthians, wherein they should lay apart something for the relieving of the Saints at Ieru­salem, [Page 33] was the day quo sacros conventus agebant, whereon they kept their holy meetings. Lib. 2. c. 8. sect. 34. And that which moved the Apostles to change the Sabbath to the Lords day, he shewes both in his institutions thus; for seeing in the Lords Resurrection is (found) the end and fulfilling of the true rest, which the old Sab­bath shadowed; by that very day, which set an end to those shadowes, Christians are admonished not to stick to the shadowing ceremony; and upon the Epistle to the Corinthians in these words,In 1. ad. Cor. ca. 16. Electus autem potissimum dies Dominicus, quod Resurrectio do­mini finem legis umbris attulit; The Lords Day was chiefely chosen, because the Lords Resurrection did set an end to the sha­dowes of the Law. And in the words immediately preceding he expressely professeth that this change was made by the Apostles, though not so soone in his opinion, as Chrysostome thought; who interprets that, the first day of the weeke, of the Lords Day. And Cyrill long agoe upon consideration of our Saviours apparitions on that day, and then againe the eighth day after, makes bold to conclude,Cyrill. in Ioan. 1.12. that Jure igitur sanctae congregationes die octavo in Ecclesiis siunt, By right therefore holy assemblies on the eighth day are made in the Churches.

2 Observe by the way this authors spirit, he accompts it more exorbitant to thinke, that the observation of the Lords Day is prescribed unto us by Divine authority, or the reli­gious observation of one day in seven, then to maintaine that none at all is to be set apart to religious worship by Divine authority. And to this purpose he premiseth a generall rule, that commonly the excesse is more exorbitant then the defect; yet I never heard, that prodigality was censured as worse then covetousnesse, in opposition to liberality; or rashnesse, ac­compted worse then cowardlinesse, in opposition to forti­tude: or superstition worse then prophanenesse, in opposition to true Religion. As for the sanctity of the day in Calvins phrase, which this Author calls Sanctity affixed to the day; shall I say this Prefacer understands it not? it is incredible; more likely he is to pervert Calvins plaine meaning; not out of excesse in the way of superstition, but out of a lesse ex­orbitant defect. For the sanctity of the day, in Calvins lan­guage is, when Religione quadam feriando, mysteria olim com­mendata [Page 34] recolore se somniabant, by resting in a religious man­nor they thought as it were dreaming, that they observed certaine mysteries of old recommended unto them. As appeares in his sect. 33. Of the 8. Chap. of his second booke of institutions; and such indeed was the sanctity of the day in the Jewish observation thereof. This religion, this holinesse Calvin will have to be at an end; and that the Apostle Gal. 1. and Coloss. 2. disputed against them who would have that holinesse, that religion to continue still: not against them, who will have one day in the weeke set apart, thereon to rest from manuall workes, as they are avocations from holy studies and meditations. And in the former case, he doth not say, as this author in a mincing manner feynes him to say, to wit, that So the change seemed to be only of the day; but in plaine termes, that this were no other then to change the day, and that in con­tumely of the Iewes; siquidem manet nobis etiamnum par mysterii in diebus significatio, quae apud Iudaeos locum habebat, if so be there yet remaines with us a mysterious signification equally in the daies, such as had place amongst the Iewes. Now this cau­tion nothing concernes any of our protestant Divines, who mainteine the observation of one day in seven as necessary, in resting from manuall workes, onely as they are impediments to the service of God. Nay that one day in seven was obser­ved by the Jewes for any mysterious signification conteyned therein, or by the Patriarchs either, or by Adam himselfe, in whose dayes even from the first, the seventh day was sanctifi­ed, that is, set apart for the service of God, in the opinion of Calvin, This is to bee understood of one day in se­ven indefinit­ly consider­ed. For as for the rest of the seventh pre­cisely that is acknowledged to have beene mysterious. Sect. 32. to this day, I never heard or read. This latter clause in Calvin, which containes the condition, whereupon this censure of his passeth upon those that so stand for the obser­vation of one day in seven, this Prefacerslily concealeth; though Calvins censure be not passed absolutely, but merely upon this condition. Thus indeed to stand for the necessary observation of one day in seven, namely, as conteyning some mysterious signification, were to exceede the Iewes in a grosse and carnall superstition of a Sabbatisme. As touching the ob­servation of some time set a part for Gods holy worship, and service, Calvin professeth that the same necessity lieth upon us Christians, for reliefe whereof the Lord appointed the Sabbath [Page 35] to the Iewes, and that it pleased our most provident and tender Father to provide for our necessity, no lesse then for the necessity of the Iewes.

Now it is apparent that God commanded the Jewes to set one day in seven apart for the service of God, and doth it not manifestly follow herehence, that the Lord would have us also set apart one day of the weeke for his service? And Calvin concludes that Section thus, Why then doe we not obey that reason, which we see to be imposed upon us by the will of God? And therefore Wallaeus saith that Calvin delivered not these words, whereupon this Prefacer grateth so much, against his own Colleagues ‘or fellowes in the reformation, with whom he never contended in this argument, but against cer­taine Papists & schoolemen, who thought, they had provided sufficiently for themselves, for Christian liberty, and for the edification of the Church; by teaching that the taxation of the seventh day as ceremoniall was abolished, & yet that one day in seven, and by name the Lords Day, was to be obser­ved, after such a manner, and to such an end, as the Jewes observed their Sabbath: by which Doctrine, way was o­pened to superstition in this dayes observation. His words are plainely directed against such when he saith; Thus vanish the toyes of false Prophets, who possessed the people in former times with a Iewish opinion. And againe, ‘But that is no other thing then in contempt of the Jewes to change the day, and in mind to retaine the same sanctity of the day: if so be there re­maines unto us,(to wit by their opinion) an equall mysterious signification of dayes, to that which had place among the Jewes.’ Now saith Wallaeus, This agrees not to be spoken of any of the reformed, but of Sophisters and Papists, who urge new my­steries, and new significations, and holinesses in their holy daies, as it is well known. Bellarmine lib. 3. cap. 10. of the veneration of Saints writes against our Divines, that the feasts of Christi­ans are kept, not only in respect of order and policy, but also by reason of a mystery; and that holydays are truly more holy and sacred then other dayes, and a certaine part of Divine worship. This Prefacer is content to make use of Iohn Barclayes report concerning Calvin, namely that he had a consultation once de transferenda solennitate dominicain feriam quintam; of tran­slating [Page 36] the dominicall solemnity unto the Thursday. Had it beene unto Friday, which is the Turkes festivall, then it would have wondrously well served Raynolds his turne in his Calvino­turcismus. For it concerned that author to inquire diligent­ly of all Calvins courses, that stood any way in conformity with the courses of the Turkes: neither doe I thinke there could be devised any more remarkable then this. How true this is this Prefacer cannot say, but whether he doth not licke his lips at it I know not. But it is apparent, he would have the Church endued with such authority, as to change the solemnity of the Lords Day, to any day in the weeke, and consequently even to Friday; and I doe not doubt but pre­tence of reason might be devised for it by politique heads, as namely, to hold the Turkes in better correspondency unto Christianity. Now if Calvin had at any time a consultation hereabouts (which cannot be understood of Calvins single and proper consultation with himselfe; for then how could the relator be privy to it without revelation; and we com­monly say, that three may keepe counsaile when two be a­way) surely there were many that could give testimony hereof, to wit as many, as whose heads he used in this con­sultation. And who would not expect, that some one of these at least, should be produced to testifie so much either by word or writing? As for Barcley, he hath his name ab ursae ungula, from the claw of a Beare; give we him leave to bee a biter, a tearer. His father was a man of some note and lear­ning, and one that had the opinion to deserve well of Kings by his booke Contra monarch machos; and thereby he endea­red himselfe to King Iames, being also a Scotchman. But King Iames might thinke better of him then there was cause, all things considered. For he maintaines, that in two cases Kings may cease to be Kings, and to this acknowledgement he finds himselfe mastered in part by a rule of the civill Law, (and he was a Civilian) which is this, Servus habitus pro derelicto may choose a new Father. At the first reading I won­dered at the Doctrine it selfe, being of an harsh accent, and dangerous consequence; and much more in consideration of the reason given, which by interpretation and accommo­dation may draw a very long tayle after it. And it may seeme [Page 37] strange, that none have taken any paynes either to refute it, or cleere it, I meane in publique. Yet I speake it onely in reference to the compasse of mine owne reading. In private it may be some have dealt upon it, and my selfe in particular, when I dealt in my Sermons upon the thirteenth to the Ro­mans. I have been often urged to set forth those Meditations of mine and to make them publike; but I have alwayes re­sisted the motion, they being but homely Sermons, accom­modated to a Countrey auditory, neither doe I finde my selfe that way fitted for a better audience; I can take some paynes in writing controversies, but I cannot take paynes in making a Sermon, and when I have taken most, I finde I have lesse edified my people, though perhaps better pleased my selfe. Yet having not long since understood of a Court di­stinction of Puritans; namely that some of them are good men, onely they cannot conforme to the ceremonies of the Church; but other there are, who though they doe con­forme, yet are antimonarchicall Puritans: This considera­tion hath taken a deepe impression in me, and brought me to debate with my selfe, whether it were not fit to publish those poore Meditations of mine, if for nothing else, yet to vin­dicate our reputation, who at the pleasures of too many are oppressed in the World; and to represent to publique view, Our Countrey f [...]ith concerning Monarchies. For if we be repu­ted antimonarchicall, no mervaile if some course be taken sooner or later to roote us out. And this I might make a Prodromus to a greater worke, in answer to a booke entitled Deus & Rex, a pestilent piece of worke, and as it is thought written by one barefoote a Jesuite, conteyning a refutation of a certaine book of one of our divines inscribed God and the King written by Doctor Mockest, a booke so well pleasing to King James, that as we have heard, his Majesty thought fit that children should be catechized in it. This being afterwards translated into Latine by Doctor Harris, now Warden of the Colledge by Winchester, hath beene now many yeares a­goe, answered by a Papist who conceales his name, and that in a very unhappy manner. And a wonder of wonders it may seeme, that so vile a piece hath passed so long unanswered; especially considering that heretofore great Bishops chaplens [Page 34] were wont to bee imployed in answering Papists, and this was the ordinary way of their preferment. I confesse there are certaine mysteries therein, which perhaps are as scarre­crowes to deterre men from taking Pen in hand to refute it. For the author of this, would beare the World in hand, that hee who wrote the booke intituled God and the King, and was a Puritan; and that none but Puritans doe stand for the absolutenesse of Kings in such sort as it is there maintained. And that it is merely a plot to ruinate monarches, by advan­cing their absolutenesse so high; dealing with them herein, as Hercules did with Antaeus; for observing that as often as he threw him to the ground, he rose up with greater strength, for the earth being his mother, as often as he fell into her bosome she inspired new vigour and spirit into him; therefore he would throw him down no more, but lifting him up from the Earth into the Aire, there hee held him betweene his armes, untill he had crusht his breath out of his body, and so made an end of him. In like sort, it is there said, that Puritans finde it their onely meanes to ruine monarches, by advancing their absolutnesse in so unreasonable a manner: that when the people shall understand it aright, they will bee so provoked hereby, that they will streyne the uttermost of their power to roote out all Monarchies. Neverthelesse all this is but a squib, making a great noyse but doing no hurt; yet sufficient to scare any man in these times, considering how Funestous a condition it is, to come under the shadow of the very name of Puritan. And the Papists, and all that are popishly affected rejoyce in this, as in nothing more. For­sooth Hoc Ithacus velit & magno mercentur Atreidae. But see my unfortunate condition; after I had resolved to make it my next worke to labour in this argument: and after I had dis­patched my first worke of pleading for the supreame absolut­nesse of God in Heaven; in the next place to try my strength what I could say for the secondary absolutenesse of Kings and Monarches here on Earth; I am sodenly driven to intermit all other businesses formerly in hand, and to travaile in a new argument, and to strengthen my selfe against the light­nings and thunders, that may breake over our heads we know not how soone; for wee see examples before our eyes of suf­ferings [Page 35] in this kind, and how soone our owne turne may come to suffer in the same kinde it is uncertaine unto us. There­fore to returne to Iohn Barcley: wee have heard that his fa­ther before his death commended him to the Patronage of King Iames, who accordingly had him attending in his Court somewhile with intent to preferre him: untill on a sodaine his minde was changed, having receaved intelligence, that this Gentleman playd false with him, living in his Court but as an espie and intelligencer, to discover what he could of his Majesties affayres unto Queene mother of France; which mooved King Iames ever after, and that most justly, to abomi­nate him. Now such a one, if he could not proove true and loyall unto his naturall Prince, can it bee expected, hee being of a popish spirit, should carry himselfe truely and honestly to­wards Iohn Calvin? But sure it is (in this Prefacers judge­ment) that Calvin tooke the Lords Day to be an Ecclesiasticall and humane constitution, only appointed by our Ancestors to supply the place of the Iewish Sabbath, and as our Doctor tells us alterable by the Church at this present time as first it was, when from the Saturday they translated it unto the Sunday. For proofe hereof this Prefacer alleageth nothing but that out of Calvin, where he saith, Veteres subrogarunt diem dominicum in locum Sabbati; The Ancients subrogated the Lords Day in place of the Sabbath: But he takes no notice of that which immediately followes in Calvin; as a reason of the former thus; For where­as in the Lords Resurrection is found the end, and accomplishment of the true rest, which the ancient Sabbath shaddowed, by the very day which set an end to shadowes, Christians are admonished not to stick unto the shadowing ceremonie. Where observe, First, as touching the persons noted by Veteres the Ancients, first; and then by Christiani Christians. Are not these the Apostles as much as any other? and they in the first place, as wee best knew what that was, which did set an end to shadowes; and accordingly to give notice of the pregnant signification of the Day of the Lords Resurrection? and therefore, 1 Cor. 16.2 Hee doth intirely referre this to the Apostles, as whom he confesseth, constrayned by the Iewish superstition to have abrogated the Sabbath, and in the place thereof ordeyned the Lords Day. Secondly observe that the accomplishment of [Page 40] that which was signified by the Jewish Sabbath he ascribes to the Resurrection. And Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winche­ster in his speech delivered in the Starre Chamber in the case of Traske professeth that, It hath ever beene the Churches doctrine that Christ made an end of all Sabbaths, by his Sabbath in the grave. That Sabbath (saith he) was the last of them. And that Christs Resurrection brought with it a new Crea­tion, and a new Creation requires a new Sabbath. And hee alleageth Austin Ep. 119. saying, The Lords Day was declared to Christians by Christ his Resurrection, and from thence began to have its festivity. But that at this time Calvin should thinke it alterable by the Church, no colour of proofe is brought; and most unreasonable it is, for any to conceave the Sabbath to be as alterable now, as in the Apostles dayes it was, when from the Saturday they translated it unto the Sunday. For that alteration depended upon a second Creation, as both Bishop Andrewes observes, and that out of Athanasius de Sabbato & circumcisione. And Bishop Lakes was of the same o­pinion, as his discourse in Manuscript yet to be seene doth ma­nifest. So that unlesse this Prefacer can devise a third Crea­tion, and maintaine withall the rest on the Lords Day to bee as ceremoniall, as the Jewes rest on the seventh Day was, there is no colour, why the Christian Sabbath on the Lords Day, should bee as alterable now, as the day of the Jewish Sabbath was. As for the 3. conclusions which hee saith Calvin resolves upon; the first whereof hee saith to be this, that one day in seven is not the morall part of the fourth Com­mandement, I say, Calvin avoucheth no such thing; and Wallaeus shewes, that generally the friends of Calvin maintained the contrary; between whom neverthelesse and Calvin it was never known that there was any contention her­abouts. And already I have shewed how unshamefastly this Prefacer abuseth Calvin in alledging one halfe of his sentence, and leaving the other part quite out, so making Calvin to de­liver that absolutely, which he affirmes onely conditionally. The second resolution which he obtrudes upon Calvin, is, that the day was changed from the last day of the weeke to the first, by the authority of the Church, and not by any divine ordinance. It is true, Calvin sayth not, that the day was changed by divine [Page 41] ordinance,Comment int. ep. ad cor. cap. 16. neither doth he say that it was changed by the authority of the Church; but in plaine termes professeth that the Apostles changed it in one place; and that admonition was given for the change of it, by the consideration of the Day of Christs Resurrection in another, to wit Institut. lib. 2. cap. 8. Sect. 36. Now let every sober conscience consider, whether that day which was first ordained by authority Divine, the apostles would alter by lesse authority, then authority Divine; especially considering that Christs redemption of the World, is the restauration of the World; which is as a new Creation; and as the Lord rested the seventh day from the workes of Creation; so the day of Christs Resur­rection, was the day of his rest from the worke of redemption; so that still the day of the Lords rest is the day of our rest; not indeed the day of the Lord our Creators rest, that ceasing as being ceremoniall, as before hath beene shewed out of Doctor Andrewes; but the day of the Lord our Redeemers rest, which brought with it a new Creation, is now the day of our rest. And who was nearer or dearer unto Calvin then Beza? whose words upon Revel. 1, 10. are to this effect, He calls that the Lords Day, which Paul calls the first of the Sabbaths 1 Cor. 16.2. & Acts 20.7. on which day it appeares that even then were made the more frequent assemblies by Christians, like as the Iewes came together in their Synagogues on the Sabbath Day; wherby it may appeare that the fourth precept of sanctifying the se­venth day, as touching the day of the Sabbath and legall rites, was ceremoniall; but as touching the worship of God is of the morall Law, unalterable, and perpetually to continue in this life. And that day of the Sabbath continued in force from the creation of the World, to the day of Christs Resurrection, which being as it were another Creation of another spirituall World (as the Prophets speake) then for the Sabbath of the former world or seventh day, was assumed the first day of this new World; the holy Ghost without doubt dictating thus much to the Apostles. As for the third & last resolutiō which he pins upon Calvins sleeve, namely that the day of rest to be san­ctified to the Lord, is yet alterable by the church as at first it was; neither that first alteration is by Calvin sayd to be made by the church, but expressely by the apostles; & they admonished hereof by the day of Christs resurrection; and Beza professeth that our [Page 38] Christian assembles on the Lords Day are of Apostolicall and Divine tradition. And observe I pray how Bishop An­drewes pleades for Episcopall authority, as by Divine right, in his answer to the first Epistle of Peter Moulin. An est apostolicum factum aliquod, jure non apostolico? Apostolico au­tem, id est, ut ego interpretor, Divino. Nec enim aliquid ab apostolis factum, non dictante hoe iis spiritu Sancto & Divino. Is there any fact of the Apostles, by right not apostolicall? But by apostolicall, that is (as I interpret it) by Divine. For neither was there any thing done by the Apostles, which the holy and divine Spirit did not dictate unto them. Shall this be of force for the institution of Bishops, and shall it not be of force for the institution of the Lords Day, as by Divine right? But put the case it were so in every particular of Calvin, as this Pre­facer avoucheth; how comes it about that our adversaries practise to choake us with the authority of Calvin? shall we be urged to yield to the authority of Calvin, who are reproch­ed usually as Calvinists, and so nicknamed? In my time of being in the University, we heard by credible relation, how in one of the Colleges, questions were set up to be disputed Contrà Ioannem Calvinum; and that disputations of that na­ture were sometimes concluded in this manner, Relinquamus Calvinum in hisce facibus; and we commonly say, there is no smoake without some fire. No longer agoe then at the act in Oxford, last save one, Anno 1634. I heard Calvinists reck­oned up amongst Papists, Pelagians, Arminians, Puritans, as sectaries at least, if not as Heretiques, by him that preached the act Sermon on the Lords Day in the afternoone; and is it fit, that we should be pregravated by the opinion of Calvin, a man whose memory seemes to be hated by men of this Pre­facers spirit, so as few men more?

The fourth Section.

Preface.NEither was hee the onely one, that hath so determined. For, for the first, that to keepe holy one day of seven, is not the morall part of the fourth Commandement, our [Page 39] Doctor hath delivered in the third section, that not Tostatus onely, but even Aquinas, and with him all the schoole­men have decreed upon it. Nor was there any that opposed it in the schooles of Rome, that I have met with, till Cata­rinus tooke up Armes against Tostatus: affirming, but with ill successe, that the Commandement of the Sabbath was im­posed on Adam in the first cradle of the World, there where the Lord is sayd to blesse the seventh Day, and to sanctifie it.

2 As for the Protestant schooles, besides what is affirmed 2 by Calvin, and seconded by the Doctor in this following discourse, this seemes to be the judgement of the Divines in the low Countries. Franciscus Gomarus, one knowne suffi­ciently for his undertakings against Arminians published, An. 1628. a little treatise about the originall of the Sabbath, and therein principally canvased these two questions. First whe­ther the Sabbath were ordained by God immediately upon the Creation of the World? Then whether all Christians are obliged by the fourth Commandement, alwayes to set a part one day in seven to Gods holy worship? both which he deter­mines negatively.

And Doctor Rivet one of the foure professors in Leyden, 3 although he differs in the first, yet in the second, which doth most concerne us Christians, they agree together: affirming also joyntly that the appointing of the Lords Day for Gods publique service, was neither done by God himselfe, nor by his Apostles, but by the authority of the Church? For se­conds, Gomarus brings in Vatablus, and Wolfgangus Muscu­lus; and Rivet voucheth the authority of our Doctor here. For so Gomarus, in the assertion and defense of the first opi­nion against this Rivet. De quibus etiam cl. & doctiss. Doctor Prideaux in oratione de Sabbato consensionem extare, codem ju­dicio (by Rivets information) libenter intelleximus.

I will adde one thing onely, which is briefely this. The 4 Hollanders when they discovered Fretum le Morire An. 1615. though they observed a most exact accompt of their time at Sea; yet at their comming home they found, comparing their accompt with theirs in Holland, that they had lost a day; that which was Sunday to the one being Munday to the [Page 44] other. Which of necessity must happen as it is calculated by Geographers, to those that compasse the World from West to East, as contrary, they had got a day, had they sayled it East­ward. And what should these people doe when they were re­turned? if they must sanctifie precisely one day in seven, they must have sanctified a day a part from their to her Countrey­men, and had a Sabbath by themselves; or to comply with with others must have broken the morall Law, which must for no respects be violated. See more hereof at large in Car­penters Geogr. p. 237.

Exam.That Calvin hath any where so determined this Prefacer hath not prooved, but shamefully dismembred him, thereby to make him to deliver something absolutly which he deli­vers onely conditionally, and that in opposition unto Papists, who will have the Lords Day to be kept not onely for order and policy sake but by reason of some mystery; and this Calvin professeth to be Jewish. Aquinas his words are these, Ha­bere aliquod tempus deputatum ad vacandum Divinis, cadit sub praecepto morali: sed in quantum in hoc praecepto determinatur speciale tempus in signum creationis Mundi, sic est praeceptum ceremoniale. To have some time deputed (wherein) to rest for things Divine, falls under the morall precept. But for as much as in this precept is determined a speciall time in signe of the Creation of the World, so it is a praecept ceremoniall. Where I doe observe first, that this ceremoniality is apparently as­cribed to the seventh day, and that considered as a signe of the Creation, and not to one day in seven. And this indeed may well be the concurrent opinion of Schole Divines. As for Abulensis, of what authority is he to preponderate any one of our Divines? nay, I appeale to every humane con­science, whether no more be morall in this precept, then to set some time apart for Gods service. For what? is it nothing materiall, whether we set apart for divine Service, one day in a weeke, or one day in a month, or one day in a yeare, or one day in twenty yeares, or one day throughout the whole course of a mans life? what conscience can be found so cau­teriate as to justifie this? If so, then let him proceed and say, it is nothing materiall whether wee consecrate unto God one houre in a day, or one houre in a weeke, or one houre [Page 45] in a month, or one houre in a yeare, or but one houre through­out the whole course of a mans life. So that I presume every sober man by the very light of nature, will be driven to con­fesse that not only some time ought to be set apart for Gods worship (as the Schoolemen commonly teach) but that a con­venient proportion of time ought to be destinated unto this. Now let reason it selfe judge, whether any more convenient proportion of time can be devised for this then the proporti­on of one day in seven. And herein let us oppose Azorius to Tostatus (if Tostatus doe oppose the morality of one day in seven,Inistitut. part. 2. l. 1. cap. 2. which is more then I finde) a Papist to confront a Pa­pist; who plainly affirmeth, Rationi maximè consentaneum esse, that it is most agreeable to reason, that after six worke dayes one day should bee consecrated to the service of God; Especially since God hath discovered unto us that this is his good plea­sure, namely that one day in seven should be consecrated unto his service. First, that we might not be left at large to our own hearts, to proportion out the time for Gods Service. Second­ly, for the maintenance of uniformity herein amongst his people; who being left unto themselves might, and in all like­lyhood would have run different wayes. And that God hath from the beginning manifested as much, Wallaeus hath shewed out of Chrysostome in his 16. Homily upon Genesis. Wallae. dissert. de Sabbato. Now even from the beginning God insinuates unto us this Doctrine, teach­ing that in the circle of the weeke, one intire day is to be segrega­ted and set apart for spirituall operation, and to the same pur­pose are Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Theodoret, and Au­gustine alledged by him. Catarinus is in this place brought in quite against the hayre; seeing it is not herein, that he is so much as pretended to oppose Tostatus, but rather as touching the originall institution of the Sabbath. Yet why he should say that Catarinus hath herein had ill successe, I know no reason (neither doth this author once offer to give any) espe­cially considering that the very Romists doe acknowledge, that the Sabbath was instituted immediately from the Crea­tion. Their words are these;In Apoc. 1.10. The Apostles and 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—not onely otherwise then was by the Law obser­ved [Page 46] but plainely otherwise then was prescribed by God himselfe in the They meane the third, but indeed it is the fourth. second Commandement, yea and otherwise then he ordained in the first Creation, when hee sanctified precisely the Sabbath Day, and not the day following. Rivetus cites diverse Popish authors affirming the same with Catarinus, contrary to the opinion of Tostatus, and notwithstanding Pererius his concurrence with Tostatus; no lesse then six Papists of note, Steuchus Eugubinus in Cosmopaea ad cap. 2. Gen. Gilbert Genebrard in his chronology at the first yeare of the World. Jacobus Salianus in his Annalls of the old Testament at the first yeare of the World, and the se­venth day. Who expounds also Tertullian, who is pretended to be of the contrary opinion. Cornelius a lapide on the 2. cap. of Genesis. Emanuel Sa. And lastly Ribera on the Epistle to the Hebrewes cap. 5. Num. 8. So that it seemes Catarinus did on this point oppose Tostatus with very good successe. Neither doth the Doctor on whom this Prefacer relies, shew any suf­ficient cause of rejecting Catarinus, or bring ought sufficient to justify Tostatus. It is true, Tostatus brings divers reasons for the confirmation of this opinion, and I have no cause to doubt but they were answered by Catarinus who opposeth him here­in; neither doe I finde any exception taken against his answer, either by the Prefacer or by Doctor Prideaux himselfe. And therefore I might content my selfe, seeing nothing but Tostatus his authority is proposed, to answer authority with authority: yet I am content also to consider his reasons as they are propo­sed by Pererius.


I. Answer is made to Tostatus his arguments proposed by Pererius, to proove that the observation of the Sab­bath was ordeyned by God immediately from the Creation.

II. Herewithall the question is disputed, whether Adam fell the first day wherein he was Created.

THE first agrument of Tostatus proposed by Pererius is to this effect, the observation of the Sabbath had been superfluous to Adam and Eve, seeing nothing then could have called them away from the service of God, to wit, they being then in the state of innocency. To which I answer, first that herein is supposed somewhat wher­about there is much question, namely that Adam fell not be­fore the seventh Day. Yet Pererius professeth that it was an opinion well knowne, and confirmed by the consent of many, and those noble and illustrious authors, that Adam fell the first day wherein he was created. This sayth he, seemes to have been the opinion of Irenaeus; and Cyrillus and Epiphanius are cited as approovers of it. He addes, that Moses Barcephas in his booke [Page 48] of Paradice both prooves it, and avoucheth it as the opinion of many others, and especially of Philopenus in his oration, which he wrote of the tree of Life, and of Ephrem in his Com­mentaries upon Genesis, and of Jacobus Sabugensis in his o­ration of Christs Passion. To whom may bee added, saith Pererius, Diodorus the Bishop of Tharsis, as he is cited in the chaine of interpreters upon Genesis, upon those words of the third chapter, we do eate of every tree in Paradise. Tostatus himselfe as this author writes, was sometimes of the same opinion, though afterwards he changed his minde; and conceaved as more likely, that Adam fell on the Sabbath Day; which Pere­rius approves not, though that was the opinion of the author of the Darash amongst the Jewes, as David Kimchi writes upon that Psalme, whose title is, A psalme for the Sabbath; and that so by sinning he profaned the Sabbath. This opini­on of Tostatus and the Jewes, Pererius doth not approve: but the reason he gives for his dissenting from them, in my judgement is very weake. For that it runnes, because the Lord blessed that Sabbath Day and sanctified it, resting from all his workes which he had made, therefore it was not agreeable, that on that day, so severe a judgement of the Divine vengeance should be exercised. Now I say, this reason is very weake. For we commonly say, the better day, the better deed; and undoubted­ly the Lord is holy, as in all his workes, so in the execution of condigne vengeance.Ier. 9.2 4. In this he delights, as in the execution of mercy. And it is usually the Lords course, even on the Lords Day, to recompence the wayes of the wicked upon their own heads, in the profanation of his Sabbaths. Secondly, it may seeme strange, that Pererius should serve himselfe with this reason, namely, of the Lords blessing the seventh day and sanctifying it, seeing he professeth himselfe to be of Tostatus his opinion, interpreting these words by way of anticipation, and referring them to the giving of the Law upon Mount Sina. Others were of opinion, that Adam continued as long in Paradise, as Christ lived here on Earth. But this opinion Pererius thinkes no way probable. Others devised a con­tinuance of Adam in Paradise for the space of forty dayes, answering to our Saviours fasting forty dayes; but this he sayth hath no shew of probability. His own conjecture is, that [Page 49] Adam fell, and was turned out of Paradise that day senight after he was created: and the grounds of his conjecture are in my opinion, as frivolous as any. As first, when he saith that eight dayes space was sufficient to have experience of the happinesse of that state. For why not as well some dayes more or some dayes lesse? nay rather, by continuance in the same state, we grow lesse and lesse sensible of the happinesse thereof. And the happinesse of a state is best known by the contrary, according to that rule, Carendo magis quàm fruendo quid quidque sit cognoscimus. As for the agreement herein which he conceites between Adam and Christ, as who is thought of many to have been conceaved in the Virgins wombe on the sixt day of the weeke, and on the same day of the weeke was indeed crucified upon the crosse; who seeth not that this conveniency had been found as well on that day fortnight, or on that day three weekes, and so in Infinitum, as on that day senight? As ridiculous appeares to be his pretence of complying thus with the antients, whose opinion was, that Adam fell the same day wherein he was created, which he would apply to that day senight after. For why not as well to that day three weekes after, or that day a month after, and so in Infinitum? But let us consider Pererius reasons whereby he undertakes to shew the unlikelihood of Adams falling the first day. The first is drawn from the forme of Adams temptation, thus, why doe you not eate of every tree of paradise? which supposeth as he saith, that they had already eaten of every other Tree in Pa­radise; and Eves answer, he saith, seems to confirm this in say­ing, we eate of the fruit of the Trees in the Garden. But of the fruit of the Tree which is in the mids of the Garden, we eate not; what is the meaning of we eate, but this, we are wont to eate, quoth Pererius. Yet forthwith he himselfe enervates this interpre­tation, confessing that the meaning may be this, It is lawfull for us to eate. And I willingly confesse, that no argument ap­peares to me so plausible as this, namely that they had former­ly tasted of every fruit of the Garden besides this: for it seems very likly, that not till then they were wel prepared for satans temptation. And it seemes unlikely they would offer to taste of the fruit forbidden untill they had tasted of all the rest; then indeed and not til then, the commendation of that as of a [Page 50] more excellent fruit then any of the rest, might the better al­lure them both to touch and taste. But as Pererius proposeth it, it hath no force; for as much as he corrupteth the Text, the Divells words being not such as these, why doe yee not eate of every tree of paradise? but running thus; Yea? hath God sayd yee shall not eate of every tree in the Garden? or as Pisca­tor takes it for a conclusion of a larger discourse; yea in as much as God hath said, ye shall not eate of the fruit of every tree in the Garden, so giving a reason to proove what he objected, namely that God envyed their happinesse. As for the rea­sons which before I have given, they may be answered thus. If the benefit of this fruit had been of the same kinde with the benefit of others, and onely in degree of excellency above them, then were it no way likely they should begin with this. But seeing it was pretended to be of a farre different kinde by Satans suggestion, not so much for satisfying the appetite of sense, as for satisfying the spirituall desire of the soule in knowing good and evill, which the very denomination of the Tree given by God himselfe did fairely intimate; and this being cunningly improoved by Satan to be a Divine condi­tion, in making them like unto God; this consideration might well allure forthwith without all further stay to have experience of other fruit. Secondly why might they not have tasted of the fruites of other Trees, without any necessity of nature urging them, and yet without any luxury at all, but only to acquaint themselves with the condition of those good Creatures which God had provided for them? Yet again consi­dering that this experience made to no other end, should so sensibly have brought home unto them the goodnesse of God, in that state of holinesse and integrity, that it would have exceedingly confirmed them in their obedience to God, and made the motion of the Serpent at first hearing distastfull, and to choose to be like unto God in obedience, and thereby in conformity to his holy will, then in forbidden knowledge. And besides, the tasting of all so soone, can hardly be justifi­ed from Luxury or wast: therefore I rest in my first answer. Pererius his next reason caryeth a great deale of shew, but in substance lesse forcible. Certainly the making of the beasts of the Earth, and of man, might be done in as short a time as it [Page 51] pleased God to have it; especially considering the opinion of some antients, that all things were made together, and that in a short space; so mans placing in Paradise, and the beasts brought unto him by God, might be soone dispatched: and surely Adams naming of them cost him no study; and un­doubtedly all this was done before the creating of Eve; so that all this might be done before noone, and space enough allowed for the Divells conference with Eve, and his sedu­cing her, and her seducing Adam. The making of them aprons to hide their nakednesse caryeth the greatest shew of requiring longer time; but he who wanted not wit to name the beasts so congruously to their natures, wanted not un­derstanding to cover themselves with fig-leaves. As for the Doctors alleaged by him for his opinion; I doe not finde that any of them is expresse, or by consequent direct for that, whereunto they are alleaged; but the inferences made from their wordes are meerely conjecturall. For when hee writes, that Ioseph in the first booke of his antiquities; and Basil in his Homily of Paradise; and Damascen in his second booke of orthodox faith and 10. Chapter. seeme to be of this opinion; his ground is only this, because as he saith, they write that the Serpent in paradise did often come to our first parents and converse with them very gently and familiarly, and that thereupon the Divell tooke hint to inveagle the Woman. Now this is but a conjecture of theirs; neither doe they say that he was wont to conferre with them; yet all that they speake of may very well be fulfilled in a few houres. That which to this pur­pose he alleageth out of Austin de civit. dei lib. 11: c. 21. is onely this, The Apple on the tree forbidden, we are to believe it to be such, as the rest of other trees, which now they had found to be without hurt; hence it seemes Pererius would inferre, that before the Divells temptation they had tasted of them all; but Austins speech is indefinite, and verified, in case they had tasted but of some; and Eve might have tasted of some, Adam of other some; If it be further urged, that Austin delivers it as a reason to shew how hereby they were made more pliable to yield to Satans temptation: I answer that by tasting some, yea and without tasting any, they might be well assured they might be tasted of without hurt, excep­ting [Page 52] that which God had forbidden them; and the tasting of all without hurt was no tolerable reason to perswade that in like manner they might tast of the forbidden fruit without hurt; the Lord having professed unto them, that In the day they did eate thereof, they should die the death. Pererius addes that Austin in his twentieth Booke of the City of God, and 26. Chapter, doth not obscurely give to understand, that albeit he thought Adam continued not long in paradise, yet that he continued there longer then one day. But I finde no such thing in the place quoted by him. But I guesse the passage he aimes at, is that wherein hee discourseth of those words of the Prophet Malachy Mal. 3. And the sacrifice of Iudah and Ie­rusalem shall please the Lord as in the dayes of old, and in former yeares; and he inquires, what time that is, which is signified by this phrase, as in the dayes of old, and in the former yeares. And first he saith, that perhaps thereby may be signified, the time wherein our first parents were in Paradise. And to this he referres that of Esay Es. 65. According to the dayes of the Tree of life, shall be the life of my people. And who saith hee, knowes not, what that place was where the Lord planted the Tree of life? But then to the contrary he discourseth thus, If a man shall say those dayes of the Tree of life to be the dayes of the Church of Christ which are now current, and that Christ himselfe is prophetically called the Tree of life— and that these first men lived not any yeares in paradise, from whence they were so soone ejected, that they begate no sonne there, and that there­fore that time cannot be understood by this phrase of Malachy (as in the dayes of old and former yeares) — I passe by this question: to wit, of the meaning of the Prophet Malachy. Now had Austin simply sayd that our first Parents continued not many yeares in Paradise, there had beene some colour, as if he thought, Adam had continued some few yeares, or one yeare at least, in Paradise. But neither doth Austin deliver this as his owne opinion, but as the discourse of others; and that to proove that the words mentioned in Malachy, cannot denote the time of Adams being in Paradise; for as much as they speake of many yeares; but Adam continued not yeares in Paradise, which is proved by this, that he was driven from thence before he had begotten any sonne; which [Page 53] if it be referred to the conception of a child, as in reason it seemes to be, who seeth not that one day, or a night might have sufficed for that? So that all things considered, this place rather makes against Pererius then for him. In like sort, that which he alleageth out of Gregory is onely this, that Man in paradise was accustomed to the words of God, and conversed with the spirit of the blessed Angells; suppose it were so, and with God himselfe, so long as he continued in the state of integri­ty (yet I hope they will give way to the temptation of Sa­tan) yet how little or how long that time continued is not specified. Consider we now the reasons to the contrary, delivered partly by Pererius himselfe, partly by Doctor Willet upon Genesis. Who on the third Chapter of that booke proposeth them in this order. First, the Angells that fell, presently after their Creation sinned, as our Saviour saith, that the Divell did not stand or continue in the truth Ioh. 8.44. Here­unto Austin consenteth, Factus continuò se à luce veritatis a­vertit, as soone as he was made, presently he turned aside from the light of the truth: So it is likely that man also—And in­deed the inference from Angels to men in this particular, seemes to proceede from that which is lesse likely to that which is more likely. If the angells of themselves fell so soone, how much more likely is it, that both Satan would set himselfe with the first, to tempt them, and being tempted lesse strange it is that they should fall. But concerning the angells defection, it doth not follow, either by our Saviours phrase, or Austins phrase that either of them believed they fell so soone. But whensoever that was proposed unto them, which was the triall of their obedience; had they approoved of it and submitted unto Gods Will, that had beene or there­upon undoubtedly had followed their confirmation, as it was u no them that stood; and their not approoving it, their not submitting unto it was their sinne in part, though accor­ding to their spirituall nature, it might be in the highest de­gree of stomach and pride; like as their approbation there­of who obeyed was in an high degree of zeale and humility. Aquinas professeth it to be more profitable,Sum. Pt. 1. q. [...]3. art. 6. in. corper [...]. and more agree­able to the sayings of the Saints; that the Divell sinned anon after the first instant of his Creation. Secondly, Doctor [Page 54] Willets second argument is this;Ioh. 8.44. Our Saviour saith that the Devill was a murtherer from the beginning, not of the World, but of mans Creation, therefore at the very first he set upon them. But that phrase from the beginning doth not tie us to any such exact calculation. Thirdly, the subtilty of the Divell doth insinuate as much, who would then assault them, when they were least able to resist, before they by experience were confirmed in their obedience. In this I confesse there are two particulars of very momentous consideration. First, the Devills subtilty to set upon them, before they were possessed and taken up with an holy walking with God. Secondly, that continuance in an holy walking with God could not but confirme them, and make them more stedfast therein, having as yet no prin­ciple of the flesh in them to make resistance, and to suspect every motion that should arise to withdraw them from it. Fourthly, and it was fit, saith he, that man sinning should be cast out of paradise before he had fully tasted of the pleasure there­of, lest he afterward might be tormented with the losse, and at­temted to returne. This reason my palate doth not relish so well; the more Adam should be tormented with the losse of paradise, the better it should be for him in my judgement, rather then worse. And as for attempting to returne, I cannot conceave how he should be so vaine as to presume to evacuate Gods judgements, and then againe of any such paradise af­ter Adams banishment therence, wee read nothing. Fiftly, And it is cleare (saith Doctor Willet) by the Serpents first on set, hath God sayd ye shall not eate of every Tree? that they had not yet tasted of any fruit, but at the very first the forbidden fruit was offered, before their appetite had beene served with any other. But first I doe not finde, that the Text mentioned hath any such importment; Secondly, this supposeth, that the tast of other fruits would have beene apt to hinder the course of Satans temptations; but how? in respect of giving so good content and satisfaction, yea but this satisfaction was no o­ther then to the sensuall appetite; but the Tree forbidden in the very name of it (whence Satan tooke advantage to pro­mote his temptation) seemed to promise satisfaction in a far different kinde, namely to the spirituall appetite of the minde. 6. Adam (saith he) had not yet eaten of the Tree of life, as it [Page 55] is evident verse 21. But if they had stayed any time in paradise it is not unlikely, but they should have tasted of the tree of life, it being in the heart of paradise. This at first seemed to me very considerable; but upon after thoughts not so. For certain­ly it assured not life, but upon obedience and therefore with­out obedience the tasting thereof (if accessible in that case) would have stood him in small stead. 7. Likewise, saith he, seeing presently after the Creation they were bidden to encrease and multiply, it is no other like but the man should have known his wife in paradise, if they had stayed there so long, and so they should have gotten children without sin. This reason is not to be despised; although to stay a day or two in Paradise was not to stay there long. But considering that then they might company together without all sinne so much as in thought, or circumstance of act, (the want whereof makes even acts naturall in this condition of ours, shamefull unto us) why should they deferre the propagation of mankinde; especially considering that the child conceaved in the state of innocency should have beene without sinne. 8. The eighth reason is in effect the same with that of Broughtons; If Adam had not sin­ned the first day, the Lion had eaten Grasse; this in my judge­ment is a most insipid reason. First, because God had ordai­ned, that all beasts at the first should live by Grasse Gen. 1.30. Secondly, In the arke of Noah, Lions must have eaten Grasse or Hay, or else have starved, they had no power to prey upon their fellow passengers. Thirdly, if Lyons and Beares at first had lived by pray, even after Adams fall, what had become of the rest of Gods Creatures, Imbelles damae quid nisi praedae sumus? Lastly it is well knowne that in these dayes, in new England, Beares doe live by Grasse, and their flesh for mans meate is accompted better then Venison 9. Never any man on Earth, Christ only excepted, kept the Sabbath without sin: the Apostle saith, he that is entred into his rest hath also ceased from his own works, as God did from his, Hebr. 4.10. It is the rest only of Christ, where there shall be a cessation from all the works of sin. But that rest which Adam should have kept in paradise was not Christs rest: therefore he kept no rest there without sin, he fell then before the Sabbath. This argument I confesse seemes to be very ponderous and savoury, as built upon the Apostles [Page 56] discourse Heb. 4. But the proposition is not sufficiently pro­ved. For to cease from a mans owne workes (as they are taken from sinnes) is evidently competent to none but such as have formerly sinned, which cannot agree to Adam in the state of innocency. Yet it cannot be denyed, but that Adam continued in innocency and without sinne untill his fall. And so long rested from sinne, though not in Christ, save that to rest from sinne supposeth the precedency of sinne. But albeit this were granted, it followeth not that he fell before the Sabbath; for he might fall on the very Sabbath, which was the opinion of the author of the Jewes Darash, mentioned by Rabbi David Kimchi on the 92. Psalm. 10. That place lastly makes to this purpose, Psalme 49.13. Adam lodged not one night in honour; for so are the words if they be properly translated; the word is [...] which signifies to lodge or stay all night: and thus diverse of the Rabbins doe expound this place of Adam; and he quotes Rabbi Nathan. R. Menachem, and Midras Tehillim. It cannot be denied but this place is very pregnantly appliable unto Adam, as the first and chiefest ob­ject on whom this truth is verified; as being in the chiefest honour that ever man had on Earth, Lord of all the World, and the Father of mankinde, and placed in Paradise; and the verbe properly signifies pernoctare, to continue a night. Onely it is of the future tense, which yet to beare the signifi­cation of the time past is nothing strange in the Hebrew, though it hath not alwayes Vau conversivum, the signe of such conversion. And the very word Adam is here expressed, and we are very apt usually to accommodate unto Adam with­out all reference to this question, or consideration of the pro­priety of the Hebrew word signifying pernoctare. But let us re­turne to that from whence we have digressed. Be it so that Adam continued in his integrity untill the end of the seventh day; doe we not read expressely, Gen. 2.5. that God tooke the man and put him in the Garden of Eden, that he might dresse it and keepe it; therefore God had worke for him to doe, even in things of this World as well as hee hath for us. And Martin Luther professeth as much;Tom 6. in Gen. c. 2. v. 3. It followes from hence saith he, that if Adam had stood in his innocency, yet he should have kept the seventh day holy, that is, on that day he should have [Page 57] taught his children, and childrens children, what was the will of God and wherein his worship did consist, he should have pray­sed God, given thanks and offered. On other dayes he should have tilled the ground, looked to his Cattell. And Selncecerus treads in Luthers steps, treating upon the Commandement of the Sabbath. Why then should it be thought superfluous to ordaine some dayes for the works of this World, and one day for the service of God? And is it likely that Eve was about the service of God, when the Divell assaulted her? was shee not too neare the forbidden Fruit? it was within her sight, and the Fruit within her reach. 2. They urge that Va­cation from servile workes was then in vaine, seeing nothing could then be laborious and troublesome unto him. I answer; though it were no paine to him to keepe the Garden and dresse it; yet this must needs take up his thoughts while hee was about it, and many a Gentleman in these dayes finds lesse imployment then Adam had; will it therefore follow that the observation of the Sabbath is super­fluous?

3. The third reason is, that if this Commandement were then given, it should oblige all men; but it is plaine that the Gen­tiles never observed it, neither doe we reade the Patriarchs did. I answer, there is no soundnesse in all this. For touching the Gentiles, we have no History before the Flood, nor till a long time after; in which space of time, this Doctrine of the institution of the Sabbath being carried onely by tradition, might easily bee obliterated. The Scriptures Divine are the most ancient Records in the World; but it followes not, that because the Scriptures doe not Re­cord how the Patriarches did observe the Sabbath, there­fore they observed it not; but much rather, because, the Scriptures Record, that The Lord blessed the seventh Day, and sanctified it, therefore the Patriarches did ob­serve it. And the truth is, untill the comming of the Israelites out of Egypt, wee reade not of the Church of God any where but in single Families. Neither doe wee reade of the Patriarches before the Flood or a long time after that they kept any Day consecrate to GODS Ser­vice; will it therefore follow, that those holy Patri­archs [Page 58] did set no time at all apart for Gods ervice? yet is it generally acknowledged as by the light of nature, that some time ought to be set apart for Divine service. And formerly I have shewed out of Manasses Ben Israel, that whereas the Lord enjoyning to the Israelites the observation of the Sabbath, bids them remember that they were servants in Egypt; this the antient wise men among the Jewes doe ap­ly in this manner, Cogita in Egypto ubi serviebas, etiam ipsu Sabbato per vim te coactum ad labores; thinke with thy selfe, how that in Egypt where thou servedst, that by force thou wast con­strained to worke, even on the Sabbath. So that the observation of the Sabbath was a duty even in those dayes. Observe far­ther that in the fourth Commandement, the Jewes are char­ged to looke unto it, not onely that their children and their servants did observe the Sabbath, but also, the stranger that was within their gates. Now these kinde of strangers com­monly called Strangers of the gate, and thereby distinguished from Strangers of the Covenant; were such as were not cir­cumcised, though accompted Proselytes in the first dege e. And on them was usually imposed no other burthen, besides the observation of the seven precepts of Noah, as Schindler observes upon the roote [...]. Which seven precepts of Noah are also reckoned up by the same Schindler in the roote [...]; and albeit the observation of the Sabbath were none of them expresse; yet in as much as the Lord gives expresse charge that the strangers within their Gates should observe the Sab­bath, it seemes it was comprehended under one of them; And therefore some thinke it was comprehended under that which was called [...] Benedictio Dei; that is, the worship of no other God, but the Creator of Heaven and Earth; and by name, my worthy friend Master Joseph Mede; as I have seene in a Manuscript of his touching the interpretation of the word [...] in the Acts; and hereof he gives this reason; namely that the observation of the seventh day was the badge of this, namely of worshipping the Creator of Heaven and Earth, ac­cording to that, the Sabbath is a signe between me and you, that I Jehovah am your God, because in six dayes the Lord made Heaven and Earth, the Sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh. Now if the observation of the Sabbath were [Page 59] comprehended under the seven precepts of Noah, undoub­tedly it was in force, and practise amongest the Patriarchs, and that not only after, but before the flood; for undoubted­ly they all worshipped the Lord God Creator of Heaven, and Earth. 2. We have notable evidence for the observati­on of the Sabbath Day, even among the Gentiles. And first, the distinction of the whole course of time into weekes, for the antiquity thereof is remarkable, and now lately justified by Rivetus against Gomarus with great variety of learned obser­vation, and that especially by Claudius Salmasius that re­nowned Scholar and Antiquary, one of them who with great instance urged Rivetus not to suffer Gomarus to passe unan­sweared in this point. It is true, as Rivetus observes, that Causabon writing upon Suetonius l. 3. 52. and upon these words, Diogenes the Gramarian was wont to dispute at Rhodes on the Sabbath, professeth his opinion, that the observation of weekes now a dayes generally receaved; was not commonly recea­ved before the dayes of Theodosius, though he confesseth, that long before it was in use among the Grecians, especially those of Asia. Yet Rivet makes it good, and that out of Ter­tullian, that long before it was in use among the Latines. Ioannes Philoponus in his Commentary upon the History of the Creation, a book commended by Photius in his Bibliotheca. lib. 7. cap. 14. and lately set forth at Vienna in Austria, writes thus; All men doe agree in this, that there are seven dayes only, which by revolution in themselves doe complete whole time, whereof what reason can wee give, but that which Moses gave? to wit, that in six dayes the Lord made the World, and rested the seventh. And Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius prove the same out of Homer, [...], The seventh day was that, wherein all things were finished; and out of Callimachus, and out of Linus in diverse passages to the same purse, as Rivetus hath shewed in his an­swer to Gomarus. And further, that in the French Kings library, there is a Chronology of George Syncellus, from Adam to Dioclesian; wherein Salmasius observes, that the computa­tion of times by weekes was before the computation of times by moneths and yeares was found out by Astrologers; and that the ancient fathers distinguished the spaces of times [Page 60] only by weekes: and that the Caldean Astrologers having ob­served the course of the Sunne, Moone, and other planets were the first that bestowed on the seven dayes of the weeke the names of the planets; and that by the testimony of an antient au­thor Manuscript. Zoroastres and Hystaspis were the authors of these demonstrations. But that this circuit of seven dayes was in use before Zoroastres and the first authors of Astrology. But the Jewes kept themselves as to the distinction of times by weekes, so to call the dayes by their order, the first, the second; and that the Pythagoreans did the like—and called the first day of the weeke [...] like as the Hellenists called it [...]. In the yeare, 1627. There was set forth a book at Venice (as the same Doctor Rivet writes) intitled Thesaurus praeceptorum Isaaci Atiae Iudaei; in the first part whereof and 157. praecept touching the Sabbath, he writes to this effect, that the holinesse of that sacred day is so well known, that it were superfluous to use many words in the explication thereof; seeing it is found to have impression in the very hearts of the Heathens themselves; becaase there is none that knoweth not, that when his highnesse to whom none can approch, built this wonderfull frame, he rested on the seventh day. 2. And thus ere I am aware, I am fallen upon the holinesse of the day, acknowledged generally by the Heathens themselves as this Jewish writer conceaved. Theophilus Antiochenus an antient Father in his second booke written to Autolycus, acknowledgeth the celebrity of this day amongst all men, though the reason thereof was not so well known to most; to wit as drawn from Gods rest on that day after he had created the World. Tertullian also acknow­ledged the Heathens to solemnize the seventh much after the same manner that the Jewes did; confirmed by the learned observation of Iacobus Godefridus, notwithstanding some ex­ceptions made against it. And that this was the practise of the Romans he proves farther out of Tibullus and Ovid, name­ly that they did feriari rest on the Saturday as the Jewes did. And Manasses Ben Israel in his 35. question upon Exodus writes thus, Ne Agareni quidem, Veneris diem religiosissimè colentes quem Algama vocant, Sabbato nomen, suum eripue­runt: hauddubiè ita providente Deo, ut omnium animis aeterni­tas ejus imprimeretur. The very Agarenes, most religiously ob­serving [Page 61] the Friday, which they call Algama, have taken from the Sabbath its name: doubtlesse God so providing, that the eternity thereof should be imprinted in the minds of all men; Be­like as a testimony of Gods rest from his workes in the Crea­tion, therewithall to maintaine an acknowledgement of God the Creator. More then this, Salmasius acquainted Rivetus with some collections made by the forementioned Georgius Symellus out of certaine apocryphall bookes, one whereof is called [...], the litle generation, the other [...], the life of Adam, in which the author observes through many weeks, that the seventh day was a day of rest; and that he concea­ved the author of that booke to have been a Jew, translated by some Hellenist, who makes mention of the Lords Day: And Doctor Willet alleageth Philo calling the seventh day [...], a festivall of all Nations. So little neede have wee to sticke upon that in Hesiod, [...], the seventh is an holy day; which some observe to have beene spoken, not of the seventh day of the weeke, but of the seventh day of the moneth rather, wherein Apollo was borne (which yet is al­leaged by Clement and Eusebius as for the seventh day of the weeke) what is wanting herein, being so plentifully sup­plyed other wayes.) And whereas Gomarus being convict­ed of the evidence of this truth, betakes himselfe to a new course, as to say that this practise of Heathens was taken from the Jewes, and not from the ancient Patriarchs; Doctor Ri­vetus brings a manifest place out of Iosephus to refute that conceite of his; As who professeth that this custome of the Gentiles had beene [...] long agoe. And how unlikely is it, that either the Egyptians, or the Nations bordering up­on the Jewes should take this from the Jewes, when we con­sider Solitum inter accolas odium, as Tacitus observes, the ac­customed hatred between borderers; Hist. lib. 1. especially between the seed of the Woman, and the seed of the Serpent 1 Cor. 2.14.; and how distastfull the things of God are unto naturall men, even folishnesse un­to them, neither can they know them, because they are spiritually discerned. And Homer, and Linus, and Callimachus, fetch the seventh day from the very Creation, as whereon the making of all things was finished. I come at length to the fourth Argument.

[Page 62] 4 If the Patriarches had observed the Sabbath, Moses would have mentioned the religious observation thereof by their an­cestors, to encourage them. I answer 1. it is not likely they were ignorant of the practise of their ancestors. The Chaldee pa­raphrase upon the Psal. 92. supposeth Adam to have beene the author of the Psalm that is intitled for the Sabbath. 2. If for Gods sake who delivered them out of Egypt, they would not observe it, neither would they observe it for their an­cestors sake. 3. Moses makes no mention of their ancestors practise in setting apart any time for the service of God; shall we therefore deny that by the suggestion of light naturall some time is to be set apart for this?

5 The Fathers professe that no other positive precept was given to Adam then to abstein from the Fruit of a certaine Tree. I an­swer, Chrysostome professeth expressely, that from the be­ginning God hath shewed that one day in the circle of the weeke is to bee set apart for spirituall operation; Likewise the testimonies of Athanasius and Epiphanius are expresse for the acknowledgment of the institution of the Sabbath immediately from the Creation, as before hath beene shewed. Indeede both as touching the setting apart of some time in ge­nerall for Gods service, and the proportion of one day in seven in speciall, is more then positive.

6 Divines teach that before Christs comming the Gentiles might obtaine salvation by observing the morall Law, and the Law of nature, with some light of Divine faith, and supernaturall as­sistance of God. I answer. 1. of what reputation those Divines hee speaks of, deserve to bee with us, let every Protestant judge. 2. yet wee know that the Gentiles might have evidence enough of the holinesse of the seventh day; and that God left not himselfe without witnesse in this, even to Heathens is so notorious, that we may justly wonder, to observe how the monuments of the dignity of the seventh day were so strangely preserved among them. 3. Yet where testimony suf­ficient was wanting not onely for the particularity of the day, but for the proportion of time; wee doe not hold these to be morall so absolutely, and in such a degree, as to say that failing in this alone in such a case should prejudice any mans salvation; though we say with Chrysostome that God [Page 63] by the story of the Creation hath sufficiently manifested that one day in the weeke ought to be set apart for Gods Service; and with Azorius the Jesuite, that it is most agreeable to reason, that after six worke dayes one day intire and whole should bee consecrated to divine worship.

2. From Papists this Prefacer proceedes to Protestants, and 2 tells us that this seemes to be the judgement of the Divines in the Low-Countries; for proofe whereof he produceth none but Gomarus and Rivetus; both which are well knowne to be opposite in the point of the originall institution of the Sab­bath. And as touching the morality of one day in seven, both Wallaeus and Thysius two professors of Divinity in the Univer­sity of Leyden, are well known to differ from them both; and Hyperius a low Countreyman too. As for Calvin, I have alrea­dy shewed how he makes nothing for this Prefacer; and that they catch advantage from him most unreasonably by dis­membring him. Wallaeus shewes the same to be the judgement of Martin Luther, namely, that one day in the weeke at least ought to bee consecrated to Divine Service; and out of Me­lancthon, that all the ceremoniality in the fourth Commande­ment is restrained to the observation of a certaine day, that which remaines besides therein commanded continuing mo­rall.In Apoc. 1.10. Beza likewise affirmes that the sanctifying of every se­venth day as touching the Service of God, is of morall obli­gation and unremoveable. The like Wallaeus shewes to have beene the judgement of Bucer, Peter Martyr, Zanchy, Iunius, Viretus Calvins Colleague, Danaeus, Antonius Fayns, Matthias Martinius, and in a manner all that have written upon their Belgick Catechisme. By this, the Reader may consider the modesty of this Prefacer, when hee professeth that it seemes to bee the judgement of the Divines in the Low-Countries, that one day in seven to be set apart for Gods solemn worship is not of the morality of the fourth Commandement. But Wallaeus proceeds and shewes the same to have been the judge­ment of Ʋrsinus, and Paraeus of the Palatinate; of Alstedius Professor at Herborne; together with Lansbergius and Festus Hommius, all maintaining the morality of one day in seven, to bee consecrated to Divine Service. And in the close pro­fesseth, hee could adde the testimonies of many English [Page 64] and Scottish Divines, who ever have beene accompted Or­thodox, concurring in judgement with the former on this point.

[...]vestig. Sab. cap. 5. sect. 4.Last of all consider, what is Gomarus his owne opinion; to wit, that we are not so precisely bound to this proporti­on of time, but that wee may allow a better. The condition of Divine worship (saith he) commanded in the fourth Com­mandement requires that not only certaine dayes (for order and for Gods better service sake) be observed, but also that suffi­cient dayes be observed; it cannot be inferred from this that God hath not defined a certaine day to us, that it is indifferent whe­ther we make choyce of one in fifty, or in an hundred, or one in a thousand. Sect. 5. Then proceeding to define what are sufficient, hee acknowledgeth that the dayes set apart for this must bee ei­ther as frequent or more frequent, then one day in seven. And in this answer of Gomarus to an argument of Wallaeus made for the morality of one day in seven doth Rivetus rest;Explicat. decalog p. 486. name­ly that to us who are eased of the burthen of Iewish ceremonies, the dayes consecrated to Divine Service may be more, they may not be fewer. And addes of his own, that we cannot in charity require of our servants the labour of so many dayes (to wit of six) without some rest. As for the seconds which this Pre­facer saith Gomarus brings, to wit Vatablus, and Wolfgangus Musculus, this is nothing to the present purpose. For these are not brought in by him in the point of the morality of one day in seven, but onely in the point of the originall in­stitution of the Sabbath; but this is his jugling course to mendicate some shew of authority to serve his turne where sub­stance falleth him.

3 3. As for the Hollanders who in travailing about the World Westward had lost a day, that is, came to observe our Christian Sabbath one day too late; when this Prefacer askes hereupon, what should those people doe when they were returned; I will not answer by advising them to travaile the World over againe Eastward, that they may finde the day which they had lost, by travailing round the World West­ward; much lesse that they should renew their travailes the same way till they had lost six dayes more, that so their Sab­bath might concurre with the Sabbath of their Countrey­men [Page 65] at home: but according to the particulars proposed by him; namely to concurre now with their Countrymen a day before their time, that so they might make amends for that time which they had lost, if any neede of amends, and not rather for uniformities sake. For when in the dayes of Joshuah the Sunne standing still one day was as long as two dayes, yet this was nothing materiall to the altering of their Sabbath, much lesse when the Sunne went backe 10. degrees in the diall of Ahaz, while King Hezechiah reigned. No sober man I thinke will say, the morall Law was broken by this, though one weeke in Josuahs dayes contained more time by 12. houres, then any former weeke, and another weeke in King Hezechiahs dayes was found to bee many houres longer then his fellowes.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To this I reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 78]To this I answer.

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

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

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

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

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

Next for the second Thesis,Preface. that the alteration of the day is onely an humane and Ecclesiasticall constitution, the Doctor sheweth in the first Section, the generall consent of all sorts of Papists, Jesuites, Canonists, and Schoolemen; of some great Lutheranes by names, and generally of the re­monstrant or Arminian Divines in their confession, whose tendries in this point, wee may conceave with reason, not to bee different from the Doctrine of the Belgicke Churches, in that foure professors of Leyden, in their examination or re­view of that confession, have passed them over without note or opposition. To these besides are added diverse of our own, Et è nostris non pauci, as hee speakes it in the generall, that is, as I conceave his meaning such as are neither of the Lutheran, nor of the Arminian party: of which since he hath instan­ced in none particularly, I will make bold to borrow two or three testimonies, out of the tractate of Gomarus before re­membred. And first hee brings in Bullenger, who in his comment on the first of the Revelation, calls it Ecclesiae con­suetudinem, an Ecclesiasticall Ordinance, and after addes, Sponte Ecclesiae receperunt illum diem. The Church did of its owne accord agree upon that day; for wee reade not any where that it was commanded. Next Ʋrsinus telling us, that God had abrogated the Iewish Sabbath, addes presently, that hee left it free unto the Church, Alios dies eligere, to make choise of any other day to be selected for his service: and that the Church made choyse of this in honour of our Sa­viours Resurrection. Zanchius affirmes the same; Nullibi le­gimus Apostolos, &c. We reade not any where, saith hee that the Apostles did command this day to bee observed in the Church of God; onely wee finde what the Apostles, and others of the faithfull used to doe upon it, Liberum ergo re­liquerunt, which is an argument that they left it holy to the disposition of the Church. Aretius, Sin [...]ler, David Paraeus, [Page 84] and 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 onely, (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 onely 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 onely, but that a fit, and competent proportion of time is to bee consecrated to holy uses, as Gomarus acknowledgeth, though one of the most eager opposers of the morality of the Sabbath, that hitherto have beene knowne. Albeit this convenient proportion of time cannot bee so convincingly concluded upon by the light of nature, as to draw all to an unanimous consent thereunto; yet after God himselfe hath gone before us herein by blessing the seventh day and sanctifying [...]; and that upon the ground mentioned both Gen. 2. and in the fourth Commandement; henceforth as Chrysostome ob­serveth, [Page 85] God hath manifested, that one day in seven is to be set apart; I may say consequently, that one day in seven is that fit proportiō of time which is to be sanctified to Gods holy wor­ship and service, and that God hath now manifested as much ever since the Creation. And (herupon as I imagin) Azorius the Jesuite in his institutions is bold to conclude, that this course is most agreeable unto reason. Now if the Lord under the Law did require such a proportion of time to be sequestred from profan use to Divine, at the hands of the Iewes; can it enter into the heart of a sober man, that God should require lesse of us Christians under the Gospell, then he did require of the Jewes under the Law? Or that God hath now left it to the liberty of the Church, whether they will set apart the proportion of one day in seven or lesse, to bee spent in Gods worship? If wee consider the service of the day, as whereby God is ho­noured, undoubtedly God hath deserved more service at our hands under the Gospell, then hee did at the hands of the Jewes under the Law; for as much as the love of God to man­kinde was never so revealed in former times, as in these latter times; So God loved the World that he gave his only begottet Sonne, &c. And hereupon undoubtedly it is that our Savi­our professeth, that from the time of Iohn the Baptist, the Kingdome of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. To such an height of devotion hath the Love of God manifested in his Sonne inflamed his true servants; ac­cording to that of Iohn, We love him because he loved us first. Againe if wee consider the service of that day, as such wher­by our soules are profited and promoted in faith and holi­nesse, never was there more need then in these dayes of sancti­fying a better proportion of time unto God Service, rather then a worse; and that in each respect. For the truth of God was never so encombred with oppositions before the comming of our Saviour in the flesh as it hath beene since. No heretiques (to speake of) were knowne to trouble the peace of the Church, in those former times in comparison to the multitude of heresies that have beene broached since, and began to bee set on foote in the very dayes of the Apostles; Saint Paul professing that even then the mystery of iniquity [Page 86] did 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 onely 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, [Page 87] as onely by an humane and Ecclesiasticall constitution; ob­serve that not one of the ancient Fathers are mentioned by him for the justifying of this, though divers are referred un­to by him, as against the institution of the Sabbath from the Creation. But wee have divers of the ancients bearing witnesse to the Divine institution of the Lords day, to come in place of the seventh. As first Athanasius Homil. de Semente. Olim certe priscis hominibus in summo pretio Sabbatum fuit, quam quidem solemnitatem Dominus in diem Dominicum tran­stulit. Heretofore truly the Sabbath was in great price, with men of old time, which solemnity the Lord hath translated unto the Lords Day, Austine hath divers other passages to the same purpose de civitate dei. lib. 22. cap. ult. Dominicus dies velut octavus aeternus, qui Christi Resurrectione sacratus est, aeter­nam non solum Spiritus, verumetiam corporis requiem prafigu­rans. The Lords Day as the eighth eternall which was sacred by Christs Resurrection, prefiguring an eternall rest, not of the spirit only, but of the body also; and in his Ep. 119. ad Ianuarium, The Lords Day is declared not to the Iewes, but to Christians by the Lords Resurrection, and from thence began to have its festivity; and de verbis Apostoli Sermo. 15. The Lords Resur­rection promised unto us an eternall day, and hath consecrated to us the Lords Day, which is called the Lords, because the Lord rose on that day, and de Temp. Serm. 251. The Apostles and Apostolicall men, have therefore ordained the Lords day to be kept with a religious solemnity, because on that day our redeemer rose from the dead. Cyril. in Joan. lib. 12. cap. 58. From Christ presenting himself unto his Apostles on the eighth day, which hee interpreteth of the first day of the weeke, concludes there­hence that by right therefore holy Congregations are kept in the Churches on that day. And as Walaeus observes, the cele­brity of this day Eusebius referres to Christ himselfe in these words, Who ever prescribed to all the inhabitants of the World either by Sea or Land, that meeting together one day in the weeke, they should celebrate the Dominicall festivity. Athan. on that of Mat. 11.27. All things are given to me of my Father. Adde to this that of Gregory mentioned Section the 1. Nay Atha­nasius goes further, and shewes the equity of it in propor­tion to the new Creation compared with the old; The end [Page 88] of the first Creation was the Sabbath; but the beginning of the second Creature is the Lords Day, wherein hee renewed and re­payred the old man. Like as therefore in former times he would have the Sabbath day to be kept, so we keepe holy the Lords Day as a monument of the beginning of the second Creation. And this proportion is apprehended by Beza also, on the Revelation the first Chap. and 10. verse. That Sabbath day (saith hee) continued from the Creation of the World to the Lords resurrecti­on, which seeing it is as it were an other Creation of another spirituall World (as the Prophets speake) then for the Sabbath of the former World, or seventh day was assumed (and that undoubtedly by the Holy Ghost suggesting this to the Apostles) the first day of this new World, in which not the corporall or cor­ruptible light, in the first day of the first World was created: but that heavenly and eternall light did spring unto us. In all which Beza doth exactly treade in the steps of that ancient Father Athanasius, and concludes that the assemblies of the Lords Day (which Justine expresly makes mention of in his second Apologetium) are of tradition apostolicall and truly Divine. And after him Doctor Andrewes late Bishop of Winchester, whom Doctor Hall now Bishop of Exceter some where calls the Oracle of these times upon the same ground, maintaines the equity of bringing our Lords Day into the place of the Jewish Sabbath.

In his speech in the Starre Chamber, against Traske. The Sabbath (saith hee) had reference to the old Creation, but in Christ we are a new Creature, a new Creation, and so to have a new Sabbath. And againe, It hath ever beene the Churches doctrine that Christ made an end of all Sabbaths by his Sabbath in the Grave. That Sabbath was the last of them.— And that the Lords Day presently came in place of it. And for the confirmation hereof brings in that of Austin Ep. 119 ad Ianuarium: The Lords Day by Christs Resurrection hath beene declared unto Christians, and from that time began to have its festivity. These Theses of his were written as it seemes in op­position to Broade. Doctor Lakes Bishop of Wells maintaines the same Doctrine after the same manner in his Theses de Sabbato, thes. 27. Man having sinned, and so by sinne abolished the first Crea­tion De jure, though not de facto; God was pleased by Christ to make a new instauration of the World. 28. He (as the Scripture [Page 89] speakes 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 [Page 90] day according to the Law were abrogated by the death of Christ. Now for the prescription of this day before any other of se­ven, they had without doubt either the expresse commandement of Christ before his ascension when he gave them precepts concerning the Kingdome of God, and the order and government of the Church, Acts 1.2. or else the certaine direction of his Spirit, that it was his will and pleasure it should be so, and that also according to the Scrip­tures. And observe how in the words following he falls in upon the same reason of the change of the day which of old was mentioned by Athanasius (formerly rehearsed) herein by Beza, Doctor Andrews, D. Lake, as I have already shewed. Seeing there is the same reason of sanctifying the day in which our Saviour Christ accomplished our redemption, and the restitution of the world by his resurrection from death, that was of sanctifying the day in which the Lord rested from the creation of the world. And after many lines nothing necessary to be recited, he comes to the comparison made be­tweene the Lords Day and other Festivalls, saying: Although the Church in dayes or times which are indifferent, may take order for some other dayes or times to be solemnized for the exercises of Religion; or the remembrance of Christs nativity, resurrection, ascension, or the comming of the holy Ghost, may be celebrated either on the Lords Day, or any other time: yet there is great difference between the authority of the Church in this case, and the prescription of the Lords Day by the Apostles for the speciall memory of those things are indifferent of their nature, either to be kept on certaine daies, or left to the discretion of the Governours of the Church. But to change the Lords Day, or to keepe it on Mun­day, Tuesday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe, delivered to us by his Apostles. And againe, in the next place: The cause of this change, it was not our estima­tion, that either we have, or ought to have of our redemption be­fore our creation, but the Ordinance of God, who, as first he sancti­fied the rest from creation for the glory of that weeke: so now also he sanctifieth the day of the restitution of the world for his glo­ry of the accomplishment of our redemption. Thus wee have not onely authority Humane, but authority Divine for the al­teration of the Day, and that by the testimony of more Bi­shops [Page 91] antient 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 onely an hu­mane and Ecclesiasticall institution. For, in that Section, he one­ly opposeth them, who would derive the Divine authority (which they stand for) of the alteration of the Day from the old Testament: but as for those who derive the Divine autho­rity thereof from the new, they hee confesseth, doe carry themselves herein more warily, the other more weakly, and them alone he disputes against in that Section. In the sixth Section, he comes to the deriving thereof from the new Testa­ment; and first he challengeth them, who boast that they have found the insti ution of the Lords Day in the new Testament expressely, to shew the place. Then in the often disputations of our Saviour with the Pharisees about their superstitious ob­servation of the Sabbath Day, he demands where is the least suspicion of the abrogation of it; or any mention that the Lords Day was instituted in the place thereof? And indeed, the time hereof was not yet come; onely the death of Christ setting an end to ceremonies. Then he demands whether the Apostles did not keepe the Jewish Sabbath? now, I doe not find they did, although they tooke occasions of their meetings on that day to dispute with them, and to instruct them in the Faith of Christ. Then he demands, whether the Primitive Church did not designe as well the Sabbath as the Lords Day to sacred meetings? I find in Baronius, Baron. tom. 1. pag. 517. that Orthodoxi Orien­tales did, and the occasion also, to wit, in detestation of the Marcionites; yet without any such respect, it had been no­thing strange, considering, that even now adayes Saturday is counted halfe holy day; and that the Jewes had a preparation for the Sabbath, in such sort, that on their behalfe, Augustus made a rescript, that no Jewes should be compelled to make good their suretiships (as much to say,Baron. tom. 1. pag. 148. they should not be arrested) either on the Sabbath dayes, or after three a clocke of the day going before. Hereupon (which is yet a very weake ground in my judgement) he saith, that Papists inferre, that the Lords Day is not of Divine institution; he doth not [Page 92] make 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 onely; 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 onely at Corinth, but in the Churches of Galatia: how improbable is it that this uniformity should be among them, unlesse it pro­ceeded [Page 93] from some authority superiour to the Churches them­selves: then comming to consider the denomination of the Lords Day, and concluding it to be the first day of the weeke, and therewithall concluding that sixth Section: the seventh Section he begins thus; what then? Shall we affirme that the Lords Day is founded in Divine authority? and answers the question thus: For my part (without prejudice to any mans opinion) I assent unto it, however the arguments like me not, whereby the opinion is supported, and so he proceeds in pro­secuting of that which was affirmed by him, in the last place, concerning his private dislike of some particular courses taken to justifie it. He opposeth, I grant, expresse institution; but if by just consequence it may be deduced, it serveth our turne, both in the generall and in particular at this time and in this place, to discover the immodest and unreasonable carriage of this Prefacer, who would obtrude the contrary opinion upon Doctor Pride aux, as it were, in despite of him; And indeed, it is thought that hee owed him a spight, and to pay that hee owed him, hee came to this translation. But herein the Doctors honour is easily preserved in the despight of this Pre­facer; yet see a greater degree of impudency in this Prefa­cer. For he puts upon the Doctor, as if hee had shewed the alteration of the day to be onely an humane and Ecclesiasti­call institution, by the generall consent of all sorts of Papists, Jesuits,Azorius institut. Part. 2. l. 1. c. 2. Canonists and Schoole-men of some great Lutherans by name, whereas it is plaine, that he mentioneth more Pa­pists maintaining the Lords Day to be of Divine institution, then opposing it. And amongst them that maintaine it, one, to wit, Sylvester, professeth it to be opinionem comm [...]n [...]m, not one avouched as affirming the contrary. And as for the great Lutherans this Author speaketh of, loving to speake with a full mouth, they are but one, and that Brentius, who is said to affirme it to be a civill ordinance, and not a commandement of the Gospel; a very strange phrase (in my opinion) to call it a civill ordinance; the ordinance being in force many hun­dred yeeres before the Church of God had any civill govern­ment of their own, and being in the Apostles dayes how could it be lesse than Apostolicall? undoubtedly not so much civill [Page 94] as 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 onely observed by the Apostles, but that it may seeme also to be instituted by Christ himselfe: Bullenger saith, sponte receperunt, to wit, in oppo­sition to an expresse Precept, as appeares by that which im­mediately followeth; Non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam, we doe not reade it any where commanded. Ʋrsine alleged in the next place clearely professeth in the very place quoted by Gomarus, that God it is who hath abrogated the observation of the se­venth day, but he addes, that he left it free to the Church to choose other daies, which (Church) upon a probable cause, chose the first day, which was the day of Christs resurrection. [Page 77] Now what Church was it but Apostolica Ecclesia, as Paraeus upon Ʋrsinus Catechisme observes, p. 665. Pro libertate sibi à Christo donatâ pro septima die elegit diem primum propter pro­babilem causam out of the liberty which Christ hath given them, insteed of the seventh day chose the first day of the weeke, by rea­son of a probable cause, to wit, because on that day Christ rose, by whose resurrection, Rom. 1.4. the spirituall and eternall rest is inchoated in us, and p. 666. Apostoli ipsi mutarunt Sabbatum septimi diei. The Apostles themselves changed the Sabbath of the se­venth day. By the way touch we a little upon this, that, First, this was done in reference to Christs resurrection: so Calvin acknowledgeth in reference whereunto this day had some pre­rogative above the rest, to wit in the way of fitnesse, for holy use, because of the worke of God on that day. Whence it is evidently concluded, that the Apostles did not thinke it indifferent, therefore though it were left to their liberty, in as much as no Commandement was given to them thereabout for ought wee reade, yet by the spirit of God, they were direct­ed to make choyse of this day, and that in reference to such a worke on that day, as the like on no other. Not that the sanctifying of a rest on this day would make us more holy, then the sanctifying of a rest on any other day: but onely 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 onely. Secondly, That both Ʋrsine and Paraeus call this a probable reason onely: 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 onely the day whereon Christ rose, but answerably hereunto the Day of the weeke, to wit, the first Day of the weeke was accompted by the Apostles, and so commonly called the Lords Day; and generally knowne to Christians by that name: otherwise S. Iohn had not beene so well understood in his Revelation chap. 1. vers. 10. Is it not apparent that Christs rising did ever after give the denomination of the Lords Day, to the first day of the weeke? Againe the day of Christs Pas­sion [Page 96] upon the Crosse, is not called the Lords day; and why the day of the Resurrection rather? surely because S. Paul saith that Christ was declared mightily to be the Sonne of God by the spirit of sanctification in his Resurrection from the dead. Rom. 1.4. 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 moneth or that day of the yeare whereon the Lord rose, wee no where finde that it was usu­ally called the Lords Day, but onely 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 onely 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 onely probable? 2. yet all [Page 97] this is but a posteriori, which yet for the evidence of it, I pre­sume most sufficient for the convicting of every sober & Chri­stian conscience of that truth, to the demonstration whereof it tends; I come to give a reason hereof à priori. The first creati­on in the wisedome of God (who proceeds not merely accor­ding unto probable reason) drew after it a Sabbath day, the seventh day where on God rested. But if God vouchsafeth us a new creation in the same congruity, may wee not justly ex­pect a new Sabbath? Now, the Apostle tells us plainly, that old things are passed away, and that all things are become new, 2 Cor. 5.17. and this he brings in upon shewing what Christ hath deserved at our hands, in as much as he died for us, and rose againe, vers. 15. the end whereof was this, that he might be Lord both of quicke and dead, Rom. 14.9. and concludes, that whosoever is in Christ, is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5.17. And how are we in Christ, but by faith? Gal. 2.20. And what is the object of this our faith? let the same Apostle an­swer us, If thou confesse with the mouth the Lord Jesus, and be­lieve in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: so that this faith in Christs resurrection, is to us the beginning of a new creature. And Christs resurrection Sedu­lius calls nas [...]ntis mundi primordium. And Athanasius saith, That as the Sabbath was the end of the first creation; so the Lords Day is the beginning of the second creature. And this is it that Bishop Andrewes and Bishop Lake doe worke upon for the celebration of the Lords Day as by Divine institution. But I am not a little sensible of some appearance of incongrui­ty rising hereupon. Almighty God did not thinke it fit, that the first day of creation should be our Sabbath, but the seventh from the creation, as whereon himselfe rested; but in the se­cond creation, the first day is made our Sabbath. To this I answer two things; the first is this: if man should not rest unto God till the second creation is finished, hee should not rest at all in this world. And the sixe dayes being the dayes of Gods worke; the seventh was the first of mans worke, which God would have to be an holy worke most convenient where­by to take livery and seasin of the world. For, albeit God commanded Adam to dresse the garden and keepe it, when [Page 98] he 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; onely 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 onely from the reproach of the world, but from the weaknesse of his servants faith,Acts 24. whose voyce was, wee thought it had been he, who should have redeemed Israel.

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

Adde unto these Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. lib. 7. p. 603. Col. 1. but that which they object (saith hee) concerning the Lords Day not as yet instituted in the time of John, is most false, the consent of the whole Church disclaiming it, which doth beleeve the solemnity of the Lords Day was appointed by the Appostles themselves in memory of the Lords Resurrection: concerning the in­stitution whereof by the Apostles Austin Ser. 25. de temp. testifyeth in these words: therefore the Apostles themselves, & Apostolicall men, appointed that the Lords Day should for that reason bee religiously solemnized, because on it our Re­deemer rose from the dead. In the last place come wee to our Divines. Now Bucer I have already shewed to stand for us ra­ther then for him. 2. And Calvin expresly acknowledgeth that the Apostles did change the day. 3. Beza upon Re. 1. v. 10. hath an excellent passage to the same purpose. For hee considers Christs resurrection to bee as it were a second crea­tion of a World spirituall, and thereupon doubts not but that the spirit of God did suggest unto them the change of the seventh day into the Lords day, as to bee consecrated to Divine Service. 4. Iunius on Gen. 2. writes that the cause of the change of the day was the resurrection of Christ, and the benefit of instauration of the Church in Christ. The com­memoration of which benefit succeeded to the commemorati­on of the Creation, not by humane tradition, but by the ob­servation of Christ himselfe, and his institution. 5. Piscator on Exod. 20.10. It is to bee observed that the circumstance of the seventh day, in celebrating the Sabbath is abolished by [Page 102] Christ; 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 [Page 103] at 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely practise but precept also for it; from the first of the Epistle to the Corin. [Page 104] cap. 16.2. For albeit the Apostle there doth expressely con­stitute onely an order for collections for the poore on the day of their meeting, yet as Piscator observes, it cannot bee de­nied but that undoubtedly as touching the time of their meet­ing they were therein ordered also by S. Paul, as they were about the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper. And ac­cordingly, Paraeus in the very passage alleaged by Gomarus, doth take that place of 1 Cor. 16.2. to notifie, that the very time of their meeting there specified, was by the ordi­nance of S. Paul.

Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath and Wells, in his Theses de Sabbato, Thes. 34. The Apostles directed by Christs not only example, but spirit also, observed the same; witnesse in the Acts, S. Paul, S. John in the Revelation. 38. And from the Apostles the Catholique Church uniformly receaved it, witnesse all Eccle­siasticall writers. 39. And the Church hath receaved it not to be liberae observationis, as if men might at their pleasure accept or refuse it, 40. but to be perpetually observed to the Worlds end. For as God only hath power to apportion his time: so hath he power to set out the day that he will take for his portion. For he is Lord of the Sabbath. 8. Master Fox upon the Rev. 1. v. 10. professeth, that the observation of the Lords Day doth Niti authoritate institutionis Apostolicae, depend upon the autho­rity of Apostolicall institution. 9. Walaeus dissert. de Sab. p. 172. we conclude (saith hee) this first day of the weeke, was by the Apostles put in the place of the Sabbath, and commended to the Church, not only by a power ordinary, competent to all pastors for the ordering of indifferent rites in their Churches; but by a singular power also; as who had the oversight of the whole Churches; and who as extraordinary Ministers of Christ, were by the holy Ghost, put in trust, that they might be faithfull, not only for the delivering of certaine precepts concerning faith, and manners, but also as touching upright ordering of the Church: that so it might be made known to all Christians every where what day in the weeke was to be kept, by vertue and Analogy of the fourth Commandement, least dissension thereabouts and (con­sequently) confusion might arise in the Church of God: and to this purpose hee alleageth Beza before mentioned; and Gal­lesius, [Page 105] Calvins Collegue on Exod. 31. This ordinance, to wit, that the Lords Day should be substituted in the place of the Sab­bath, we have re [...]aved (saith hee) not from men, but from the Apostles, that is, from the Spirit of God, whereby they were governed: and after he had proved this out of three places of Scripture, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16 2. Re. 1.10. in the end hee, addes, For although we are not tied to the observation of dayes yet this necessary order must be observed, least confusion should be bred in the Church. 10. Fayus Calvins successor alleaged also by Walaeus disput. 47. in q. praecept. Iustly therefore may we say, that the Apostles by the leading of the Holy Ghost for the seventh day of the Law, substituted the first day of the week, which was the first in the Creation of the first World. 11. Hyperius in. 1. Cor. 16. 1. The first day of the weeke in memory of the Lords Resurrection was called the Lords Day, the observation of the Sabbath being translated thereunto through the command of the Holy Ghost by the Apostles. 12. Adde unto these Master Perkins maintaining the same. That which he delivers of the Parliament in the dayes of King Edward the sixt, in that preamble of theirs concerning holy dayes, as left by the authority of Gods Word to the authority of Christs Church, by the discretion of the Rulers, and Ministers therof, as they shall judge most expedient to the true setting forth of Gods Glory, and edification of the people; I say that this should bee understood not of holy dayes onely, 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; onely hee sayth, that by the body of the act it doth appeare; but what that is in the body of that act whereby this doth appeare, hee very judiciously conceales. How im­probable is it, that Bishop Andrewes would have opposed this Doctrine in the Starte Chamber, if a Parliament of Prelates, and that in the dayes of King Edward the sixt, had main­tained it. For hee professeth, that these two onely, 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 [Page 106] in like manner professeth that it is not Liberae observatio nis, but necessarily to be observed. Doctor Fulks answer to the Rhemish Testament was set forth in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, and dedicated to her Majesty, therein on Re. 1. v. 16. hath hee delivered, that to change the Lords Day, and to keepe it on Munday, Tuesday or any other day, the Church hath none authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe delivered to us by his Apostles. Was hee ever questioned for this? or was it ever knowne that the state of this Land excepted against it, for crossing the Doctrine of the Church manifested in a preamble to one of the Acts of Parliament, which I presume was never yet repealed; but leave we him to live on his own juice, and to please himselfe in his holinesse.

A THIRD DIGRESSION CONTAINING A CONFERENCE With D. Walaeus about the Divine authority of the Lords Day.

I Come to consider somewhat in Walaeus, whose dissertation of the Sabbath, from the first hath liked mee so well, and the spirit which it breathes throughout; that I doe not affect to differ from him; but rather heartily desire there may bee little or no difference betweene us, and I hope in the end there will be found little or no difference of importance betweene us, especially in this point of the institution of the Lord Day whether it be divine or humane, and as for the originall in­stitution of the Sabbath, namely as from the beginning of the World, and as touching the morality of one day in seven; therein I concurre with him really and affectionately. And as touching the quality of the institution; I approve his learned paines in vindicating those three places of the new Testament, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. and Re. 1.10. from the interpretation that some give of them, to quash the evidence which they import for the observation of the first day of the weeke, commonly called the Lords Day, even in those pri­mitive [Page 108] and Apostolicall dayes of the Christian Church. And I joyne with him, pag. 167. in admiring, that after so many accurate prejudices of the reformed Churches, concurring in the same translation & interpretation of those places which we embrace; yet some should be found to take so unhappy paines, as to quash the evidence of them which they seem to us plainly to import. A manifest argument in my judgement, that the ob­servation of that day, as in place of the Jewes Sabbath, in the very days of the Apostles, doth even convince their consciences, that it can savour of nothing lesse than Apostolicall instituti­on; which, because they doe impugne, therefore they desire to impugne the use thereof as nothing so antient as to be re­ceived of the Apostles themselves. For consider, I pray, how should the converted Jewes come to change their Sabbath, if not by order from the Apostles themselves, whose doctrine it was that Christ came to set an end to all ceremonies? And as for the substitution of a day in the place of it, that all did joyntly concurre herein without any dependance of some up­on the judgement of others; what strange strength of convicting evidence must there needs be in the resurrection of Christ, to draw them hereunto farre beyond Almighty Gods resting on the seventh day from his worke of creation? What could be devised to inferre greater morality by the very light of nature than this, which should be so forcible to move all to concurre herein, and that with the first. But if they received it, some from others, how improbable it is, that the Apostles should receive it from the Churches, and not rather the Churches from the Apostles? Then consider, we no where reade of any difference here-abouts among the Apostles, counting Paul amongst rhem, who received from the Lord after his ascensi­on into heaven what he delivered unto others. How then came it to passe, that they all so throughly, and at the first, agreed herein? If, as having received it from the Lord, then the case is cleare, that it is of most Divine institution: But if onely 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 [Page 109] this is enough to manifest the strength of evidence which the Lords resurrection carrieth with it, as to convince them, so to appoint, and to convince others of the reasonablenesse there­of, seeing all Churches did so universally and so earely yeeld thereunto, and since that time so constantly persevered there­in. The resurrection therefore of Christ, is nothing inferiour to the Lords rest on the seventh to draw us to the sanctifying thereof: And the Apostles ordering it in this manner especi­ally as his extraordinary Ministers, is answerable to the Lords Commandement for the sanctifying of the seventh, especially that very commandement by just analogie having force also in this: And albeit Walaeus saith no more, pag. 174. of those three places, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. Ap c. 1.10 than that the whole Church reformed hath constantly gathered there­hence Diei Dominicae usum, the use of the Lords Day: yet both pag. 183. he doth manifestly imply the Apostles to have instituted it, where he saith, that quae ab ipsis Apostolis instituta non sunt, such things as have not beene ordained by the Apo­stles, were never in that manner observed in all Christian Churches throughout the world, as the observation of the Lords Day. And before, pag. 172. he concludes, that the first day of the weeke was by the Apostles substituted in the place of the seventh, and commended to the Church, and that potestate singulari, by singular power; and as they were extra­ordinary Ministers of Christ, put in trust by his Spirit, to be faithfull in giving Precepts (marke this well) not onely touch­ing faith and manners, but also de Ecclesiae [...], & recto ordino, for the well ordering of the Church, and that in this par­ticular, what day of the weeke is to be observed by force and ana­logie of the fourth Commandement, to prevent dissention and con­fusion among the Churches. And I am verily perswaded, that as many as stand for the Divine institution of the Lords Day would rest fully satisfied with this. Austin. I am sure, who is alleged by Walaeus in the first place, as maintaining it to be of Christs institution, writes thus of it, Serm. de temp. 251. Domi­nicum ergo diem Apostoli & Apostolici viri ideo religiosa solen­nitate habendum sanxerunt, quia in eadem Redempter noster à mortuis resurrexit: this being premised, let us come to the [Page 110] consideration of that which he delivers about the justification hereof, from pag. 152. where he acknowledgeth that among the ancient Writers and Doctors of the reformed Church, there have beene some who have referred the celebritie of this day to the fact and institution of Christ. At the first, by Christs fact in this place I understood Christ apparitions to the Apostles, as they were assembled together on this day. But upon better consideration and ponderation of the passages al­leged by him out of Austine and Cyril, I thinke rather that by Christs fact he means Christ resurrection, or perhaps, btoh the one and the other. For the sentence taken out of Austine hath reference to the one, and that out of Cyril, to the other. And Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath and Wells in his thes. 36. de Sab­bato, referres unto both; this first day Christ sanctified not onely by his resurrection, but by sundrie apparitions before his ascention, by sending them the Holy Ghost. But the latter seem to depend on the former. And therefore, that learned Bi­shop in his defence of that Thesis 36. writes thus; I say not, that the Apostles imprinted any holinesse upon the first day of the weeke, it was Christs resurrection that honoured that day, which I say the Apostles were to respect, not arbitrarily, but necessarily, you may perceive the reason in my Thesis; you cannot observe from the be­ginning of the world any other inducement to the institution of feasts but Gods worke done on the day. Now, neither Austin nor Cyril speake of any institution made by Christ. Eusebius, I confesse, doth intimate such an institution, and Gregory the great, and so doth Athanasius seeme to expresse as much, and Sedulius after him; but I am apt to conceive that they meant no other thing hereby, than that the consideration of Christs resurrection by the suggestion of Christs Spirit, should move the Apostles to ordaine and establish the celebration of this day unto the Christian world. Junius, in my judgement, seemes to have no other meaning, when he professeth the cause of the change of the day to be the resurrection of Christ, and the benefit of instauration of the Church in Christ; it is true, he saith afterwards that the Lords Day succeeded the seventh, (Christi observatione atque instituto, by Christ observation and ordinance; but I understand thereby no other ordinance than [Page 111] is bespoken by Christs resurrection on the day and observati­on of the day. For anon he tells us, that the Lords Day was ob­served, Christi facto, exemplo, institu (que) Apostolorum, & vete­ris Ecclesiae observatione constantissimâ; by Christs fact, example, and by the ordinance of the Apostles; unlesse instituto there, be to be referred to that which goes before, and ought to be distin­guished from Apostolorum which comes after by a comma, though it be not. But let this be the opinion of Iunius and Piscator, which, perhaps, we may meet with some more evi­dence for than hitherto: Neither doe I see any necessity of expressing concerning every thing they taught, that they re­ceived it of the Lord; Neither doe I thinke fit to conclude, that whatsoever they ordered, they ordered by Gods Com­mandement. But consider, there is a great difference between things ordered by them; some were concerning particulars, others for the Church universall. Some ordered by them for a certaine time, other things to continue to the worlds end. The ordinance of the Lords Day concerned the whole Church; and to this day no Church throughout the world hath thought fit to alter it, a notable evidence that the Church generally hath conceived it, as an ordinance of the Apostles intended to continue to the worlds end.

The ingenuity of Master Perkins is to be commended, con­fessing ingenuously, that hee proposeth his arguments not as necessary, but as probable, onely 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 [Page 112] commandement as being charged thereto by Christ, nor Christ himselfe. In briefe, thus neither Christ hath any where in Scripture commanded it, nor doe the Apostles any where signify that hee did: I answer, the Apostles doe not use to signify that what they deliver in particular was given them in charge by Christ; sometimes they doe, but this ex­tends not to the hundreth part of that they doe deliver. And it may bee by S. Iohns calling it the Lords Day, compared with that which our Saviour delivers in the Gospell, pray that your flight bee not in the Winter, nor upon the Sabbath day; and with the denomination of the Jewes Sabbath cal­led in the Old Testament the Lords holy day, wee shall finde sufficient intimation of Christs institution. Especially con­sidering that the question is but of the circumstance of a particular day, not of the proportion of time; and withall the analogy of the day of Christs Resurrection to the day of the Lords rest from Creation. And whereas the Doctor further sayth, that it seemes not likely that Christ should not command it, if he meant to binde us to the observation of any day, as a part of his worship and service: Now I won­der what the worthy Doctor meanes to thrust in the circum­stance, as a part of Gods Worship. If the Apostles might com­mand it as he thinkes they did, yet not as a part of Gods worship; why might not Christ command the observation of that day, yet not as a part of his worship? I am not per­swaded, that when God at the first sanctifyed the seventh day, hee made the observation of that day a part of his wor­ship. And it is strange that the circumstance of time should bee an homogeneall part of Gods worship.

First, it is true, the rest on that day commanded after­wards might bee, and was as a ceremony preaching some­thing unto them. All that is to bee considered in time pertaining to Gods Worship is the proportion of it; as whether one day in a weeke bee most fit, or one day in a moneth 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 [Page 113] first or last or middlemost, this consideration in my judgement is of no moment. Only for the avoyding of dissention, & con­fusion we have neede of authoritative specification, and that God did not define at the first without congruous reason, to still all motion tending to alteration; and if we have as fayre evidence under the Gospell for our Sabbath, as the Jewes had for theirs; wee are by Gods goodnesse as much freed from dissension and confusion as they, and nothing the more in­gaged in superstition, as making the observation of the day a part of Divine worship; which never was but in the way of prefiguration of somewhat in Christ, which kind of pedagogy is now quite out of date, neither is there any place for it in the observation of the Lords day.

Doctor Walaeus his second argument is, because those places of Scripture, Rom. 14. Gal. 4. & Coloss. 2. in which the A­postle takes away all difference of dayes can hardly bee re­conciled with this opinion, or if Christ himselfe not by ex­ample onely, 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 onely 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 [Page 114] that the Apostles were entrusted by the Holy Ghost to give precepts concerning the good government of the Church, and that in this particular case, to make knowne to all Christians every where what day in the weeke ought to be kept holy, and that by vertue and analogy of the fourth Commandement, and withall to prevent dissension and con­fusion amongst the Churches thereabouts. 5. and lastly hee joynes the precepts concerning this with precepts con­cerning faith, and manners; and this hee doth without speci­fying any the least difference; nay, the word precepts is once proposed as subservient indifferently as to faith, and manners, so also to the well ordering of the Church, and that in this particular, of notifying unto all what day of the weeke is it to bee sanctified to Gods Service. As for the places Rom. 14. Gal. 2. & Coloss. 2. I answer, that if wee made the observation of the day as it denotes a circumstance of time, any part of Gods Service, or for some mysterious signification contained therein, then indeed wee should carry our selves in contradiction to the places mentioned: but seeing we observe times onely 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 [Page 115] of the day for the preventing of dissension, and confusion as much as ever the necessity of the Jewish Church required the like; and over and above by reason of the fourth Com­mandement wee have now better evidence to conclude there­hence the observation of the Lords Day, by the congruity that Christs Resurrection hath to the Lords rest from Crea­tion; better means I say to conclude ours, then they without a Commandement to inferre the observation of their seventh: forstill the day of the Lords rest is made the day of our rest.

Thirdly, that which is alleadged in the third place, that both ancient and late writers doe maintaine that wee cele­brate the Lords Day, not as any part of Divine worship, nor as absolutely necessary. For the first of these wee willingly grant; for as much as wee conceave the observation of the 7th. by the Jewes was no otherwise a part of Divine worship, then as it was a ceremony and shadow, the body whereof was Christ prefigured thereby: and it is well knowne that no Christians observe it in any such Notion. But the obser­vation thereof wee hold to bee absolutely necessary, and so doth Doctor Walaeus in holding it to bee invariable, and that it cannot bee altered without the greatest scandall. And Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath, and Wells professeth it to bee not, liberae observationis, but necessariae. And if it were free, then not to use this freedome at all doth manifestly give way to superstition in taking that for a thing necessary which is not, though not as touching the substance of Gods worship and service, yet as touching a circumstance thereof, such as is the circumstance of time. As for expresse precept, if hee meanes a precept expressely written, no man (I trow) ever stood for that, but if hee meanes a precept given by Christs expresse charge to his Apostles, no man that I have met with, saith more hereupon, then Doctor Walaeus seemes to affirme himselfe; in saying that they were entrusted by the Holy Ghost as extraordinary Ministers, that they should bee faithfull ad tradenda praecepta, to give praecepts of faith and manners, and of the good government of the Church, and right order, and par­ticularly in this that might be known to all what day in the weeke was to be set apart for Gods service; both by vertue and ana­logy [Page 116] of the fourth Commandement, and to praevent dissension, and confusion among the Churches; Neither doe we acknow­ledge any other celebrity of the day then this; and therefore doe no more affront Hierome then Doctor Walaeus himselfe. As for festivall dayes in Socrates, and Nicephorus, I see no cause why as touching that they speake thereof, the Lords Day should bee comprehended under them: and as for apo­stolicall precept, concerning this Doctor VValaeus is as expresse as any. And it is not credible to mee, that the Apostles should make such an invariable ordinance to the Church, and not bee verily perswaded that it was the Will of God the Father, and of God the Sonne it should bee so: whether manifested by Christs particular charge unto them; or by comparing Christs Resurrection with the Lords rest from the workes of Creation. Otherwise in my judgement they had never called that day the Lords Day.

Fourthly, he excepts against the argument drawne from Christs Resurrection; denying that therehence it followes that that day was to bee consecrated to God. But herein hee opposeth all the ancients; neither doe I thinke hee can al­leage any one that doth not hereon build the observation of the Lords Day; which nuiversall concurrence doth mani­festly argue to be more then probable: Austin as Waleus alleadg­eth him, professeth not as his peculiar opinion, but as he took it generally received without contradiction: that Dies Dominicus Christianis resurrectione Domini declaratus est; and that re­suscitatio Domini consecravit nobis diem Dominicum. And A­thanasius plainly takes notice of the analogy it hath to the fourth Commandement; (and analogy Doctor Walaeus grants, and I wonder hee takes no notice of it here) by comparing the second Creation with the first Creation; and so Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester professeth that the new Crea­tion requires a new Sabbath, especially seeing the old must bee abrogated as ceremoniall. But the analogy I confesse may be differently shaped; Athanasius shapes it thus, that the Jewes Sabbath was the end of the first Creation; and that the Lords Day is a beginning of the second Creature; to wit, as the day of Christs resurrection; in reference whereunto the [Page 117] Apostle saith, Old things are passed, behold, all things are become new. And I conceive reason to justifie Athanasius, in making the beginning of the new creature to be our Sabbath, answe­rable to the end of the first creation, to wit, because the second creation hath no end in this world: Againe, Adam and Eve were made but the immediate day before the seventh, and the seventh he was to spend in rejoycing in Gods works; so Christs death was the worlds redemption; and immediately after, to wit, with Christs rising, it was as fit we should Sab­batize with God for joy of our Redemption. Otherwise the analogie (which Doctor Walaeus grants, but doth not expli­cate) may be conceived thus. The seventh day of the weeke was the Lords rest from the worke of creation, the first day of the weeke was the Lords rest from the work of redemption, in the morning thereof rising from his grave; and in respect of Christs resurrection on this day, what colour hath any other day of the weeke comparable hereunto, to make it fit to stand in competition with this. Yes, saith D. Walaeus, the Thursday may, and that in consideration of Christs ascension on that day; yet Doctor Walaeus well knowes, that that day of the week was never thereupon called the Lords Day, either by the Apostles, or by the Church, as the day of our Saviors resurrecti­on was. Againe, consider Christs resurrection and ascension are to be computed but as one compleate motion; save that he was to stay some time by the way here on earth for the confirming of his Disciples faith, and giving them commission for preaching the Gospel, and order to wait at Jerusalem un­till they were endued with power from on high to carry the glad tidings of salvation all the world over. So Christs dying and continuing under the power of death, is but one worke of Redemption. He confesseth, that Christs resurrection afforded an argument to the Church Apostolicall, to prefer this day be­fore all others (very well, even before the day of his ascention) for religious assemblies, as al the ancients testifie. But it follow­eth not therefore, that Christ by this his fact did institute the same day to the same end. Now, this is a very strange phrase, by his fact on the day to institute the day to such an end. Tis well knowne facts doe not institute otherwise than as there­from [Page 118] may be concluded that such a day is to be kept; and in this sense he doth as good as confesse, that Christ by his fact, did institute; for the Apostolicall Church did hereupon pre­ferre this day, as he confesseth all the ancients doe testifie. And did they not inferre this there-hence also, as most agree­able to the Will of God? Doctor Walaeus proceedeth thus: So God in the creation of the world rested the seventh day; but un­lesse God had proposed this rest of his as an example, and confirmed it by precept, never had the Church of the old Testament beene bound as from heaven to the weekly observation thereof. To this I answer, that the like may be said of the observation of one in se­ven; yet seeing God did cōmand this proportion to the Jews, without any new commandement, we can inferre that surely God requires as good a proportion of us Christians. In like manner, seeing God commanded unto them the day of his rest from creation, we without any the like commandement, may better inferre that Christs resting day from the worke of Re­demption ought to be our rest, than they could, that the se­venth day ought to be their rest. 2. Man could not possibly have knowne how many dayes God was creating the world, so to know what day he rested, that they might conforme unto him in their rest; unlesse God had revealed it unto them; but suppo­sing God had revealed it, and withall had called it his holy day, and it were knowne unto them that one day in the weeke must be set apart as Gods holy Day, in this case I appeal to eve­ry Christian conscience whether this were not sufficient to conclude that surely the day of the Lords rest, being his holy Day, ought to be the day of our rest, and our holy day. Now, thus the case stands with us Christians; we know what day our Saviour rose, having finished the worke of mans Re­demption; we know the Jewes Sabbath is abrogated; we know the proportion of one day in seven remaines still to be consecrated as an holy day to the Lord; we know the Lord prescribed to the Jewes for their Sabbath his resting day from the creation; which is called his holy day: And in like manner we know, that under the Gospel, the first day of the weeke being the day of our Saviours resurrection, is called by Saint Iohn the Lords Day; as for Easter and Pentecost, the [Page 119] case is nothing like; those festivalls being not of single dayes, but of whole weeks, once in a yeere, yet this proportion we find betweene them and the weekely Sabbath. There are in a yeere seven times seven weeks, and a fraction lesse than halfe a seven; so that the memory of the creation was seven times in a yeere celebrated more than the memory either of their deli­verance out of Egypt, or, of their reaping the fruits of the land of Canaan, the one farre surmounting the other, yet their Easter began the day of the yeere whereon they came out of Egypt. And Doctor Lake, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Thes. 41. de Sabbat. professeth, that God sets out the day by the worke he doth on the day, the worke I say done, doth difference a day from a day: and Thes. 43. Now then, when God doth any remarkable worke, thou will he be honoured with a commemoration day for that worke. If the worke concerne the whole, by the whole Church; and by a part, if it concerne a part: and Thes. 44. And his Will is understood often by his Precept; but when we have not that, the practice doth guide the Church, 45. This is a Ca holique rule, observed in the institution of all sacred feasts, both Divine and Humane, 46. The worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekely, monethly, or yeerely, as particu­lars evince in Scripture and history. The very light of nature doth give testimony unto this, as appeareth by the common practice of the heathens; as to give some instance hereof, what is the originall of the observation of the Fryday, as a festivall day amongst Mahumetanes? surely this; on that day Mahumet fled from Mecha to Jethrib, and so that day is accounted the first day of his kingdom, and from thenceforth it was ordained to be the first day of their yeere and of their weeke. So then the Will of God, in the judgement of this reverend Divine, is manifested not onely 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 [Page 120] Cyril inferres here-hence the reasonablenesse of our Christian assemblies on this day, yet wee doe not; but as Doctor Walaeus concludes that which hee concludes not from any one place, but from many places together, that do we; Nei­ther is it any thing to the purpose that Doctor Walaeus observes of Christs appearing on other dayes, as Ioh. 21.24. once, which was at a fish meeting. And as little materiall is it, that at such other times of his meetings he spake of the kingdome of God.

Sixthly, On like sort Christ sending down the Spirit on his Apostles on the day of Pentecost, hath not so much force considered alone, but onely 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.

[Page 121]Seventhly, And whereas some urged that it Christ himselfe had not instituted this day after his resurrection, the most Primitive Church should have beene left destitute of a certaine day of Gods worship, to wit, from the time of Christs resur­rection to the first consecrating of the Lords Day, which they take to be absurd, and I confesse, it seems unlikely that the Apostles tooke upon them to order ought untill they received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, that being the day they were to receive power from on high, to execute the com­mission given them, Mat. 28.19. to teach all nations; till which time they gathered no Churches. For the strength­ning the former reason, it is added; That the Jewes Sab­bath was now abolished by Christs death and resurrection. This I doe not deny, but the Apostles might very well be ignorant hereof as yet, as not having received the Spirit as yet; yea, & after the receiving it, we find they challenged Peter for going to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel, Acts 11. to this argument some answer, as Walaeus saith, that the daies between Christs ascension and the comming downe of the Holy Ghost upon them, were spent in continuall meetings of the Apostles and other Disciples. But from the day of Pentecost, the Lords day thenceforth observed. This answer reacheth not unto the daies interceding betweene Christs resurrection and his as­cention. And when I consider Bishop Lake his discourse, grounded, as he professeth, upon universall observation (and which I find no reason to resist) namely, that the worke of the day commends the day: If ever any day deserved to be festivall to any, surely the day of our Saviours resurrection deserved to be festivall unto them, to rejoyce in the Lord thereon, accor­ding to that of the Psalmist,Psalm. 118.24. This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoyce therein; the ancient Fathers ac­commodating the place thereunto. The two verses immediat­ly preceding, carrying in the forehead of them a manifest re­lation unto Christ as the proprietary of their meaning. 22. The stone which the builders refused, is become the head of the cor­ner. 23. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. Now when was this manifested, namely, that the stone which the builders refused became the head of the corner, but by Christs [Page 122] Resurrection from the dead, being thereby mightily declared to bee the Sonne of God. Rom. 14. and was there ever worke more marvellous in the eyes of Gods Servants, then the Resurrection of Christ, especially considering the dis­confolate condition of his Disciples? Luke 24, 21. We trusted it had beene he, that should have delivered Israel. The women departed from the Sepulcher though with feare, by reason of the consternation receaved from Angelicall presence, their countenance being like lightning, yet with great joy by reason of the newes they heard from them of Christs Re­surrection; upon the noise whereof (for they were com­manded to carry word of it to his Disciples,) the Apostles as it seemes were gathered together; and in the evening after hee had shewed himselfe to his Disciplcs going to Emaus, Christ presented himselfe in the midst of them. Eight dayes after they were met together, and Thomas with them who being absent the time before, gave out sperches of peremptory incredulity concerning his Resurrection; therefore then and not till then also the dores being shut, Christ came before them, and calls unto Thomas to see his hand. and to put his sin­ger into his side. These apparitions of our Saviour twice on the first day of the weeke might well adde somewhat to the confirmation of them in the festivity of this day; and how­soever betweene his ascension, and the day of Pentecost they had their meetings, yet how improbable is it they should put no difference; betweene such a festivall and other dayes of the weeke. A second answer Walaeus gives, namely that o­thers say, that from the day of Pentecost it was not neces­sary that the Lords Day should bee observed: but that at the first the Apostles together with the Jewes observed their Sab­bath not as a ceremony of the Old Testament, but as a free circumstance of divine worship, as for a while they retey­ned Circumcision and difference of meats; which they gave over, after the Jewes were found obstinately to refuse the Gospell. So that in these mens judgements the Lords Day was no festivall to the Apostles, till by occasion of the Jewes obstinatenesse, a proper occasion for the institution of a new festivall. And give mee leave to differ from them in yoking [Page 123] Circumcision and difference of meats with the Jewes Sab­bath, neither of them prefiguring Christ as to come, like as the Jewes Sabbath did, prefiguring his rest that day in the grave; as the ancients have conceived it, without any con­tradiction that I know. Had they permitted sacrifices for a time, their comparison had beene more congruous. I see no reason to withhold me from concurring with Austin, and in him with all the ancients, for ought I know to the contrary, that Dies Dominicus Resurrectione Domini declaratus est Chri­stianis, & ex illo coepit habere festivitatem suam, yea with the very words of Scripture Psal. 118.22. The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner 23. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoyce and be glad in it. Neither is it credible to mee that the Apostles were ignorant of it or of its application, the day of Christs Resurrection, from the very day thereof. Heresbachius upon these words, Haec dies quam fecit dominus. They are (saith hee) the words of the people exulting in the Kingdome of David, most of all of the glorious Resurrection of Christ, which of all others was most glorious to mankinde: as whereon Christ redeemed us in a triumphant manner, from the Tyarnny of Satan, and from everlasting death, and restored unto us everlast­ing righteousnesse. Arnobius interprets it of the Lords Day.

Eightly, the last argument, and which hee acknowledgeth of greatest moment is that, which is taken out of Apoc. 1.10. Where the first day of the weeke is called the Lords Day, whence they conclude, that it is of the Lords institution. And indeed Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester in his Starre Camber speech professeth, that this denomination is given onely to the first day of the weeke, as called in Scripture the Lords day, and to the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, as called the Lords Supper, and that to shew that the word Dominicum (the Lords) is to bee taken alike in both. In the same sense wee call the Prayer which our Savious taught his Disciples the Lords Prayer. But let us heare Walaeus his answer, that we may consider it. This consequence [Page 122] (saith hee) is not necessary, for it may bee called the Lords, not onely 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 [...]. That which wee urge is the language of the Holy Ghost, now throughout the holy Scripture, it is not the language of the Holy Ghost, to call either Altars the Lords Altars, or Feasts the Lords Feasts, but such as are of the Lords institution. Neither doe the fathers (in my observation) call the first day of the weeke the Lords day o­therwise then in reference to Christs Resurrection, as the cause of the festivall nature thereof. Temples indeed they call [...] 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 [Page 125] of the Temple by Titus, Sect. 6. after that no other Sab­bath but of the Lords Day, was generally established in the Churches.

Last of all, for the third, and last conclusion,Pref. that still the Church hath power to change the day our Doctor in the 7. Section, bringeth in Bullinger, Bucer, Brentius, Ʋrsinus, and Chemnitius, aliisque nostris with divers others not named particularly, as they are which thinke no otherwise thereof then Calvin did, and shewes by what distinction Suarez, though otherwise no friend unto the men, doth defend their Doctrine.

Now as the doctrine was, such also is the practise of those men and Churches, devoid of any the least superstitious ri­gour, esteeming it to bee a day left arbitrary, and therefore open to all honest exercises and lawfull recreations; by which the mind may bee refreshed, and the spirits quickened. Even in Geneva it selfe according as it is related in the enlargement of Boterus by Robert Johnson, all honest exercises, shooting in pieces, long Bowes, crossebowes, &c. are used on the Sabbath Day, and that both in the morning, before and after Sermon; neither doe the Ministers finde fault therewithall, so that they hinder not from hearing of the word at the time appointed.

Dancing indeed they doe not suffer; But this is not in relation to the Sunday, but the sport it selfe, which is held unlawfull, and generally forbidden in the French Churches: which strictnesse as some note, considering how the French doe delight in dancing, hath beene a great hin­derance to the growth of the reformed religion in that Kingdome.

The Doctor indeed saith, that Calvin, Bullenger, Bucerus, Exam. Brentius, Chemnitius, Ʋrsine and others of the reformed Churches affirme, that still the Church hath power to change the Lords Day to some other; but hee neither cites their words, nor quotes any place out of their writings. And as for Calvin, whom this Prefacer proposeth as chiefe, and the rest as thinking no otherwise thereof, then hee did; I make no doubt but the passage in Calvin is instit. 2. cap. 8. sect. 34. [Page 126] where thus he writeth, Ne (que) sic tamen septenarium numerum mo­ror, ut ejus servituti Ecclesiam astringerem, I doe not so regard the number of seven; as to tie the Church to the servitude there­of; which considered in it selfe, might intimate that in his opinion, it is indifferent whether wee keepe holy one day in seven, or one day in foureteene; but the words immediately following doe manifest his meaning to be farre otherwise, as namely, that we are not so tied to a seventh, but that we may so­lemnize other dayes also, by our holy assemblies. For thus it followes, Ne (que) enim damnavero qui alios conventibus suis solen­nes dies habeant. I condemne not them that keep other dayes holy: will any man suppose that some there were, well knowne to Calvin, who kept other dayes solemn, and not the Lords Day; and that these men Calvin would not condemne? And Goma­rus, who is most opposite to us in this argument, professeth, that seeing not onely a time, but a sufficient proportion of time is to be set apart for Divine service, therefore we must now under the Gospel, allow rather a better proportion of time for Di­vine service than a worse. And in this also Rivetus rests, in his answer to the first argument of Walaeus, contending for one day in seven, as necessarily to be allowed to the wor­ship of God.De reg. Chr. lib. 1. ap. 11. For Bullinger, I know not where to seeke that which the Doctor aimes at. As for Bucer, I have shewed be­fore out of him, that the Lords Day was by the Apostles them­selves consecrated to Divine actions; which ordinance the antient Churches observed most religiously, and that one of the chief causes hereof was, that they might celebrate the memory of Christs resurrection, which fell out on the first day of the weeke; of power to abrogate this day left unto the Church he saith nothing, but to the contrary rather, that all they who desire the restoring of Christs Kingdome, ought to labour, that the religion of the Lords Day may be soundly called backe and be of force. Yet (saith he) it is agreeable to our piety to san­ctifie other festivalls also, to the commemoration of the Lords chiefe workes, whereby he perfected our redemption as the day of his incarnation, nativity, the Epiphany, the passion, the resurrecti­on, ascension and Pentecost. And the place which Doctor Rivet explic. decal. pag. 189. col. 2. allegeth out of Bucer in Mat. 10. [Page 127] to prove that he maintained the day to be alterable, is nothing to the purpose, and as little doe they make for it which hee allegeth out of Musculus, To find out what Chemnitius saith hereupon, I turne to his Examen of the connsell of Trent, con­cerning festivalls; There pag. 154. col. 2. he saith, that Christ, to show that he kept the Jewes Sabbath freely, and not of ne­cessitie; against the opinion of necessity, touching the abroga­tion of the Mosaicall Sabbath, hee taught both by word and deed. By word, in saying, that the Sonne of man is Lord of the Sabbath; and by his deeds, as in healing on the Sabbath day, and defending his Disciples in plucking the eares of corne. Now, hereby I take it to be manifest, and acknowledged by Chemnitius that none hath power to abrogate the Sabbath, but he that is Lord of the Sabbath. And seeing even Christians were to have their Sabbath, as appeareth by those words of our Saviour, pray that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the Sab­bath day, which is delivered of the time about the destru­ction of the Temple by Titus; at what time Paul had suffered martyrdome divers yeeres before, by whose writings it doth appeare that the Lords Day was kept in place of the Jewes Sabbath, both by the practice of the Apostles, and the Chur­ches of Galatia and Achaia, as Chemnitius acknowledgeth from the force of those places, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. and Apoc. 1.10. in the next columne it followeth, that the Lords Day was the Christian Sabbath, and so to this day continueth, and consequently, that none hath power to alter it, but hee that is Lord of the Sabbath, which is Christ himselfe, it being accordingly called the Lords Day. Therefore if any pretend that Christ hath delegated this power of his unto the Church, it stands upon them to make it good. But Chemnitius proceeds, pag. 155. col. 1. and shewes how the Apostles at the first tolera­ted their weak faith, who without superstition observed dayes Mosaicall, Rom. 14. and that such as were stronger in faith, after the abrogation of the old Testament, judged all dayes to be equall in themselves, and none more holy then another. We willingly grant as much, and adde the reason hereof; to wit, because the holinesse of the day preferred before his fel­lowes consisted in some mysterious signification which had re­ference [Page 128] unto Christ as to come; all which kind of shadowes, the body being come, are now vanished away. Hee proceeds, saying. The Apostles also manifested by their example that in the new Testament it was free to come together, either every day, or what day soever they thought good, to handle the Word and Sacraments, and to the publique or common exer­cises of piety. So the Sabbath day, and other festivall dayes they taught. All this wee willingly grant, but here-hence it followeth not, that one day of the weeke was not of more ne­cessary observation for the exercises of piety than another. Farther (saith he) that they might manifest that the exercises of Ecclesiasticall assemblies were not tied to certaine dayes: they daily persevered in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in breaking bread, Act. 2. and 5. and 1 Cor. 5. Now we willingly acknowledge that we Christians are not so bound to one day in the weeke, as namely, to the Lords Day, as that we may not have our holy assemblies more often than once, but onely so, that we may not keep them lesse often, nor omit the celebration of the Lords Day: like as the Jews might not omit the celebra­tion of their weekely Sabbath, though sometimes many dayes together besides were kept holy by them. So we Christians al­so having our Sabbath as our Saviour signified we should have when he said, Pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day; which Sabbath of ours, wee keepe on the Lords Day; though we may keep other days holy, yet we may not omit this; and if any shall take upon them to alter this Sabbath, we may be bold to demand of them quo warranto, by what warrant from the Lord of Sabbath? But Chemnitius proceeds thus: Now, whereas afterwards the false Apostles did so urge those free observations of the Mosaicall Sabbath, and other feasts, as by law, and with opinion of necessity, as to condemne their consciences who observed them not. Paul forbad the observation of them. All which we willingly acknowledge, but that here­upon they began first to ordaine another day in the weeke for their Ecclesiasticall assemblies and exercises of piety, which yet Chemnitius proves not, I leave it to the indifferent to judge; by comparing his opinion with that of Austins, who professeth, as Chemnitius well knew, that the Lords Day was de­clared [Page 129] unto Christians by the Lords resurrection, and from thence began to have its festivity alleged by Chemnitius himselfe, p. 156. especially considering the reason moving thē hereunto, which Chemnitius confesseth to have been on that day the Lord role from the dead. And seeing all festivals, as Bishop Lake observes, have beene observed in regard of some great worke done on such a day for the good of man; whether ever any day brought forth a more wonderfull or more comfortable worke to man­kind than the first day of the weeke, which was the day of our Saviours resurrection from the dead, let the Christian world judge. This day Chemnitius saith, seems to be called by Saint Iohn the Lords Day, which appellation all antiquity did after­wards retaine and use: yet notwithstanding (saith he) we doe not read that the Apostles did impose upon mens consciences in the new Testament the observation of that day by any Law or Precept, but the observation was free, for order sake. Let us duly weigh and consider this, together with the reasons following: Calvine distinguisheth the observation of a day for order sake, and the observation of a day for some mysterious signification sake: had Chemnitius thus distinguished, we would have subscribed thereunto, and confessed, that now adayes wee observe no day for any mysterious signification sake, but onely for order sake. And thus under the Gospel wee are freed from observa­tion of daies for mysteries sake, not free from observation of one certaine day in the weeke for order sake. At for his phrase of imposing the observation of the Lords day upon mens consciences; this phrase is most improper and unseasonable, in this case; it is onely proper and seasonable in case the thing imposed be of a burthensome nature, like unto that Saint Peter speakes of, Acts 15.10. saying, Now therefore, why tempt yee God to lay a yoke on the Disciples neckes which neither our Fathers nor we were able to beare? Such indeed was the yoke of circumcision; which provoked Zippora (according to common opinion) driven to circumcise her sonne to save her husbands life, to throw the fore-skin at her husbands feet calling him a bloody husband for urging her thereunto. But what burthen is it (save unto the flesh) to rejoyce in the Lord, to sabbatize with him, to walke with him in holy meditation? Was it no [Page 130] burthen to the godly Jewes to consecrate one day in seaven to the exercises of Piety under the Law; and shall it bee a burthen to us in the time of the Gospell? Or can it bee con­ceaved to bee a greater burthen unto us to keepe our Christian Sabbath on the Lords Day, then on any other day of the weeke? was there ever any day of the weeke markt out unto us with a more honourable or more wonderfull worke to draw us to rejoyce in the Lord thereon, then the first day of the weeke whereon our Saviour rose, by his Resurrection to bring life and immortality to light? yet we confesse we reade of no Law nor Precept for this in the new Testament, but, we reade that ever under the Gospell wee must have a Sabbath to observe, Math. 24.20. And wee know, and Chemnitius knew full well, that it belongs to the Lord of the Sabbath to change it, and consequently to ordaine it, and that it was changed, and the Lords Day observed generally in the A­postles dayes, none that I know makes question of; and how could thi [...] bee, but by the Apostles ordinance; and is it likely they would take upon them this authority without a calling? And why should that day of the weeke (and not that day of the yeare) bee called the Lords Day, if not for the same use under the Gospell that the Lords Day, was of under the Law, especially that day under the Law (which was the Jewes Sabbath) being now abrogated? and lastly wee finde it manifestly spoken of the day of Christs Resurrection, Psal. 118.24. This is the day that the Lord hath made, let us rejoyce and be glad in it: yet lastly wheras Chemnitius will have it free, and hee hath already manifested that hee speakes of it in this sense, as not to be so tied to this day, but that we may observe other dayes; wee willingly grant that in this sense it is free. Now let us consider his reason following. For saith hee, if we are freed from the Elements, which by God himselfe in the old Testament were ordained, and commanded, how should we be tyed by the decrees of men? But alas this reason of his hath no proportion: the Elements hee speakes of were but shad­dowes the body whereof is Christ, and now Christ is revea­led, they were wont to bee called not onely Mortua but mor­tifera. Yet the observation of one day in seven still continues [Page 131] to bee the Commandement of God delivered not to Moses, as ceremonies were, but by word of mouth proclaimed on mount Sina; and naturall reason suggests unto us that wee must allow unto Gods service as good a proportion of time under the Gospell, as hee required of the Jewes under the Law. Now if one day in seven must bee set apart in common rea­son, what day is to bee preferred for this before the Lords Day, the day of Christs rest from the worke of redemption in suffering the sorrows of death; as the day of the Lords rest from the Creation was appointed to the Jewes for their Sabbath; And this Resurrection of Christ bringing with it a new Crea­tion; Shall wee preferre the Saturday the Jewes festivall be­fore it, shall wee preferre the Friday the day of the Turkes festivall before it? shall wee affect power and liberty to make any other day in the weeke the Lords holy day, rather then that the Word of God commends unto us for the Lords Day in the time of the Gospell?

This I suppose may suffice for answering the rest also, whensoever their suffrages shall bee brought to light, for I presume none of them hath sayd more then Chemnitius hath done. Azorius the Jesuite professeth of two things in this argument, that they are most agreeable to reason. First, that after six worke dayes one entire day should bee consecrated to God, 2. that the Lords Day should bee it. Doctor Fulke in answer to the Remish Testament professeth that to change the Lords Day and keepe it on Munday, Tuesday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority. For it is not a matter of in­differency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe delivered to us by his Apostles. This was printed in the dayes of Queen Elizabeth and dedicated unto her Majesty; what Bishop as gouernour in this Church of England hath ever beene known to take exception against this? Doctor Andrewes (Bishop of Winchester) in his starre Chamber speech in the Case of Traske professeth that the Sabbath (to wit of the Iewes) had reference to the old Creation, but in Christ we are now Crea­tures, (As the Apostle S. Paul speakes) a new Creation, and so to have a new Sabbath. And this he saith is deduced plainly. 1. by practise, 2. by precept, that these two onely, the first day [Page 132] of the weeke, and the Sacrament of the Supper are called the Lords, to shew that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to be taken in both: So that give power to the Church to alter the one, and you may as well give power to the Church to alter the other. He shewes also, it was an usuall question put to Chri­stians, Dominicum servasti? Hast thou kept the Lords Day? And their answer was this, Christianus sum, intermittere non possum. I am a Christian, and I cannot intermit it. Lastly, he allegeth the Synod of Laodicea, Can. 29. acknowledged in that of Chalcedon, 133. that Christian men may not Judaize, not make the Saturday their day of rest, but that they are to worke on that day, giving their honour of celebration to the Lords Day. Doctor Lake, Bishop of Bath and Wells in his Thesis of the Sabbath—39. The Church hath received it (the Lords Day) not to be liberae observationis (of free obser­vation) as if men might at pleasure, accept or refuse it, 40. But to be perpetually observed to the worlds end: For, as God onely hath power to apportion his time: so hath he power to set out the day that he will take for his portion. For he is Lord of the Sab­bath, 46. The worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekely, monethly or yeerely, as particulars evince in Scripture and History. 47. No man can translate the works, therefore no man can translate the day. This is an undoubted rule in Theologie. Adde unto these Iunius and Piscator, who maintaine the subrogation of the Lords Day into the place of the Jewish Sabbath, to have beene made by the ordinance of Christ; and Beza acknowledgeth it to be traditionis Apo­stolicae & verè divinae. Doctor Brownde in his Treatise of the Sabbath, lib. 1. pag. 47. having recited the opinion of Iunius, referring the institution of the Lords Day to Christs ordi­nance, as who rose from the dead on that day; addeth here­unto after this manner. Like unto the which, because nothing can ever fall out in the world comparable unto it in glory and power; therefore this day must continue in his first honour of sanctification unto the end of all things, and no day be set up like to it, or it changed into any other day, lest the wonderfull glory of that thing be darkened, and the infinite power of it weak­ned, I meane, the glorious and mighty worke of our redempti­on [Page 133] which by the sanctification of this Sabbath is commended un­to us, and we by keeping that holy still, doe commend it to our posterity. And this is it that is alleged as a reason of the ob­servation of this day in the Apostles constitutions: Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 37. It is called the Lords Day, because it declares unto us Christ crucified and raised up againe, and it is worthily commended to be kept as the Lords Day, that wee might give thankes unto thee, O Lord Christ, for all these benefits: for, say they, there is that grace bestowed upon us by thee; Qua sua magnitudine omnia beneficia obscurat, which by the greatnesse, and, as it were, by the bright­nesse of it doth obscure and darken all other. So that though the day was once changed upon these considerations, nay, they being such as they be, it could not but be changed: yet forsomuch as the like cause can never be offered unto men to move them to enter into this consideration, therefore the day must not onely not be changed any more, but it must not so much as enter in mens thoughts to goe about to change it. And therefore I doe so much the more mar­vell at him, who saith, That the keeping holy of the Lords Day is not commanded by the authority of the Gospel, but rather received into use by the publique consent of the Church: And a little af­ter; The observation of the Lords Day is profitable, and not to be rejected; but yet it is not to be accounted for a comman­dement of the Gospel, but rather for a civill ordination. And that the Church might have appointed but one day in ten, or foureteene for the publique rest and Gods service. Lastly, Ma­ster Perkins maintaines the same (not to mention Doctor Willet,) and that by divers reasons, in his cases of conscience, which, because they are modestly answered by Doctor Rivet, in his commentary upon the Decalogue, I thinke good in this place to take them into consideration.

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

Perkins. THeir first Argument saith he, is taken from the appellation of the Lords Day; I suppose, saith Master Perkins, it is called the Lords Day, as the last supper of Christ is called the Lords Supper for two causes. First, as God rested the seventh day after the creation, so Christ having finished the worke of the new creation, rested on this day from the work of Redemption. Secondly, as Christ did substitute the last supper in roome of the passeover, so hee substituted the first day of the weeke in roome of the Jewes Sabbath to be a day set apart to his owne worship. To this Doctor Rivet answereth after this manner.Rivet. Answ. First, hee denies that there is the same reason of the Lords supper & the Lords Day, and that for two reasons; first because we have a mani­fest institution thereof, and Christs Precept for the observing of it. Not so of the Lords Day. Secondly, if there were a Precept for keeping the Lords Day, yet were it Ecclesiasticall and so mutable. For men may choose daies for the worship of God, as touching the particularity of this day or that. But the institution of the Sacraments is of Divine authority by the [Page 135] consent of all. To this I replie that Doctor Rivetus corrupts Master Perkins his answer in the proposing of it;Repl. for he sayth not the same is the reason of the Lords Supper, and of the day which wee call the Lords Day; but supposeth, and that most modestly that either of them being called the Lords, they are called so in the same Notion. That like as the Lords Supper is so called because he instituted it; so the first day of the weeke is called the Lords Day, because hee instituted the observation of it. And this Doctor Thysius collegue to Doctor Rivetus maintaines as well as Master Perkins, and Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester in his speech against Traske; saying that both these, to wit the first day of the weeke, and Christ last Supper are called the Lords, to shew that Domini­cum (the Lords) is alike to bee taken in both. For what reason can bee given why the day of Christs Resurrection, not according to the day of the yeare wherein hee arose, but according to the day of the weeke wherein hee arose, should bee called the Lords Day, but to signifie. First, that it was to succeed in the place of the Lords Dayunder the law, which was the Jewish Sabbath. 2. And that it was the good plea­sure of God and not of man, onely that it should bee conse­crate to his service. For consider, wee have many other dayes consecrated by the Church unto Divine service, which yet were never called the Lords Dayes; And the Lords Day and the Lords feasts in the Old Testament, and in the lan­guage of the Holy Ghost are no other then such that are of the Lords institution. Secondly, Doctor Rivetus omits the maine force of Master Perkins his argument, or at least slightly passeth it over, which is this. As God rested the seventh day after the Creation, so Christ having ended the worke of the new Creation rested on this day from his worke of redemption. Atha­nasius of old considers a first and a second Creation; and so accordingly a first and a second Sabbath: our Saviour him­selfe speakes of a Christian Sabbath, Math. 24.20. and w [...]t should that bee but the Lords Day under the Gospell? And Beza and Iunius and Bishop Andrewes worke upon the same. And I wonder that men should thinke the Sabbath should bee altered, and another brought into the place of it by any [Page 136] other authority then of him who is Lord of the Sabbath. And as Bishop Lake observes in all feasts both Divine and humane that wee reade of in Scripture, the worke of the day was the ground of hallowing the day. And never was known to the World a more wonderfull worke in the way of grace, and mercy, then Christs Resurrection from the dead, manife­sting thereby the redemption of the World as then wrought by him How doth Christ take upon him to alter the Sa­craments but as Lord of the Sacraments? and apparently he shewes that upon the same ground hee takes upon him power to dispense or change the Sabbath, as hee is Lord of the Sab­bath. But what is his ground to deny the parity of reason here? meerely his owne prejudicate conceit that the obliga­tion of the Lords Day, is not so great as the observation of the Sab­bath. The contrary whereunto (saith he) omnes refugimus we all avoyd. But who and how many are those all? what one of the ancients can hee produce to have thought as hee thinks? Hee may as well say according to the current of his private opinion, that wee under the Gospell are not as much bound to the observation of one day in seaven as the Jewes were un­der the Law. It is true, that rigorous rest enjoyned to the Jewes wee utterly disclaime as well as hee; againe the circum­stance of the day wee make no part of Gods worship nor to have any mysterious signification, as the Sabbath had to the Jewes. Wee acknowledge no other use of this day then for order and policy sake; in which case wee judge it farre bet­ter the Lord should prescribe it, then wee unto our selves, least if there were twenty dayes in the weeke, there would bee twenty differences amongst Christians about the setting apart of one day in the weeke for Divine Service.

Perkins.2. Master Perkins his second argument is this, The Church of Corinth every first day of the weeke made a collection for the poore, 1 Cor. 16.2. and this collection for the poore in the pri­mitive Church followed the preaching of the Word, Prayer and the Sacraments as a fruite thereof, Acts 2.42. and Paul com­mands the Corinths to due this as he had ordained in the Churches of Galatia: whereby he makes it to be an Apostolicall, and therefore a Divine Ordinance. Yea that very Text doth in some part [Page 137] manifest thus much, that it is an ordinance and institution of Christ that the first day of the weeke should be the Lords Day. For Paul commandes nothing but what he receaved from Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For answer whereunto I say first;Reply. that Master Perkins de­livers not this simply of the Sabbath day, but of the Sabbath of the new Testament, as much as to say, the first day of the weeke whereon Christ rose; For this was the day wherein the stone which the builders refused, was made the head of the corner; and of this day the Prophet speakes, when he saith, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoyce in it. That like as the Jewes had cause to make that day festi­vall and to rejoyce therein, wherein God advanced David to the kingdome, who was as a stone, refused before by the buil­ders: in like sort, Christians had as great cause, nay, farre greater, to keepe that day festivall, and to rejoyce therein, when God raised Christ from the dead, and gave all power unto him, and making him the head of his Church, as being now manifested to be the sonne of God, who was before as a stone despised and refused of the builders, but as on this day was made the head of the corner. And not Cyprian and Austin onely, but Ambrose upon the Psalmes so understands it, and Arnobius also upon the Psalmes, as Hereshbachius obser­veth. And Doctor Rivetus is too blame in construing Perkins in such manner, as if he should confine the builders rejection of Christ to the Sabbath day, whereof there is no colour in Master Perkins, but that which he insists upon is this, that the day wherein Christ (formerly rejected by the builders, was made hhead the of corner, was the day of Christs resurrection, and of this day it is said by the Psalmist, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoyce and be glad in it; Which is most remarkable for the justification of our celebration of the Lords Day, as by Divine authority. Especially conside­ring what Bishop Lake, that learned and pious, and most rationall Divine hath observed, that alwayes the worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, and for proofe here­of, [Page 140] hee appeales to the due consideration of all festivalls in the observation thereof, whether Divine or humane. Master Perkins his words are these (but I know not how Doctor Rivetus might be deceived by a mis-translation of them) The day of Christs resurrection was prefigured by that day wherein the stone which the builders refused was made the head of the cor­ner, Psal. 118.24. and in that it was prefigured, it was appointed by God. For then it appeared to be true which Peter said of Christ, that God had made him both Lord and Christ, Act. 12.36. And whereas he saith the Fathers doe so construe the place by way of accommodation, that hath place onely when the Text it selfe doth not so accommodate it. But the Text it selfe in this place doth manifestly evince, that this is spoken in reference to the day of Christs resurrection.

Perkins.The last reason of Master Perkins is this: God is Lord of times and seasons, and therefore in all equity, the altering and dis­posing thereof is in his hands, and belongs to him alone, Act. 1.10. Times and seasons the Father hath kept in his own hands. Againe, Christ is called the Lord of the Sabbath. And Antiochus Epi­phanes is condemned by the Holy Ghost, because hee tooke upon him to alter times: Dan. 7.25. Besides that, Daniel saith, it is God alone that changeth times and seasons, Dan. 2.4. Now, if it be proper unto God as to create, so to determine and dispose of times, then he hath not left the same to the power of any creature; And therefore, as the knowledge thereof, so the appointment and alteration of the same either in generall or particular, belongs not to the Church, but is reserved to him. The Church then neither may nor can alter the Sabbath Day.

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

Reply.And no more doth D. Rivetus deliver in excepting against his annotations: for as he acknowledgeth M. Perkins scripto­rem modestissimum, a most modest writer; so he carryeth him­selfe most modestly towards him. But I hope without any breach of modesty, I may professe, that I find no accuratenesse in each of his allegations, save one, namely, that wherein [Page 141] Christ professeth himself Lord of the Sabbath; and it is enough for the present, that God reserves to himself power of ordering times for his service; yet it cannot be denied, but God hath left power to his Church, upon good occasion, to set some time a­part for exercise of piety. But whereas it is apparant, that God himselfe tooke upon him the ordering of the time for the Sab­bath, and accordingly Christ calls himselfe The Lord of the Sabbath; as he constituted it, so none but he can abrogate it, and ordaine another in the place of it. Now, whereas D. Rive­tus saith, that hee hath left this power unto his Church; it stands him upon to prove it. We find our Saviour supposeth us Christians to have a Sabbath after his resurrection, Matth. 24.20. as well as the Jewes had before: wee find that in the Apostles dayes, the first day of the weeke was set apart for this; which could not be, but by the joynt consent of the Apostles, we find that the day of the weeke (not the day of the yeere) wherein Christ rose, by Saint Iohn himselfe called the Lords Day, an evident argument, that in his time it was so generally received. We find that never any worke of God did give better cause to professe, that The day thereof was the day that the Lord had made, let us be glad and rejoyce therein; then the day where­in Christ rose from the dead, and thereby was declared to be the Sonne of God, even that stone which the builders refused to be made the head of the corner. And how strange is it, that the Church for 1500. yeeres space should no where offer to al­ter it; if in no other respect, yet in this, to manifest that the Church is indued with such liberty and power, and to prevent the superstitious observation of the day as a thing necessary, if it be not necessary. Lastly, if this liberty be still in the Church; in case they should exercise this liberty, what inconvenience would follow upon the exercising of a lawfull liberty? But in­finit inconvenience would follow hereupon: for seeing this li­berty is equally communicated to each particular Church, it will follow, that it is lawfull for our English Church to insti­tute the Munday, the French Church the Tuesday, the Hol­landers the Wednesday, the Germans Thursday, the Danes Friday, the Swedes the Saturday, and the Polonians the Sun­day; what an intolerable scandall were this amongst Chri­stians? [Page 142] Thus our liberty opens way to revive the Jewes Sab­bath, or to concurre with the Turks, who make Friday their holy day, nay, what scandall also to all the Heathens through­out the world? For, suppose that as the Jewes keepe the Satur­day, and the Turks their Fryday; so other heathenish nations according to their severall religions should divide the other daies of the weeke to be hallowed between them; each religion keeping to their own day most exactly: When they should find no agreement amongst Christians, what an intolerable scan­dall were this unto them, to harden them against the profession of the Gospel, when they see so little agreement among the professors of it? And what should move us to affect liberty in this which opens a way to such dissention and confusion; and not rather rejoyce in this, that to prevent such miserable in­conveniences, God himselfe hath marked out unto us the first day of the weeke to be the Lords Day, in place of the Jewish Sabbath, which was the Lords holy day unto them, by the most wonderful and comfortable work that ever was wrought, even the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour from the dead, thereby manifesting him to be the Sonne of God, and ful­filling that prophecie of old concerning the stone which the builders refused, and making him the head of the corner on that day; all power being given unto him both in heaven and in earth, Matth. 28. thus drawing us in the Prophets language to professe and say first, This is the Lords doing, and it is mar­vellous in our eyes: and secondly, to conclude there-hence in the words immediately following; This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoyce in it; this undoubted­ly is our Christian festivall; this day of the weeke, and not this day of the yeere, (which is remarkable) being called by Saint Iohn, The Lords Day, the day wherein Christ appeared unto him, and gave unto him the booke of Revelation concern­ing the secrets of his providence to be fulfilled upon the world for the time to come, even till his second comming to destroy the world with fire, and to blesse us with new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousnesse; the metropolis of which new world, shall be new Jerusalem. And albeit Doctor Ri­vetus according to his pious ingenuity which crownes his [Page 143] learning and cathedrall sufficiencies, professeth, that what hi­therto hath beene spoken by him of the choyce and possible change of that day; he hath not to any such end ventilated, as to favour their profanesse who on holy dayes and chiefely on that day, which by so universall a consent even from the beginning of Christianity hath beene consecrated to such use, neglecting Gods Service, not onely refuse to omit one day in prosecuting workes tending to the use of life temporall: but also by unnecessary actions, as by plea­sant sports, stage playes, by intemperance also and riot profane the day, not without reason dedicated to the Lord. Yet what just occasion hereby may bee in all places and like enough is taken in most places by this doctrine of his who seeth not? For albeit publike authority in some places hath by lawes countenanced the solemnization of the Lords Day; for which wee of this land have cause to blesse God so as I thinke no Nation more; in consideration of many Lawes one after another and by degrees made to restraine abuses on that day, as tending to the manifest profanation thereof; and by none more then by that act of Parliament in the first of King Charles, wherein all men are forbidden to come out of their Parishes upon that day about any sports and pastime, evidently mani­festing hereby (as formerly hath beene proved) that all sports and pastimes are prophanations of our Christian Sabbath ob­served on that day, and that in the judgement of the whole Par­liament consisting of the Kings Majesty the head thereof, with his Lords spirituall (all the Bishops of the Kingdome) and temporal, together with the House of Commons; yet if once it shall be receaved according to D. Rivets doctrine of the Sab­bath, that it is in the power of each Church to set apart what proportion of time they thinke fit for Divine Service, and what day they thinke fit, who perceives not that they may if they will, order it in such a manner, as that twise a day they shall come to Church, and the rest of the day spend as they thinke good, either in the works of their calling, or upon their plea­sures: And whence all this zeale (so opposite to holinesse in the issue) proceeds, I know not, save onely to uphold the credit of Calvin; who professeth that he doth not so regard the num­ber of seaven, as that he would tie any to the servitude thereof; [Page 144] and yet I have endeavored to shew that neither this nor o­ther passages taken out of his institutions, makes any thing for them. And withall it is a wonder to behold how this of Calvin is taken up, and obtruded upon us, by them who o­therwise hate both the name and memory of Calvin. And as for Doctor Rivets honest and pious instructions as concerning the duties and out demeanors to bee performed on this day, we may easily perceive how little worth they are and how easily they vanish into smoake, after that hee hath in the doctrinall part of the Sabbath layd so unhappy a foundation, and that by so poore reasons and meane cariage of himselfe, that as I verily thinke, throughout all his writings there is not to bee found the like.

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

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

From their Doctrine pretended by him hee proceedes to their practise, professing it to bee devoyd of any the least superstitious rigour; esteeming it to be a day left arbitrary, and therefore open to all lawfull and honest recreations by which the minde may be refreshed, and the spirit quickened; as in Geneva all honest exercises, shooting in pieces, long Bowes, crosse Bowes are used in the Sabbath day, and that both in the morning before and after the Sermon; And truly I doe [Page 146] not finde my selfe prone to censure them for any superstition in this. But this author takes liberty to censure them for superstitious, who thinke these courses unlawfull on the Sabbath Day. I make bold to call the Lords Day our Sab­bath; because our Saviour plainly gives us to understand that wee Christians should have one day in the weeke for our Sab­bath, Ma. 24.20. as wel as the Jewes had; and secondly because the booke of Homilies professeth that Sunday is our Sabbath. Nobis non licet esse tam disertis. We may not be so elegant as to censure them for profaning the Lords Day by these and such like courses. Yet the act of Parlament, 1. Caroli forbids any man to come out of his Parish on the Lords Day, about any sports and pastimes; which restraint tending to this end, namely to preserve the Sabbath from profanation, doth ma­nifestly give us to understand that to come out of a mans parish on that day about any sports or pastimes is to profane the Sabbath: and seeing as before I have shewed, that to come out of a mans parish on that day about such a worke as doth not profane the Sabbath, is not to profane the Sabbath, as to heare a sermon, or to fetch a surgeon or Physitian to a sick person in ease of necessity; but onely to come out of a mans owne Parish about such a worke as doth profane the Sabbath, such a comming out of a mans own Parish on that day, and such alone doth profane the Sabbath; hence it fol­loweth evidently that all manner of sports and pastimes on that day, are so many profanations of the Sabbath in the judgement of all the Prelates of this Kingdome, and of the whole Parliament.

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

They have also at foure a Clocke on the Morning both Service and a Sermon for their servants, and 2. more in every Church; the one in the Fore-noone, the other in the After-noon, beside Catechizing the youth on the Sabbath Day: And Bishop Lake wished that such a course were generall, as is in his Majesties Court, to have a Sermon in the Mor­ning for the servants on the Sabbath day. And I see no cause to dissent from Gerardus in specifying 4. particulars where­by the Sabbath is not violated. Parva, Necessarium, Respublica, cum pietate. Undoubtedly hunting is as commendable as, (and more generous exercise) then any of these, and the Kings Majesty though much delighted herein, yet never useth to hunt on the Sabbath Day Morning or Evening. And I have cause to come but slowly to the believing hereof, because it is, Calvins Doctrine concerning the Sabbath, that albeit under the Gospell we are not bound to so rigorous a rest as the Jewes were, yet that still wee are obliged to abstaine from all other works, as they are Avocamenta à sacris studiis & medita­tionibus, Avocations from holy studies and Meditations; [Page 148] and their Ministers, I should thinke doe not well if they faile to minde them hereof, unlesse both they and the people are fallen from Calvins Doctrine in this point, in which case I see no just cause why any should choake us therewith, but give us as much liberty to dissent from him in the Doctrine of the Sabbath as they of Geneva take unto themselves. Againe Beza is well knowne to have professed upon, Revel. 1.10. that the observation of the Lords Day is, traditionis Apostolicae & verè Divinae, and consequently that the day is not left ar­bitrary; neither hath this author proved that the Presbytery and states of Geneva, both Ecclesiasticall, and politicall have committed any revolt or apostacy thereto from Beza in this point. It is well hee acknowledgeth some recreation not suffered there, as namely dancing; but this hee sayth they hold unlawfull, which simply delivered as by this author it is, is incredible unto mee, neither hath this authors word any sufficient authority to deliver mee from this incredulity: yet some manner of dancing may perhaps bee generally forbid­den in the French Protestant Churches. This strictnesse (the Prefacer saith) is noted by some to have beene a great hinderer to the growth of the reformed Religion; which belike is ad­vantaged so much the more with us in as much as it is not hindred; but he quotes no author for that. As for the author he quotes, I have not hitherto found that hee hath arrived to any great authority or credit in the World for the truth of his relations. Neither hath the wisdome of our Church or state taken any contrary course hitherto either by Statute or Ca­non to promote reformation amongst us; what they may doe hereafter I know not; when such spirits as this Prefacer may bee so fortunate as to sit neare the sterne. Whether the French Churches have found it so as this Geographer is sayd to report I know not; but for their judgment herein I must expect untill I heare more therof.

Sect. 7.

Pref.Which being so, the judgement and practice of so many men, and of such severall perswasions in the controverted point of the Christian faith, concurring unanimously together; the miracle is the greater, that we in England should take up a con­trary opinion, and thereby separate our selves from all that [Page 149] are called Christian; yet so it is,Sect. 7. I skill not how it comes to passe, but so it is, that some among us have revived againe the Jewish Sabbath, though not the day it selfe, yet the name and thing. Teaching that the commandement of sanctifying every seventh day, as in the Mosaicall Decalogue, is naturall, morall and perpetuall; that whereas all things else in the Jewish Church were so changed, that they were cleane taken away, This day (meaning the Sabbath) was so changed, that it still remaineth; and lastly, that the Sabbath was not any of those ceremonies which were justly abrogated at Christs comming. All which positions are condemned for contrary to the Articles of the Church of England; as in a comment on those Articles perused, and by the lawfull authority of the Church allowed to be publique, is most cleare and mani­fest; which doctrinalls, though dangerous in themselves, and different from the judgement of the ancient Fathers, and of the greatest Clerks of the later times, are not yet halfe so de­sperate as that which followeth thereupon in point of pra­ctice: For these positions granted and entertained as ortho­dox, what can we else expect, but such strange paradoxes, as in the consideration of the premisses have beene delivered from some pulpits in this kingdome, as viz. That to doe any ser­vile worke or businesse on the Lords Day, is as great a sinne as to kill a man, or to commit adultery; that to throw a bowle, to make a feast, or dresse a wedding dinner on the Lords Day, is as great a sinne, as for a man to take a knife and cut his childs throat; that to ring more bells than one on the Lords Day, is as great a sinne, as to commit murther. The author which re­ports them all, was present when the broacher of the last posi­tion was convented for it. And I believe him in the rest; the rather, since I have heard it preached in London, that the law of Moses whereby death temporall was appointed for the Sabbath-breaker was yet in force, and that who ever did the works of his calling on the Sabbath day, was to die therefore. And I know also, that in a towne of mine acquaintance, the Preachers there had brought the people to that passe, that nei­ther baked nor rost meat was to be found in all the parish for a Sundayes dinner throughout the yeere. These are the ordi­nary [Page 150] fruits of such dangerous doctrines; and against these, and such as these, our Author in this following Treatise doth ad­dresse himselfe, accusing them that entertaine the formall doctrinalls every where, of no lesse than Judaisme, and pressing them with that of Austin, that they who literally under­stand the fourth Commandement, doe not yet savour the Spirit: Section the third.

Exam. Austin somewhere saith, that he who lookes for miracles in these dayes for confirmation of the truth, Magnum ipse prodi­gium est, himselfe may goe for a monster; he doth not say; It is a miracle that men so should doe. Men may be sottish, even to admiration, and such if this Prefacer proves; we will not say it is a miracle: mira, wonderful things may be wrought not only by the practice of Satan, but in the very courses of men, but God is he alone that worketh miracles. He talkes of unani­mous concurrence of men of severall perswasions otherwise in the controverted points of Christian faith, and that both in judgement and practice with him in his way; he loves to speake with a full mouth, and to make a great noise, as the Hogs in Aelian did, when their owner shore them; which gave him occasion to say, That there was a great deale of cry, but a little wooll. And let the indifferent judge whether the wooll be answerable to the noise this Prefacer makes. Now, the men of severall perswa­sions whom hee avoucheth are Papists, and Protestants, and amongst the Protestants, both Lutherans and Calvinists. And hitherto he hath spoken of foure particulars; I desire the reader would take notice of the modesty of this author in each of them compared with the noise here hee makes concerning them; as if he were as much crackt in his braine, as hee who standing upon the key at Athens, with a note booke in his hands, set downe every ship that entred into the road as his, when he was not owner of any one of them. So I shall make it appeare, that this Prefacer hath title to none of the sides he boasts of for the countenancing of his way in any one of the particulars mentioned. The first particular is about the origi­nall institution of the Sabbath; as whether God commanded it immediatly upon the creation. This author denies the insti­tution of it before the promulgation of the law upon mount [Page 151] Sina; And what strength of suffrages doth he bring for this amongst the Protestants, whether Lutherans or Calvinists? Surely not one Lutherane that I know; but of others all that he avoucheth by himselfe are but Doctor Prideaux and Goma­rus, and by his assistance, Vatablus and Musculus; on the contrary are alleged by Walaeus: 1. Luther himselfe: 2. Zuin­glius: 3. Calvin: 4. Beza: 5. Peter Martyr: 6. Bullin­ger: 7. Zanchius: 8. Ʋrsinus: 9. Gualterus: 10. Areti­us: 11. Bertramus: 12. Mercerus: 13. Antonius Fayus: 14. Iunius: 15. Zepperus: 16. Martinius: 17. Alstedius. The same is justified by Rivetus, who voucheth no lesse than thirty Writers of note to concurre in this; Now let the indiffe­rent judge on whose side is the miracle this Prefacer speakes of, in his rhetoricall amplifications, on his side, or on ours. Yet not one English Divine is mentioned, either by Walaeus or Rivetus amongst this number. 2. Then as for Papists: Tosta­tus indeed disputes against this opinion of ours, but his rea­sons I have answered; and Catarinus a Popish Prelate, as well as Abulensis, is acknowleged by this Author to oppose Tosta­tus in this; neither hath he or Doctor Prideaux undertaken to answer him. Onely this Prefacer, after his bold fashion, saith, that Catarinus tooke up armes against Tostatus with ill suc­cesse, it hath beene manifest that for ought doth appeare, Ca­tarinus hath had better successe than Tostatus; For Pererius takes Tostatus his part, yet all the Rhemists on Apoc. 1.10. doe manifest themselves to take part with Catarinus, and Go­marus acknowledged as much of Marius. And Rivetus also allegeth Augustinus Steuchus, Genebrard, Iacobus Solianus, Cornelius de Lapide, Emmanuel Sa, and Ribera, all concurring against Tostatus and all Papists, yea, many of them Jesuites. Hereby let the reader judge of the modesty of this Author; and on whose side the feigned miracle is, on his side, or on ours. For it is manifest hitherto, that the men he speakes of, of seve­verall perswasions otherwise, are by farre, more for us than for him. But it may be in this particular, his glory is, that the Fa­thers are rather for his opinion than for us. But upon what ground? Is it from any evidence of Scripture? nothing lesse, not one of them building hereupon; and as for evidences, they [Page 152] bring none, save that the Scripture doth not particulate, that the Patriarches of old observed the Sabbath. Yet it was not to be held a generall rule, that Argumentum non valet ab autho­ritate negativè; the argument draw [...]e from authority doth not hold negatively in matter of fact. Secondly, not onely our Divines, as Hospinian and Walaeus, that the meaning of the Fathers is onely this, that the Patriarches did not observe it after a Jewish manner, but Iacobus Salianus a Papist affirmes the same particularly of Tertullian; as Rivetus voucheth him in his answer to Gomarus, pag. 21. And it may be made appa­rant from Tertullian himselfe, otherwise hee cannot be freed from contradiction, as who plainly manifesteth his opinion in our side, as Rivetus citeth him, pag. 23. So that the Fathers alleged by our adversaries, being rightly understood, make nothing for them; yet we want not variety of Fathers making expressely for us, and against them; and that grounding them­selves upon expresse Scripture, Gen. 2.3. therefore The Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, which our adversaries have no other meanes to avoid, than by saying that it is spoken by anticipation; according whereunto the meaning of Moses must be thus; because the Lord rested the seventh day from creation, therefore he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, but would you know when? to wit, 2000. and 4. or 500. yeeres after. And lastly, the dividing of times into weekes, proved to be the most ancient division of times in the world, received by all nations, and made a festivall day thereupon; as many have most learnedly proved it, doe justifie the sanctification of the Sabbath to have had its beginning and course from the very creation. So that in this particular wee have on our side both Scripture and reason, and Fathers, and the opinion of men of severall professions, as this author presseth it, both Papists and Protestants, both Lutheranes and Calvinists; and this Prefa­cer can lay no just title to any one of them in this particular. The second point he hath insisted upon, is about the morality of one day in seven. For this he pretends, onely Papists in the first place, and not a Father throughout, (and as Chrysostome to the contrary hath professed, that God from the beginning hath manifested, that on that day in the circle of the week must [Page 153] be consecrated unto his service) much lesse Scripture. And it is apparant that God commanded that the proportion of one day in seven should bee allotted to his service; and it was never to bee abrogated, nor ever did any man devise any ce­remoniality therein. And to this day it hath continued in the Church of God. To Tostatus wee have opposed Azorius the Jesuite; professing that it is most agreeable to reason after six worke dayes to consecrate one to Gods service. Adde to him Stella upon Luke, Jacobus de Valentia, & Dominicus Bannes.—As for Aquiaas, that which hee accounts cere­moniall in the fourth Commandement was expressed by him to bee not one day in seven, but the particulating of the seaventh day: But whereas he goes no farther in illustrating the morality of this Commandement then in saying that some time must be set apart for Gods service, I appeale to every mans conscience, whether the very light of nature doth not suggest that not onely some time but a convenient proportion of time ought to be consecrated unto God; and when God hath manifested this to bee one day in seaven under the Law; doth not the very light of nature suggest, that wee should sin against God if wee should not allow unto him as good a proportion of time under the Gospell? And further if the Lords Day, be of Divine institution amongst us Christians, is it not still the Law of God even unto us, to allow unto him one day in seven? Now Doctor Prideaux himselfe alleageth more Papists for this opinion than for the contrary, and one of them, to wit, Silvester professeth it is the common opi­nion as Azorius voucheth him. And as for Protestants to side with him herein, hee alleageth none but Gomarius and Rivet; it may seeme by his carriage, that Vatablus nd Musculus also are for him in this, but that is untrue, they are alleaged by Gomarus on the first point onely as touching the originall in­stitution of the Sabbath. Now Rivet is opposed herein by his two Collegues, Walaeus and Thysius; and whereas he takes upon him to answer Walaeus his reasons to the contrary, and represent his owne reasons for his opinion herein; I have taken into consideration both the one and the other; and I trust have represented the weaknesse of his discourse through­out, [Page 154] though otherwise a very learned and worthy Divine. Now Waleus hath not onely alleadged amongst the Fathers Chryso­stome, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Augustine, Theodoret, but a multitude of Protestant writers, maintaining the morality of one day in seaven, as Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Zanchius, Junius, Viretus, Danaeus, Fayus, Martinius, Ʋrsinus. Alstedius, Lorasegius, Festus Hommius, be­sides English and Scottish writers, whom he might have pro­duced more then enough: yea of Bishops in this Kingdome; as Bishop Babington, Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Lake, yea and Master Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy. Now let the rea­ders judge by this of the modesty of this Prefacer in this par­ticular also, and whether the miracle (as he phraseth it) be on our side in dissenting from others unreasonably, or on his rather.

3 The third particular is touching the celebration of the Lords Day, as whether it bee by authority humane or divine rather: wee say it is of divine; hee will have it to be left ar­bitrary: yet was it never knowne, that any earthly Master did leave the proportion of service, to bee performed unto him, to the pleasure of his servant; neither did God leave it thus from the beginning of the World untill Christ, as hath beene proved. Yet this Prefacer will have it thus left unto us in these latter dayes; of which the Apostle hath prophe­cied,1 Tim. 3.4. that Men should be lovers of pleasure more then lovers of God. For this, he boasts of all sorts of Papists, this he begins withall; which was not wont to bee the course of English Divines; yet hee belies Doctor Prideaux in this; who allea­geth more Papists standing for the divine right hereof, then for the contrary; and one of them (as formerly I sayd) pro­fesseth that it is the common opinion. And Azorius the Je­suite professeth that it is most agreeable to reason, that as af­ter six dayes worke one should bee consecrate unto the Lord, so the Lords Day should be it. That many of our Protestants Di­vines call the observation of the Lords Day, Ecclesiae consue­tudinem, and that it was left free unto the Church to choose ano­ther, after the Iewes Sabbath was abrogated, I have shewed how little all this makes for him, answering to every passage [Page 155] punctually, as they are alleaged by him. For it is confessed that the Church they spake of was the apostolicall Church; and the cause moving them to choose this day was the Re­surrection of Christ, and whereas some two of them call this Causam probabilem; I have discussed that, and prooved it to be more then probable. I have shewed withall how the ancient fathers have acknowledged it, some expressely divine, some equivalently, and expressely apostolicall constitution or sanction, as Athanasius (whose reason drawne from the con­gruity betweene the first creation and the second Creation by vertue of Christs death is remarkeable, and followed by many both English and outlandish Divines.

Austin, Sedulius, Gregory, and others; And with them the concurrence of our Protestant divines, Bucer, Calvin, Beza, Junius, Piscator, Wolsius, Fulke against the Remish, Doctor Andrewes bishop of Winchester, Doctor Lake bishop of Bath and Wells, in expressing it to be observationis not liberae, but ne­cessariae, Master Fox, Walaeus, Fayus, Hyperius, Perkins, Brownde. By this lot the reader judge of the modesty of the Praefacer in this particular also; and whether the miracle bee on our side in dissenting from others in an unreasonable manner, and not on his rather.

The fourth and last particular is the mutability of the day 4 which this Prefacer stands for, we on the contrary professing it to be unchangeable. Now the resolution of this followeth upon the resolution of the former; for this, onely names are produced both by the Prefacer and Doctor Prideaux. Yet I have endeavored to finde out Chemnitius his discourse there­on, and enter upon a discussion thereof. Bucer I am sure, alleag­ed by Rivet, is nothing for this purpose. Doctor Fulke directly opposeth it, Doctor Andrewes, Doctor Lake above men­tioned, Doctor Brownde, Doctor Willet, Master Perkins. The Christian Church anciently being demanded whether they had kept the Lords Day, were wont to answer; I am a Christian, I cannot intermit it. Besides I have shewed in reason the un­reasonablenesse both of changing the day, and the intollerable scandall that would follow upon it, and the unreasonable­nesse of not changing it, if it be not of divine institution; con­sidering [Page 156] how prone wee are through the continuall observati­on thereof to conceave that to be a necessary duty, and so to be plunged into superstition, ere we are aware, if it prove to be no necessary duty.

In the next place hee tells us how that some amongst us have revived againe the Iewish Sabbath, though not the day it selfe, yet the name and thing. Teaching that the Commande­ment of sanctifying every seaventh day as in the Mosaicall De­calogue is naturall, morall and perpetuall; that whereas all things else in the Iewish were so changed, that they were cleane to be done away, this day (meaning the Sabbath) was so changed, that it still remaineth: and lastly, that the Sabbath was not any of those ceremonies which were only abrogated at Christs comming. All which positions are condemned for contrary to the Articles of the Church of England: as in a comment on those Articles perused and by the lawfull authority of the Church allowed to be publique, is most cleare and manifest. Here wee have a distincti­on of a Jewish Sabbath brought in, yet not the day; a distinction contrived with such wisedome and perspicacity as it seemes to exceed all humane discretion. For I verily thinke that from the beginning of the Primitive Church there was never heard of a Jewish Sabbath to be kept, any other then upon their day. The materialls are, first that the name Sab­bath is retained; and well may it be in my judgement (though some entertaine sublime reaches to the contrary) if our Sa­viour have any authority with us; who adviseth his Disciples to pray that their flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day; which is spoken by him in reference to the time about the destruction of Ierusalem, at what time the Lords Day was come in place of the Jewes Sabbath among the Christian con­gregations, and that by apostolicall substitution. And in the very booke of our Homilies it is expressely sayd that the Sunday is now our Sabbath. And his Majesties briefes for collection so stile it. And in the conference at Hampton Court it was so stiled by Doctor Raynolds, and the motion he made thereabout generally yeelded unto; so that the State hitherto seemes to be censured by this bold Prefacer. The next asper­sion is, that the thing also is revived. But what thing? the [Page 157] Jewes had peculiar sacrifice both morning and evening which doubled the dayly sacrifice; this surely is not revived. There were besides two things in the Jewish Sabbath; the one was a rest, the other was the sanctifying of that rest; As for the rest, if that were not, it were no Sabbath. Yet our Saviour calls it a Sabbath, our Church calls it a Sabbath, our State calls it a Sabbath. And Austin calls us to such a rest on the Lords Day, as that therein we must tantum Deo vacare, tantum cultibus di­vinis vacare, onely rest to God, onely rest for divine worship. And Calvin, who is taken to be no friend of ours in this case, professeth, that we must rest from all our works, so farre forth as they are avocamenta à sacris studiis, & meditationibus, avo­cations from holy studies and meditations, but not for any mysterious signification sake, and that herein consists the dif­ference betweene the Jewish rest and our Christians rest; and I am exactly of his opinion for this: As for the sanctificati­on of this rest, I trust wee are as much bound to the perfor­mance hereof, and that in as great measure, and with as great devotion under the Gospel, as ever the Jewes were under the Law; And at the hearing of this Commandement as well as of any other, our Church hath taught us to pray, Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keepe this Law. And I find it wondrous strange, to heare, that some should not spare to pro­fesse, that this was shuffled in they know not how; At length wee come to the particular charges: the first is, that some should teach, that The Commandement of sanctifying every se­venth day, as in the Mosaicall Decalogue, is naturall, morall, and perpetuall: and Master Rogers is quoted for this on the Article, Art. 7. hee quotes Master Doctor Bownde, pag. 7. Now truely, it cannot be denied, but that when the fourth Com­mandement is read unto us in our Congregations, wee are taught to pray unto God, to shew such mercy unto us, as to incline our hearts to the keeping of this law. And both master Rogers and this Prefacer are to be presumed to have subscribed as well as others, and by their subscription acknowledged that this is nothing contrary to Gods Word; that we are as much bound to the observation of this Commandement as of any other, and consequently to keepe the Sabbath, and doe no [Page 158] manner of worke thereon that may hinder the sanctifying thereof. Now Master Doctor Bownds words, (after hee had cited Chrysostome speaking thus, I am hic ab initio &c. Here now even from the beginning God hath insinuated this Doctrine unto us, teaching us in circulo hebdomadis diem, unum that in the com­passe of a weeke, one whole day is to be put apart for a spirituall rest unto God, are these: Ʋnto all which may be added, that for profe othat this Commandement is naturall, morall, and perpetuall; that I say may be added which was practised among the Gentiles, and all the Heathen. And now Do. Bowndes purpose unto the p. 30. is to be proved only this, that a Sabbath was from the beginning, and still is to be kept, and that in the proportion of one day in seven; and after that proceeds to prove what day the Sab­bath should be kept; his words are these p. 30. Now, as we have hitherto seene that there ought to be a Sabbath day, so it re­maineth that we should heare upon what day this Sabbath should be kept; and here he sheweth that this is not left unto the Church, but prescribed by God himselfe, as who prescribed one day unto the Jewes, and another day unto us Christians; but still one in seven: The same was the opinion both of Bellarmine and Master Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy. Whereas both Master Rogers and the Prefacer so carry the matter, as if by Doctor Bowndes opinion we Christians were bound to keepe our Sabbath on the same day whereon the Jewes were bound to keepe theirs, which is most untrue, though the fourth Com­mandement may be indifferently accommodated to our Chri­stian Sabbath as it was unto the Jewish Sabbath, save onely as touching the reason given, which hath expresse reference to the creation; but our Christian Sabbath stands in reference to the worke of Redemption. Each is the rest on a seventh day af­ter six dayes of labour, and as they were bound to sanctifie their seventh, so are we bound to sanctifie ours; and as that was rested on, and sanctified in remembrance of Gods rest from the worke of Creation, so is ours rested on in remembrance of Christs rest from the worke of Redemption, so that our day of rest is but translated from the day of the Lord our Creators rest, to the day of the Lord our Redeemers rest. And on this ground might the Church justly teach us to pray at the hearing of this [Page 159] fourth Commandement; Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keepe this law. But like enough, both Master Ro­gers and this Prefacer might be of Brentius his opinion; that it is left indifferent to the Church at this day, to content them­selves with observing of one day in foureteene, if it pleaseth them. But this was not the opinion of Pope Alexand. the third, who professeth, that Tam vereris quam novi Testamenti pagina septimam diem ad humanam quietē specialiter deputavit. Both the old and new Testament hath appointed the seventh day for the rest of man, which Suarez thus interpreteth, That is, each Testament hath approved the custome of assigning every seventh day of the weeke for rest, which is formally to appoint a seventh day, though the same day materially be not alwayes appointed; and thus it is true, that that seventh day in the old Law was the Sab­bath day; but in the new, it is the Lords Day: now when we say the observation of one day in seven is naturall, our meaning is not, neither was it D. Bowndes meaning, that this proportion of time is knowne by the light of nature, to be that which of duty should be consecrated unto God: herein rather it becomes us to wait upon God, and he having defined it; now we say nothing can be devised by man more agreeable to reason than this; Azorius the Jesuit, professing it to be most agreeable to reason; And Doctor Field, as Master Broade voucheth him, spared not to say, that to him who knowes the story of the creation, it doth appeare in reason, that one day in seven is to be conse­crated unto God; onely let us not looke for reason demon­strative in matter of morality: Aristotle long agoe hath pro­fessed, that not demonstration, but perswasion alone hath place in Ethicks; yet we may justly call that naturall, which from the originall was common to all nations; and that such was the observation of the seventh day, the learned have sufficient­ly proved. Secondly, if it be not morall, what shall it be? Is it judiciall, or ceremoniall? Never any man hitherto devised any ceremoniality in the proportion of one day in seven; well it may be positive; yet so, as to this day, from the beginning of the world, this proportion was never altered; and if I should live till the day be altered by any sober Christian Congrega­tion, I thinke I should live till the comming of Christ; which [Page 160] the Christians in Austins time conceived that it would be on the Lords day. I come to the second charge which is this, whereas all things else in the Iewish Church were so changed, that they were cleane taken away; this day (meaning the Sabbath) was so changed, that it still remaineth; and for this Master Rogers quotes Doct. Bownde, p. 20. onely Master Rogers saith, not that all things were changed, as the Prefacer doth, but onely that all Iewish things were changed, now judge whether Master Rogers might not have opposed Doctor Andrews as well as Doctor Bownde. For in his Catechet. doctrine, pag. 209. having proposed this question. But is not the Sabbath a ceremony, and so abrogated by Christ? He answers it in this manner: Doe as Christ did in the cause of divorce, looke whether it were so from the beginning; now the beginning of the Sabbath was in Paradise before there was any sinne, and so before there needed any Saviour; and so before there was any ceremony or figure of a Saviour. And if they say it prefigured the rest that we shall have from our sinnes in Christ, we grant it, and therefore the day is not changed, but yet no cere­mony proved. Hee proceeds to prove that it was no ceremony: first from the Law; secondly from the Gospel, Eph. 2.4. thus: All ceremonies were ended in Christ, but so was not the Sabbath; For, Matth. 24.20. Christ bids them pray, that their visitation be not on the Sabbath day: so that there must needs be a Sabbath after Christs death. Now, what doth Doctor Bownde affirme forty yeeres agoe, which Doctor Andrewes did not in his pat­terne of Catecheticall doctrine? I come to the third and last: That the Sabbath was not any of those ceremonies which were just­ly abrogated at Christs comming. This very point Doctor An­drewes maintaines by divers arguments, as well as D. Bownde, which yet is rightly to be understood, to wit, not of the obser­vation of the seventh day from the creation; but of the obser­vation of one day in seven. So that in M. Rogers his Brentian judgement in this particular, Doctor Andrewes, who after­wards became Bishop of Winchester, might be accounted a Sabbatarian as well as D. Bownde. All these positions the Prefacer saith, are condemned for contrary to the Articles of the Church of England; but by whom condemned? by none but by M. Rogers; and by the same reason he might say that the [Page 161] doctrine of Doctor Andrewes was condemned also for contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, to wit, by M. Rogers. And consider his absurd inference from the seventh Article of the Church of England; The Article saith that Christians are not bound at all to the observation of Iudaicall ceremonies; Hence he inferres, that they whom he calls, Our home Sabba­tarians are adversaries to this truth in part, namely, in as much as they deny the Sabbath to be a ceremony: But doth our Church affirme the Sabbath to be a ceremony? Nothing lesse; this M. Rogers, of his owne head, layes downe for a principle, namely, that the Sabbath was a ceremony, to obtrude upon us, as if himselfe had as much authority as a whole Convocati­on. And D. Andrewes takes upon him to disprove this very point (which Rogers supposeth as a principle) and that by va­rious arguments: Belike D. Andrewes deserved not to be num­bred amongst the greatest Clerks of these later times, nor D. Lake neither; nor Bishop Babington; And as for the judgement of the ancient Fathers, it appeares what skil the Prefacer hath in them, and what respect he beares unto them, by the learning he hath bewrayed in this preface. Had he found in them, how much the forbidding of dancing in their dayes, did hinder the growth of Christian Religion, we should have heard of it un­doubtedly, as well as how it hath hindred the growth of the reformed Religion in France out of Heylins Geography: yet their doctrinalls (which I have shewed to be the doctrinalls of Doctor Andrewes as well as of Doctor Bownde, yea, and could shew it to be the doctrine of divers other late Bishops in this Church) though dangerous in themselves, not half so desperate as that which followeth thereupon in practice. Divers particulars whereof he reciteth out of the same Master Rogers his preface, to his comment upon the Articles of the Church of Eng­land. And indeed, this Master Rogers glorieth there, Pyrgopo­lynices-like, that he hath beene the man and the meanes that these Sabbatarian errours and impieties were brought into light and knowledge of the State; so he speakes; and that this is a comfort to his soule, and would be to his dying day. And in very deed, the particulars mentioned by him, are very foule; for hee saith, It was preached in a market towne in Oxfordshire, that to doe [Page 162] any servile worke or businesse on the Lords Day, is as great a sinne as to kill a man, or commit adultery. Secondly, It was preached in Summersetshire, that to throw a bowle on the Sabbath day, is as great a sinne as to kill a man; that it was preached in Norfolke, that to make a feast or wedding-dinner on the Lords Day, is as great a sinne as for a father to take a knife and cut his childs throat. I wonder the Prefacer doth not call them miracles; Sommer­setshire is a pretty large County; and there be many market townes in Oxfordshire; and I doe not doubt but there are many parishes in Norfolke; But no particular is here set downe, either of person or of place; and wee have no better authority for the proofe of these imputations than this mans word, which yet undoubtedly was not present at these Ser­mons: for then he would have beene very carefull to expresse that, as in the next story hee doth the like. So that in the issue, the strength of all comes but to this, that he hath heard it thus reported. Now, I have heard it preached, and that at Saint Maries in Oxford, that a man in Bunbury, or thereabouts, having broken a bone, his sonne refused to goe for a Bone­setter, because it was the Lords Day, and this Sermon, after­wards comming into print, the party finding himselfe agrie­ved by this scandalous report cast forth of him, repaired to the quarter Sessions holden at Oxford, and complained to the Justices of the wrong that was done unto him; the Preacher of that Sermon being by, and the whole matter being opened, and the contrary justified; the preacher professed, that he de­livered no more than he had heard, but promised the next time that he printed that Sermon, hee would leave that story out. Doctor Hoskins of our house was present at the hearing of this businesse, and brought us word of it. But whether that Ser­mon ever came to be printed a second time, I know not. In like sort, I have heard it reported of Master Bolton, that when one fell into the River on the Sabbath day, he would not suffer those that were with him, being neere to runne to helpe him out: I professed at the hearing of it, I knew Master Bolton so well, that it seemed uncredible to me, but the reporter professed to deliver it upon knowledge. But if it were so, ma­ny there be that can beare witnesse thereunto in the place [Page 163] where he lived. Lately, it hath beene brought unto mee, that one hath beene heard to lay to my charge behind my backe, that I should say, David sinned more in dancing about the Arke, than either in deflouring Bathshebath, or killing Ʋriah; though it is such a comparison that never entered into my thoughts, how much lesse to passe so prodigious a judgement upon the comparison? In the last place, he saith, It was preached in Suffolke, (and that he could name the man, and was present when he was convented before his ordinary for preaching the same) that to ring more bels than one upon the Lords day to call the people unto Church, is as great a sinne, as to commit murther; this is more particular than the rest; and had hee added one thing more, the evidence had been compleat, namely, that as he saith, he was convented for it before his Ordinary, so he was found con­victed of it; which if it were so, I wonder he should conceale it; if it were not so, of what credit is this his relation? He addes, that many things to this effect he had read before in the Sabbath doctrine, printed at London for I. Porter and Tho. Man, what this booke was I could not devise, but lately have gotten into my hands D. Bowndes booke of the Sabbath. I finde by comparing it well, that this is the booke he girds at. Now I finde nothing in him to this effect, though I have gone over most of the first booke, and in the Index doe not finde any thing that can give me probability in the second booke, ten­ding to any such effect: and I wonder he spared to quote the place where such doctrines are to be found, nothing being more convenient to justifie his criminations (than to quote for it something that is to be seene in print) and thereby to cleare himselfe from the suspicion of a malignant. But this Prefacer very judiciously believes him throughout, because the Relator was present when the broacher of the last position was convented for it, yet doth he not say he was convicted of it. And upon what ground he proceeds so judiciously in believing it is remarke­able, to wit, because himselfe hath heard it preached in London, that the Law of Moses, whereby death temporall was appointed for the Sabbath-breaker, was yet in force; and that whoever did the workes of his ordinary calling on the Sabbath day, was to die there­fore. Now, I professe he seemes to me a great deale more poli­tique [Page 164] herein than at the first I was ware of: For, had hee not believed Master Rogers his report this way, others might have taken as great liberty to believe but their part concerning this. Therefore it stood him upon, first, to manifest his ingenuous facility in believing another, that this might be a shooing-horne to draw on others by way of the like ingenuous facility to believe him also; yet such things may be; for as long as the world lasts, we shall be exercised with wilde wits, and so no doubt we shall with tale-tellers too, and so much the more in all likelihood the neerer the world approacheth to an end: It hath beene so amongst Philosophers in Cicero his observati­on; it hath been so amongst Schoole-divines; it is so amongst Socinians and Arminians. But let the saddle be set upon the right horse, and let every man beare his owne burthen. Now I have made it manifest, that the doctrines which he picks out of D. Bownde, and stiles Sabbatarian doctrines, are the do­ctrines of D. Andrewes, afterwards Bishop of Winchester; I could shew them to be the doctrines of many other worthy Prelates that have been of this kingdome; and it may be that if the votes of the Bishops of this kingdom were taken, the major part would concurre with us, as touching the doctrine of the Sabbath, rather than against us. The same Master Rogers sacri­ficeth to his net, and burnes incense to his yarne, and magni­fies the good successe of his labours. For this good, he saith, hath ensued thereupon; namely, that the said bookes of the Sab­bath, comprehending the above mentioned, and many more such fearefull and hereticall assertions, have beene both called in, and forbidden to be printed any more and to be made common, and that Archbishop Whitgift, by his letters and officers at Synods and Visitations, Anno 99. did the one, and Sir John Popham, Lord chiefe Iustice of England at Bury Saint Edmunds in Suffolke, Anno 1600. did the other. For all this we have nothing but his word; and as for the bookes he talkes of, hee had for­merly mentioned, but one printed 95. at London for I. Porter and Tho. Man, of the doctrine of the Sabbath, which ap­peares to be D. Bowndes; Now, was this ever called in? Sure I am, D. Willet upon Genesis came forth the yeere after this M. Rogers his Analysis of the Articles of the Church of England.

[Page 165]This hee dedicated to King Iames, and over and above hath a second dedication in Latine to Archbishop Bancroft and to the bishop of London then being; wherein hee signifieth that the one of them was author, the other hortator unto him to perfect this worke of his; and therefore undoubted­ly came forth with as good approbation as the Analysis of Master Rogers upon the second Chapter of Gen. he observes that As the Sabbath kept then upon the seventh day in remem­brance of the Creation was of the Lords institution, so the Lords Day, is now observed by the same authority, in remembrance of the Resurrection of Christ, and redemption by the same. And this hee delivers in opposition to the Rhemists; who count the observation of the Lords Day but a tradition of the Church, and Ecclesiasticall institution, and having spent a whole page in folio upon this argument in the next page thus hee writeth— I doe wonder then this doctrine of the Sabbath, and day of rest now called the Lords Day having such evident demonstration out of the Scriptures and being confirmed by the constant and conti­nuall practise of the Church, in all ages: that any professing the Gospell, specially being exercised in the Study of the Scriptures, should gainsay, and impugne these positions following as erroneous. 1. That the Commandement of sanctifying the Sabbath is naturall morall and perpetuall: For if it be not so then all the Commande­ments contained in the Decalogue are not morall, so should we have. 9. and not. 10. Commandements; and then Christ should come to destroy the Law, and not to fulfill is contrary to our Saviours own words, Math. 5.17. 2. That all other things in the Law were so changed that they were cleane taken away, as the priest­hood, Sacrifices and Sacraments: this day (namely the Sabbath) was so changed, that it yet remaines, For it is evident by the Apostles practise, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. Apo. 1.10. that the day of rest (called the Sabbath) was changed from the seventh day to the first day of the weeke: and so was observed and kept holy under the name of the Lords Day. 3. That it is not lawfull to use the seventh day to any other end, but to the holy and san­ctified end, for which in the beginning it was created. 4. As the Sab­bath came in with the first man, so must it not goe out, but with the last. 5. That we are restrained upon the Sabbath from [Page 166] works as the Jewes were, though not in such strict particular manner as they were, yet in generall we are forbidden all kind of worke upon the Lords Day, as they were, which may hinder the service of God.

Now the Author that hee intimates as opposing these po­sitions hee describes by the title, of his booke in the margent, which is this. The Catholique doctrine of the Church of Eng­land printed at Cambridge p. 37. And the author of his booke I have heard to be Master Rogers, and it seemes like­ly enough, especially by the 2. first positions. Doctor Willet concludes in this manner, after hee had made use of divers allegations for the confirmation of his doctrine in opposi­tion to the fore-mentioned Author, but these allegations are here superfluous seeing there is a learned Treatise of the Sabbath already published of this argument which containeth a most sound doctrine of the Sabbath, as it is said in the former positions, which shall be able to abide the triall of the Word of God, and stand warranted thereby, when other humane fantasies shall va­nish: howsoever some in their heate and intemperance are not afraid to call them Sabbatariorum errores, yea hereticall asser­tions, a new Iubilee; S. Sabbath, more then either Iewish or popish institution; God grant it be not layd to their charge that so speake or write, and God give them a better minde. About two yeares before this, were set forth Master Perkins his cases of conscience: wherein hee manifesteth his concurrence with Doctor Bownde in the doctrine of the Sabbath. Neither doth Doctor Andrewes, in any materiall thing differ from Doctor Bownde, Master Perkins, Doctor Will t. In the next relation of his which is of a familiar nature, undoubtedly the Prefacer deserves to be believed. That in a Towne of his acquaintance the preachers there had brought the people to that passe, that neither baked nor roste meate was to be found in all the Parish for a sunday dinner throughout the yeare, and hee con­cludes it with such an Epiphonema. These are the fruites of such dangerous doctrines; as if the fortunes of the Church or state were hazarded for want of bak't meate or rost meate on the sundayes.

And to confesse a truth, though I never was; nor never am [Page 167] like to be so precise; yet considering my meane condition, I have divers times thought thus with my selfe: why should my provision hinder any of my servants from Sermons on the Sabbath day; so little did I feare any dangerous conse­quence of this practise: but since I am better informed by the suggestions of this judicious Prefacer; I will take heede how I cherish such thoughts in my brest henceforth; and if hee come at any time to take paines amongst us, seeing I finde hee respects bak't meate and rost meate so well; it shall goe hard but wee will have a tith Pig for his entertainement. And so much the rather, that I may cleare my selfe from Judaisme, for Iack of Newbery my Countreyman being a great Clothier in his dayes; and then strangers came from farre to buy Cloath at his House, and amongst the rest a com­pany of Jewes were sometime entertained by him being a very hospitallous man and an excellent house-keeper, his house being accounted the best Inne in the Towne, to make him­selfe merry, caused the table to bee furnished with all variety of Hogges flesh; which they perceaving tooke it for a flout; but after they had grumbled a while upon it, hee made shew as if but then hee had remembred himselfe of his errour, and not till then considered that they were Jewes; and forth­with hee commanded all the dishes to be remooved, and o­ther dishes already prepared to be set on the board, where­with his table was as well furnished as it was with guests. But to returne, it is an easy matter now a dayes to accuse of any thing, as Doctor Prideaux hee saith, accuseth us of Judaisme, but si accusare sufficiat, quis innocens erit; when hee or Doctor Prideaux shall prove their accusations, then let us be condemned; and if wee be not condemned, till then wee care not. Yet it is untrue which hee pins upon Doctor Pri­deaux his sleeve; as if hee should alleage Austin saying, that they who literally understand the fourth Commandement, doe not yet savour of the spirit, neither S. Austin speakes this of the fourth Commandement, nor is hee so alleaged by Doctor Prideaux, but of the seventh day; Quisquis diem illum observat sicut litera sonat, carnàliter sapit. As much as to say, whosoever keeps that day which the Jew keepes, favoureth carnally. Neither [Page 168] did I know any of my brethren to stand for the sanctifying of the seventh day in correspondency to the seventh day,Sect. 8. from the Creation but onely of one day in seaven; which day must also be prescribed by God as the seventh day of the weeke was to the Jewes, which is the next thing imputed un­to us, but the Lords Day is the first day of the weeke to us Christians.

Sect. 8.

Pref.This when I had considered, when I had seriously obser­ved, how much these fancies were repugnant both to the ten­dries of this Church and judgments of all kinde of writers and how unsafe to be admitted; I thought I could not goe about a better worke then to exhibite to the view of my deare Countreymen this following Treatise delivered first, and af­terwards published by the Author in another language. The rather since of late the clamour is encreased, and that there is not any thing now more frequent in some Zelotes mouthes (to use the Doctors words) then that the Lords Day is with us licentiously yea sacrilegiously profaned, Section first. To satisfie whose scruples and give content unto their mindes, I doubt not but this following discourse will be sufficient: which for that cause I have translated faithfully, and with as good propriety as I could; not swerving any where from the sense, and as little as I could from the phrase and letter. Gratum opus agricolis: a worke as I conceave it, not un­suitable unto the present times, wherein besides these peccant fancies before remembred, some have so farre proceeded, as not alone to make the Lords Day subject to the Jewish rigour; but to bring in against the Jewish Sabbath, and abrogate the Lords Day altogether. I will no longer detaine the reader from the benefit hee shall reape thereby. Onely I will crave leave for his greater benefit, to repeat the summe thereof which is briefely this: First that the Sabbath was not instituted in the first Creation of the World, nor ever kept by any of the ancient patriarchs who lived before the Law of Moses: therefore no morall and perpetuall precept as the other are, Sect. 2. Secondly that the sanctifying of one day in seven is ce­remoniall onely and obliged the Jewes, not morall to oblige us Christians to the like observance▪ Sect. 3. and 4. Thirdly, [Page 169] that the Lords Day is founded onely on the authority of the Church, guided therein by the practice of the Apostles; not on the fourth Commandement (which hee calls a scandalous doctrine, Sect. 7.) nor any other expresse authority in holy Scripture, Sect 6. and 7. Then fourthly, that the Church hath still authority to change the day, though such authority be not fit to be put in practice, Sect. 7. Fifthly, that in the celebrati­on of it, there is no such cessation from works of labour requi­red from us, as was exacted of the Jewes, but that we may law­fully dresse meat proportionable to every mans estate, and doe such other things as are no hindrance to the publique service appointed for the day, Sect. 8. Sixthly, that on the Lords Day all recreations whatsoever are to be allowed, which honestly may refresh the spirits, and increase mutuall love and neigh­bour-hood amongst us, and that the names whereby the Jewes were wont to call their festivalls (whereof the Sabbath was the chiefe) were borrowed from an Hebrew word, which signifieth to dance, and to be merry, or make glad the countenance. If so, if all such ceremonies as do increase good neighbor-hood, then wakes and feasts, and other meetings of that nature. If such as honestly may refresh the spirits, then dancing, wrestling, shooting, and all other pastimes, not by law prohibited, which either exercise the body, or revive the mind. And lastly, that it appertaines to the Christian Magistrate, to order and appoint what pastimes are to be permitted, and what are not (obedi­ence unto whose commands is better farre than sacrifice to the Idols of our owne inventions) not unto every private person (or as the Doctors owne words are) not unto every mans rash zeale, who, out of a schismaticall, Stoicisme (debarring men from lawfull pastimes) doth incline to Judaisme, Sect. 8. Adde for the close of all, how doubtingly our Author speakes of the name of Sabbath, which now is growne so rife amongst us, Sect. 8. Concerning which, take here that notable dilemma of Iohn Barkley, the better to encounter those who still retaine the name, and impose the rigor.Paren. l. 1. c. ult. Cur porrò illum diem pleri (que) Secta­riorum Sabbatum appellatis? What is the cause (saith he) that many of our Sectaries call this day the Sabbath? If they ob­serve it as a Sabbath, they must observe it because God rested [Page 170] on the day, and then they ought to keepe that day whereon God rested, and not the first, as now they doe, whereon the Lord began his labours. If they observe it as the day of our Saviours resurrection, why doe they call it still the Sabbath, seeing especially that Christ did not altogether rest the day, but valiantly overcame the powers of death? This is the summe of all; and this is all that I have to say unto thee (good Chri­stian reader) in this present businesse. God give thee a right un­derstanding in all things, and a good will to doe thereafter.

Exam.This Prefacer accounts the opinions opposite to his, to be fancies; D. Willet on the contrary, as wee have heard, accounts this Prefacers opinion, maintained by M. Rogers, no better than fantasies, which shall vanish, however now for a time they flourish; Sure wee are, every plant that our heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted out. This Prefacer professeth, those whom hee opposeth be opposite to the tendries of our Church; and indeed, the Author whom D. Willet intimateth, intitled his booke audaciously enough, The Catholique doctrine of the Church of England; but D. Willet on the other side, won­dred, that any professing the Gospel, should gain-say and im­pugne the positions maintained by D. Bownde. And sure I am, Bishop Babington, Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Lake agreed with them: And it is well knowne to some, what the former Archbishop of Canterbury professed to the face of M. Broade, when he came to move for the printing of a second book con­cerning the Sabbath: What Bishop can our opposites name of this Church, whose praise is among the writers of these times, that hath manifested his opinion in opposition to these? As for the judgements of all kinde of writers which he boasts of, I thinke never came a Divine to take pen in hand to vaunt so much, and performe so little. As for the unsafe condition of our Tenets which he suggests, excepting those monstrous and wild Tenets mentioned by M. Rogers, for which I know no better evidence than his word, and that in very odde manner delivered, I know nothing unsafe, nothing dangerous in any Tenet of ours, who now seeme to walke as upon the pinacles of the Temple, and indeed in this respect they are like to prove very dangerous to us; yet I would it were not more dan­gerous [Page 171] to the Church of God, to be bereaved of so many faith­full Pastors: For, certainly it shall be honourable unto them, they cannot suffer in a more honorable cause than this, in stan­ding for the sanctifying of the Lords Day in memory of his re­surrection, who that day, being formerly a stone refused of the builders, was made the head of the corner. For what danger is it to maintaine, that from the Creation the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; and what a shamefull course is it so to expound it as in reference to a time 2000. and 4. or 500. yeeres after, and that in spight of the ancient Fathers: And manifest reason, as appeares by division of time into weekes, even from the creation, and so continuing to the time of the Law delivered on the mount Sinai, as appeares by the story of falling of Manna, and the Jewes gathering of it on sixe dayes; none falling now, being gathered on the seventh, as the day on the week whereon God rested after he had made the world in six. What danger in maintaining, that God required from the beginning, and afterwards specified so much in the Law, that one day in seven is to be consecrated unto Gods service; and hence to inferre, that if God required so much of the Jews under the Law, it were most unreasonable and unconscionable we should not afford unto him and his service as good a pro­portion of time under the Gospel? Thirdly, what danger is there in affirming, that the Lords Day is of Divine institution? Is it not Scripture that calls it the Lords Day? And what day was called the Lords Day before, but the day of the Jewes Sabbath? And hath not our Saviour manifestly given us to un­derstand, that even Christians were to have their Sabbath, as the Jewes had theirs, as Bishop Andrewes accommodates the place? Matth. 24.20. And was the resurrection of Christ any thing inferiour to the creation, to give a day unto us Christi­ans; like as Gods rest from creation, commended that day to the Jewes: Especially considering, that a new creation re­quires a new Sabbath; as Athanasius delivered it of old; And D. Andrewes of late yeeres, treading in the steps of that ancient Father, or rather of all the ancient Fathers: And what danger in maintaining that the Lords Day is entire, and whole to be consecrated to Divine service; did Austin speake [Page 172] dangerously, when he professeth, that thereon we must tantum Deo vacare, tantū cultibus divinis vacare; would this Prefacer be content to be found dancing about a May pole, or in a Mor­rice-dance that day that Christ should come in flaming fire, to render vengeance to all them that know not God, nor obey the Gospel of Christ Jesus? Nay, would hee not feare to rue the danger of his doctrine, when it will be too late to correct it, and all the profanenesse that hee hath promoted by this pre­face of his should rise up in judgement against him; yet now he thinkes he could not goe about a better worke than by this preface & translation to harden them in their profane and im­pure courses; all his care at this time, is to prevent superstition, a wonder it is to see how zealous men of his spirit are to avoyd and shun superstition. Belike all these must be censured for Zelotes that complaine that the Lords day is with us licenti­ously, yea, sacrilegiously profaned; yet these are the times whereof S. Paul prophecied, that men should be lovers of plea­sure more than lovers of God; yet Doctor Prideaux could take liberty to professe of the Jewes, that by their Bacchanalian rites, they gave the world just occasion to suspect that they did consecrate their Sabbaths unto devils rather than unto Gods service; yet now adayes, they that oppose revels on the Sab­bath day, are censured and condemned of Judaisme: Neither is D. Prideaux censured by way of scorne for a zelote in this; but unlesse wee concurre with this Prefacer, in thinking that the forbidding of dancing in the French Churches hath hin­dred the growth of the reformed Religion there, and that up­on the bare credit of Heylins Geography, wee must in scorne be termed zelotes. Belike Bishop Babington by this bold Prefa­cer, would be censured for a zelote, considering that on Exodus 16. pag. 122. hve writes in this manner: May not. a good soule thus reason with himselfe; This people of his might not gather Manna, and may I safely goe to markets, dancings, drinkings, to wakes and wantons, to Beare-baitings and Bul-baitings, and such like wicked profanations on the Lords Day? Is this to keepe the holy day? Can I answer this to my God? that gives mee six dayes for my selfe, and takes but one to himselfe, of which I rob him also? And Bishop Austin too [Page 173] deserves to be censured a zelote for that which hee writes in his 3. tract. upon Iohn. Observe the Sabbath Day, it is rather commanded unto us, because it is commanded to be ob­served in a spirituall manner. For the Jewes observe the Sab­bath day servilely unto luxury, unto drunkennesse. How much better were it for their Women to spinne Wooll then to dance on that day in their new Moones, and in his 44. tract. The Jewes rest unto toyes, and whereas God commanded the Sab­bath to be observed, they spend the Sabbath in such things which the Lord forbids. Our rest is from evill works, their rest is from good works. For it is better to goe to plow then to dance: but albeit hee be censured as a Zelote, yet surely there is no co­lour why hee should be thought to Judaize in this. And let Bishop Nazianz [...]ne passe under the same censure with them; who as Dialericus upon the 17. Dominicall after Trinitie Sunday alleageth him, professeth that the sanctification of the Sabbath consists not in the hilarity of our bodies, nor in the va­riety of glorious garments, nor in eatings, the fruite wherof we know to be wantonnesse, nor in strewing of Flowers in the wayes, which we know to be the manner of the Gentiles; but rather in the purity of the soule, and chearefulnesse of the mind, and pious Meditations, as when we use holy Hymnes in stead of Tabers, and Psalmes in stead of wicked songs and dancings. The same Dialericus alleageth Pope Gregory out of his 91. booke of his Epistles and 3. Epistle affirming, That therefore on the Lords Day we ought to rest from all Earthly worke, and by all meanes insist on prayer, that if ought hath been committed by us negligent­ly on the six dayes on the day of the Lords Resurrection it might be cleared by prayers. And which is yet more, out of Chryso­stome 5. Homily on Mathew hee shewes, how in that Bishops judgement we should be exercised on the Lords Day, in our private Families, thus, When we depart from the Ecclesiasticall assembly, we ought not in any case intangle our selves in businesses of a contrary nature, but as soone as we come home, turne over the Holy Scriptures, and call thy Wife, and thy Children to con­ferre about those things which have been delivered; and after they have been deepely rooted in our minds, then to proceed to provide for such things as are necessary for this life. So anciently is the [Page 174] pious exercise of repeating Sermons commended unto us by this holy Bishop, which in these dayes I have heard to bee cryed downe, by profane persons, as a cause of increase of Brownisme. And I willingly confesse that when I first came to this place, there were no lesse then tenne that partly had withdrawne themselves, partly were upon the point of with­drawing themselves from our Common Prayers; but within a short time there was not one such to be found amongst us, and so wee have continued to this day. But to returne, Ephrem Syrus may goe for a zelote in like manner, who as hee is alleged by Rivetus treating of the Sabbath, exhorts to honour the Lords festivities celebrating them not panegyrically, but Heavenly; not secularly, but spiritually; not like Heathens, but like Christians; and he shewes wherein this consists in the words following, Quare non portarum frontes coronemus, let us not hang Garlands upon the frontispice of our Gates, non choreas ducamus, let us not leade a dance, non chorum adornemus, let us not by our presence beautifie any such company; non tibiis audi­tum effaminemus, let us not effeminate our Eares with their Mu­sick or with their fidles—Nay as Doctor Prideaux complaines of the Jewes corrupting themselves to the profaning of their Sab­baths, so Polidor Virgil complaines of the like corruptions among Christians on their festivalls, lib. 6. cap. 8. not imploy­ing their time in prayer and in the exercise of Gods Word; for which cause such festivalls were instituted, but in all manner of evill courses tending to the corrupting of mens manners; and that herein they imitate Heathens, though of ancient times Ter­tullian (as hee sayth) reprehended Heathens for such courses, as in his Apologeticum, speaking of the holy solemnity of their Emperours. Therefore (saith hee) Christians are com­pted enemies to the State, because they doe not dedicate vaine, lying and rash honors to their Prince. Forsooth it is a great good office, to make bonfiers and dances in publique, and to feast in every parish, to transforme the City into the habite of a Taverne; Vino lutum cogere, which Junius sayth was a fruit of their desperate Luxury, and a signe of their madnesse and fury: he proceedes; to strive who shall exceed one another in running about, to doe injuries, to commit impudencies, to provoke unto lust. [Page 175] And is the publike joy after such a manner exprest (to wit) by publique shame? O how deservedly are we Christians to be con­demned (he speakes it ironically) who by carrying our selves so­berly, chastly, honestly, doe oppose the vowes made and the joyes expressed for the Emperors, to wit, when for their sober and chast and vertuous carriage on such dayes, not concurring with others to the same excesse of riot, were censured as enemies unto their Princes. Yet even in those primitive times the manners of Christians became degenerate, as Baldwin observes in his cases of conscience, p. 479. and that out of Tertullian, as whom hee observes to have complained of it; namely that Chri­stans imitated the manners of the Heathen in this, yea and grew worse then they, in his booke de Idol. c. 14. O melior fides nationum in suam sectam, quae nullam Christianorum so­lennitatem sibi vendicat, non Dominicam, non Pentecostem; etiam si nossent nobiscum non communicassent, ne Christiani videren­tur; nos ne Ethnici pronuntiemur, non veremur. O the fayth of the Nations better then ours towards their own sect, as who cha­lenge not to themselves any Christian solemnity, not that of the Lords Day, nor that of Whitsuntide. Had they known it, they would not communicate with us, lest they should seem Christians; we Christians feare not to be accompted Heathens. O what a zelote did Tertullian shew himselfe in this! nay what thinke wee of Leo and Anthemius Emperours; were not they ze­lotes too in that decree of theirs (alleaged by the former Baldwin)? Dies festos majestati Altissimi dedicatos nullis volumus voluptatibus occupari: undoubtedly they meane hereby world­ly pleasures; such they would have no place on holy festi­vities; and why? but because they accounted those holy festivalls profaned thereby. And may not King Iames also be censured for a zelote in making that proclamation of his for the reformation of abuses in profaning the Lords Day, at his first comming into the Land, to receave this Kingdome as his rightfull inheritance? In the Conference before his Majesty at Hampton Court, I finde mention made of it by D. Reynolds in this manner: To the former Doctor Reynolds did adde the profanation of the Sabbath day, and contempt of his Majesties proclamation made for the reforming of that abuse, of [Page 176] which he earnestly desired a streighter course for reformation there­of, and unto this he found a generall and unanimous assent. All these be like were zelotes. So was his Majesty also that now is, to­gether with all the Lords both spirituall and temporall, and the house of Commons in that Act made in the first yeare of King Charles to preserve the Lords Day from profanation, wherein are forbidden expressely and by name, bearebaiting, bulbaiting, enterludes, common playes, and in generall all other unlawfull exercises and pastimes; and over and above all meetings and assemblies or concourse of people out of their owne parishes for any sports or pastimes whatsoever; and consequently no man ought on the Lords Day, goe forth of his owne parish to any may-game, or to see a Morrice-dance, or dancing about May-poles; and seeing the Apostle pro­fesseth that it is good to be zealous alwayes in a good thing Gal. 4.18. and Christ hath died for us to redeeme us from all iniquity, and to purge us a peculiar people unto himselfe, zealous of good workes, Tit. 2.14. let them in the Name of God be such zelots still; this zeale being a zeale of Gods Glory; and it becomes us to be zealous of his Glory, con­sidering how zealous hee is for our good, Esay 9.7. & Esay 59.17. Of the sufficiency of the following discourse, we shall by Gods helpe consider in due time.

But I confesse it may be very sutable to these times where­of the Apostle prophecied, men should be lovers of plea­sures more then lovers of God, and undoubtedly it will suit well with their affections like a sweete morsell to the epicure which hee roules under his tongue, but all the praise is in parting; and I would they would but thinke of that of the Prophet, What will be the end thereof; when wee shall give God cause to say of our Sabbath, as hee sayd of the Jewish, I have hated your Sabbaths. And if there be any such practises of Satan on foote, as to bring in the Jewish Sabbath, let it be considered in the feare of God, what doctrine doth more promote therein; whether that which makes the celebra­tion of the Lords Day Divine, or rather that which makes it merely of humane institution; and who seeth not that if it be left to the liberty of the Church, they may bring in [Page 177] the Jewish Sabbath if it pleaseth them. Though it be notori­ously untrue, (as may be made to appeare both by Scripture, evident reason and authority humane, both ancient and mo­derne, both Papists and Protestants) that the Sabbath was not ordained immediately upon the creation; yet were that ne­gative granted; since God hath manifested in his Law, that he requires one day in seven to be set apart for his service, it evi­dently followes, even by the very light of nature, that it were most unreasonable wee should allow him a worse proportion of time for his service under the Gospell; that consequently the observation of one day in seven is to be kept holy unto the Lord, is now become morall and perpetuall unto the very end of the world; neither was it ever heard, that any man did set his wits on worke in devising a ceremoniality in the proportion of one day in seven. A prefiguration of Christ in some respect hath beene found in the Jewish rest on the seventh day of the weeke; but of any prefiguration of ought in Christ, by an indefinite proportion of one day in seven the world dreamed not of till now; neither doth any man offer to devise what possibly this might prefigure in Christ: As for the third, it cannot be denied, but that Christ manifested before his death, that his Christian Churches should observe a Sabbath as well as the Jewes did; this appeares, Matth. 24.20. Pray, that your flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day; and thus Bishop Andrewes accommodates that place in his patterne of Catecheticall doctrine. It is as manifest, that the day of Christs resurrection is called in the Scripture the Lords Day; as manifest that not the day of the yeere, but the day of the week, whereon Christ rose, is called the Lords Day, which few take notice of. Likewise in the old Testament is manifest that the Jews Sabbath is called the Lords holy Day. Then the con­giuity in reference to the reason of the originall institution is most exact. For first, Christ by his resurrection, brought with him a new creation; and this new creation, as D. Andrewes ex­presseth it, treading herein in the steps of the ancients, requireth a new Sabbath; and as the Lord rested on the seventh day from the worke of creation, so our Saviour on the first day of the weeke from the worke of Redemption: And lastly, the day [Page 178] of Christs resurrection, was the day whereon Christ the stone formerly refused by the builders, was made the head of the cor­ner, and of this day the Prophet professeth of old, saying, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoyce in it; which can have no other congruous meaning but this; this is the day which the Lord hath made festivall, especially con­sidering the doctrine of Bishop Lake, which is this; that the worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, as is to be seene in the institution of all festivalls, both Humane and Divine. And I have already shewed how absurd it is, that wee should expect it should be left unto the Church her li­berty to appoint it, considering the great danger of dissention thereabouts, and extreme confusion thereupon; And it cannot be denyed, but this day was established by the Apostles, and that as of authority Divine, as appeares generally by the an­cients. Athanasius professing, that Dominus consecravit hunc diem; Austin, that Apostoli sanxerunt; and Gregory, that An­tichrist, when hee comes into an humour of imitating Christ, should command the observation of the Lords Day; and Eu­sebius hath as pregnant a testimony to the same purpose as any; and Sedulius; and that not one of the Ancients, as I know, al­leged to the contrary. So that to ascribe the institution of it to humane authority, that every way were a scandalous doctrine, and so would the practice be also according thereunto. And consequently the Church hath no authority to change the day, as Doctor Fulke professeth against the Rhemists: And to say the contrary, is to say that the Church hath authority to con­curre with the Jewes in keeping with them the Saturday, with the Turks, in keeping with them the Friday; yea, that they have authority to divide the dayes of the weeke, one nation taken one day to observe, and another another, which is as much as to say, that the Church hath authority to be notori­ously scandalous. In the fifth he delivers more truth than in all his preface besides: we make no question, but that workes of necessity and workes of charity may be done on this day, though the proper workes of the day are the workes of holi­nesse. I know none that thinkes it unlawfull to dresse meat proportionable to a mans estate on this day: some are of opi­nion, [Page 179] that this was not forbidden unto the Jewes; and that al­beit to go abroad on that day to gather Manna was forbidden, yet not the preparing or dressing of it; though the most com­mon opinion of our Divines is to the contrary: Some thinke a greater strictnesse was enjoyned them in the wildernesse than afterward observed by them.Neh. 5.18. As in the story of Nehemiah it is said, there was prepared for his table daily an Oxe, and five chosen Sheepe; and our Saviours entertainment by some on the Sab­bath day, doth seeme to them to intimate as much; howsoever in after times it came to passe that they grew superstitious this way; As Austin observes of them in his dayes, that Iudaei ne (que) occidunt, ne (que) coquunt. Others who think it was both enjoyned to them, and practised by them with greater strictnesse, con­ceive that this was by reason of the mysterious signification, to wit, of some exact rest in Christ; this was their ceremoniall rest; we acknowledge no rest but morall, which we understand in that sense which here is expressed in part, and but in part, after a halting manner; For hee professeth, that on the Lords Day we are to abstaine from such workes as are an hinderance to Gods service, but he delivers this onely of the publique ser­vice; as if to spend an houre and an halfe in the morning, and an houre and an halfe in the afternoone in Gods service, were enough for the sanctifying of the day; yet Gerardus the Lu­therane observes, that God commands the day to be sancti­fied, not a part of the day. And let the law of this nation or of any nation of the world be judge between us, whether in case one man owe another a dayes service; I say, let the world judge, whether in common equity this be to be interpreted of an houre and an halfe in the morning, and an houre and an halfe in the evening, or onely of a part of the day, and not ra­ther the whole day. And what vile courses are these, that men should carry themselves so basely in dispensing unto God the proportion of his service. In the sixth and last place, we have that wherunto all the former discourse is consecrated, namely, to make way for such profane sports and pastimes, which here are glosed with the cleanely stiles of recreations to refresh the spirits, and for the increase of mutuall love and neighbourhood amongst us, as if he were ashamed to speake out, that all this [Page 180] tends to the countenance of May-games and morricing, and dancing about May-poles on the Lords Day. D. Andrewes, sometimes Bishop of Winchester,Patterne of Catech. p. 244, 245. on the Con. spared not to professe, that vacare choreis, to be at leisure on that day, for dancing, is the Sabbath of the golden calfe, and hee allegeth Austin for it, though hee cannot justifie his quotation. Doctor Downeham, Bishop of Derry, calls such like courses profane sports and pastimes, which more distract, and more hinder our workes than honest labours; and he censures also such a Sabbath, calling it, the Sabbath of the calfe, Exod. Bishop Babing­ton, on Exod. 16. puts a Christian soule upon this meditation, Good Lord, what doe I upon the Sabbath day? This people of his might not gather Manna, and may I safely gad to faires and mar­kets, to dancings and drinkings, to wakes and wantons, to Beare­baitings and Bulbaitings, with such like wicked profanations of the Lords Day? Are these workes for the Sabbath? Is this to keepe the holy day? Can I answer this to my God, that gives mee six dayes for my selfe, and takes but one to himselfe, of which I rob him also? No, no, assuredly I shall not be able to indure his wrath for these things one day, and therefore I will leave them, and regard his holy day hereafter better than I have done. And in his exposition of the Commandements by way of question and answer, p. 44. reproves expressely Summer-games on the Lords Day; and in his Examen of conscience annexed to the fourth Commandement, he speakes against going to Church-ales and Summer-games; nay, is it not apparent, that by the very act of Parliament, 1o Caroli, that to goe out of a mans owne parish a­bout any sports or pastimes on the Sabbath day, is to profane the Sabbath? For to prevent the profanation of the Sabbath, is that statute made: Now, unlesse the sports themselves be pro­fanations of the Sabbath, it is as evident, that to goe forth of a mans parish unto such sports, is no profanation, any more, than to goe out of a mans parish walking, or to con­ferre in pious manner with a friend, or to fetch a Physi­tian or Surgeon, if need be, or to heare a Sermon. And it is very strange, that wee of the reformed Churches, shall justifie such liberty on the Lords Day, which Papists con­demne on their holy dayes; who usually complaine of [Page 181] dancing upon such dayes; as Polydor Virgil upon Luke, and Parisiensis de legibus cap. 4. And of old such courses have beene forbidden by the decrees of Leo, and Anthemius Em­perours; It is condemned also in the synod of Toledo Can. 23. as Baldwin the Lutheran shewes, who also writes devoutly against such courses on the Lords Day, and gives this reason. For if the labours of our calling are forbidden in the holy day, how much more such recreations? and p. 48. He shewed how the Sabbath was profaned by unchast dancings and any manner of wantonnesse; what need I here to make mention of Austin; who professeth, and that against the Jewes, that it is better to goe to plow then to dance; and that it were better for their Women to spin Wooll, then immodestly to dance, as they did; yet now a dayes such as oppose the same courses, as Austin did, are censured for Judaizing; thus the World seemes to be turned upside downe. Is it not high time Christ should come to set an end to it?

Dielericus the Lutherane complaines of the like profanations of the Sabbath too much in course amongst them, in his A­nalysis of the Gospells for the Lords Day. p. 559. and let every Christian conscience be judge, whether to follow May-poles, May-games and Morrice dancing be to sanctifie the Sabbath as God commands? if any man shall say, that the fourth Commandement concerned the Jewes, and not us Chri­stians, hee must therewithall renounce the booke of Homilies. For it professeth that this Commandement binds us to the observation of our Sabbath, which is Sunday; the words are these. So if we will be the children of our Heavenly Fa­ther, we must be carefull to keep the Christian Sabbath Day, which is the Sunday, not only for that it is Gods Commandement, but also to declare our selves to be loving children in following the example of our gracious Lord and Father. Then complain­ing how the Sabbath is profaned; Some use all dayes alike— The other sort worse: For although they will not travaile, nor labour on the Sunday, yet they will not rest in holinesse, as God commandeth; but they rest in ungodlinesse and filthinesse, prancing in their pride, pranking and pricking, poynting & painting themselves to be gorgeous and gay. They rest in excesse & superfluity, in gluttony [Page 182] and drunkennesse like Rats and Swin: they rest in brawling and railing, in quarrelling and fighting: they rest in wantonnesse, in toyish talking, in filthy fleshlinesse; and concludes after this man­ner, so that it doth too evidently appeare that God is more disho­nored, and the Divell better served on Sunday, then upon all the dayes of the weeke beside. And that distinction which Calvin makes of the Jewish observation of the Sabbath, and our Christian observation of a Sabbath is, for ought I know, ge­nerally receaved of all; and the distinction is this; that the Jewes observed their Sabbath so strictly in the point of rest, for a mysterious signification; but wee observe it in resting from other works so farre forth as they are Avocamenta à sacris studiis & meditationibus, avocations from holy studies, and meditations; now it is apparant that sports and pleasures are as strong avocations from holy studies and meditations, as worldly cares; and both equally are noted out to be such as choake the Word, Luk. 8.14. And therefore this day is altogether appointed to this end, even to recreate our selves in the Lord; For seeing God purposeth one day to keepe an everlasting Sabbath with us, when God shall be all in all; to make us the more fit for this even the more meete partakers, of the inheritance of Saints in light, therefore hee hath given us his Sabbaths to walke with him, and to inure our selves to take delight in his company, who takes delight to speake unto us as from Heaven in his holy Word, and to give us li­berty to speake unto him in our prayers, confessions, thanks­givings and supplications; on other dayes wee care for the things of this World, on this day our care should be spiritu­all and heavenly in caring for the things of another World; so our pleasures should be spirituall on this day;Esay 58.13. If thou shalt call the Sabbath a delight, to consecrate it as glorious unto the Lord. Now have we not as much cause to performe this du­ty under the Gospell as ever the Jewes had under the Law? And indeed there is no colour of reason against this, but by affirming that now the setting of a day apart for Gods service is left at large to the liberty of the Church; and albeit the Church hath set apart the Lords Day for this; yet their mea­ning herein is no more then this, that they shal come to Church [Page 183] twise a day, and afterwards give themselves to what sports soever are not forbidden them by the Lawes of the Land: so that now a dayes wee are free from the obligation to the fourth Commandement, and yet we are taught by the Church aswell at the hearing of this Commandement as at any other to say, Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keepe this Law; and the booke of Homilies urgeth us to the sanctifying of our Christian Sabbath (which is Sunday, saith the booke expressely) and that by vertue of Gods expresse Commande­ment.

And therefore I cannot but wonder at the indiscre­tion of this Prefacer, who catcheth after such a superficiall advantage as the denomination of a feast amongst the Jewes, not considering how little sutable it is to the grounds of his Tenet; For by his Tenet, after evening Prayer the Sab­bath is at end, the Churches meaning being not any further to oblige them to the sanctifying of the Lords Day, but to give them liberty to use any sports or pastimes not forbidden them by the Lawes of the Land. But so was not the feast of the Jewes ended when they danced; this being but an expression of that joy whereunto the present solemnity called them; and they sinned no more herein then David, did when hee danced before the Arke; as wee see Ier. 31.12. Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Sion, and shall flow together to the goodnesse of the Lord for Wheat, and for Wine, and for Oile, and for the young of the flock, and of the heard, and their soule shall be as a well watered Garden, and they shall not sorrow any more at all. 13: Then shall the Virgin rejoyce in the dance, both yong men, and old together; for I will turne their mourning into joy, and will comfort them & make them rejoyce for their sorrow. 14. And I will satiate the soule of the Priest with fatnesse, and my people shall be satisfyed with my goodnesse saith the Lord. And the like wee reade Esay 30.19. Ye shall have a song as in the Night, when an holy solemnity is kept, and gladnesse of heart, as when one goeth with a Pipe to come into the Mountaine of the Lord to the mighty One of Israel; so that if Morricing and May-games and Dancing about May-poles were a sanctifying of the Sabbath Day in part (as the Lord commands the day to [Page 184] be sanctifyed) then indeed these sports were as lawfull on the Lords Day, as the Jewes piping and dancing were lawfull on their feasts. But that any such piping and dancing were u­sed and allowed in those ancient times among the Jewes on their Sabbaths, there is not the least colour of evidence. And it is evident that such sports put them to lesse rest for their bodies, then the workes of their calling; neither is there any better evidence that any such piping and dancing were in use amongst the Jewes while they continued the people of God on every day of their solemne feasts; for two dayes in each of them, to wit, the first day, and the last, they are com­manded to keepe as Sabbaths, whereon they were to have an holy convocation; and thereon they are expressely comman­ded to rest from all servile workes; and I should thinke, the following of naturall pleasures are to be presumed as servile workes, as the workes of a mans calling.

Lastly, all recreations are to this end, even to fit us to the workes of our calling; either for the workes of our particular callings, or the workes of our generall callings, as we are Christians; Such sports, if they fit us for the service of God, were more seasonable in the Morning then in the Evening. If for the workes of our particular calling; then are they in­feriour to the workes of our calling, the furthering whereof is their end; and the meanes are alwayes inferiour in dignity unto the end. Now if the more noble workes are forbidden on that day, how much more such as are inferior are forbid­den? But it may be sayd, that mens minds being burthened, and oppressed with the former service of the day, therefore some relaxatiō is to be granted for the refreshing of our spirits; As much as to say, a part of the Lords Day is to be allowed for profane sports and pastimes, to refresh us after wee have beene tired out with serving God; can this be savoury in the eares of a Christian? should not wee rather complaine of these corruptions, and bewaile it before God, then give our selves to such courses as are apt to strengthen it? It is true; such is our naturall corruption, that nothing is more tedious unto us as wee are in our selves, then to converse with God; but should not the consideration hereof provoke us so much the [Page 185] more to strive against it, then give way to the nourishing and confirming of it? And hath not our Saviour told us, that not the cares of this World onely, but voluptuous living also, is it that choaks the good seede of Gods Word, and causeth it to become unfruitfull in us? As for the refreshing of our spirits and quickning them, and thereby making us the fitter for Gods service; as in any modest exercise of the body in private, according to every mans particular disposition, to prevent drowsinesse and dulnesse in attending to Gods Word, in praying in singing of Psalmes, I know none that takes any exception against it. And as for the authority of the magi­strate to appoint pastimes, sure I am, the high Court of Par­liament with us, and that in the dayes of King Charles, hath forbidden every man to come out of his parish, about any sports and pastimes; a manifest evidence that in their judge­ment the publique prosecuting of such sports, and pastimes, is a plaine profanation of the Sabbath; and so by this authors profound judgement, they deserve to be censured as inclining to Judaisme.

Indeed the use of the very name of Sabbath is now a dayes carped at; and why? but because it is a sore offence unto them in their way; for if a rest from any thing (otherwise lawfull in it selfe) be required on the Lords Day, it seemes most reasonable that a rest is required from sports and pastimes: undoubtedly they have neither reason nor authority to ex­cept against this; For our Saviour useth the word even of Christian times, Mat. 24.20. Pray that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the Sabbath Day. Doctor Andrewes, one of the greatest Prelates of this Kingdome, accommodates this place to the same purpose. All ceremonies (saith hee) were ended in Christ; but so was not the Sabbath. For Mat. 24.20. Christs bids them pray that their visitation be not on the Sabbath Day: so that there must needs be a Sabbath after Christs death; and by this name hee commonly calls this day wee keepe weekely as holy unto the Lord. The booke of Homilies plainly tells us, that the Sunday is our Sabbath. In the con­ference at Hampton Court it is so called, without any dislike shewed by any one there present. And the onely reason why [Page 186] the ancients put a difference in this, not calling it the Sab­bath day, but the Lords Day, was this, because Dies Sabbati in Latine signifieth the Saturday, which was the Jewes Sab­bath. But they generally call us to a rest on this day, and that most exact, as wherein wee must Tantum Deo vacare, tan­tum cultibus divinis vacare, as Austin by name, not sparing to confesse that Arare melius est quam saltare; But Barklay it seemes, is of more authority with this Prefacer then Doctor Andrewes, and the Church, yea, and of our Saviour too: yet wee calling it by that name, understand no other thing then our Christian Sabbath, and had rather it were generally called the Lords Day; and Doctor Bownde also standeth for this denomination, and urgeth it: yet is hee accounted a Sabbatarian by Master Rogers, though wee all concurre in this, that thereon wee ought to keepe, and sanctifie our Chri­stian Sabbath, And Iacobus de Valentia, who was no sectary in the opinion of Barklay, to distinguish the Jewish Sabbath from ours, calls it Sabbatum legale, and conclus. 4. hee saith that Christiana religio celebrat verum Sabbatum morale in die Dominica. Christian Religion keepeth a true morall Sabbath on the Lords Day; yet I willingly confesse, this is the usuall course of Papists now a dayes, not to call the Lords Day, so much as by the name of our Sabbath. As for Barklays dis­course; hee is much fitter to write somthing answerable to Don Quixot then to reason; we doe observe the Lords Day, as a Sabbath, not because God rested that day from the Crea­tion; for our Doctor Andrewes (of somewhat more credit with us, and that not onely for his place, but for his suffici­ency, then Barklay) hath delivered it in the Starre Cham­ber, that It hath ever been 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 againe. 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 this hee sayth, is deduced plainly: First by practise, then by precept. And this new Sabbath on the Lords Day, wee observe, because on that day Christ rested from the worke of redemption, [Page 187] which was wrought by his death. So that though the Lord began his labours in the worke of Creation on the first day of the weeke, yet the Lord Christ set an end to his labors in the worke of redemption on the same day of the weeke. As for Christs vanquishing the powers of death on that day, to wit, the first day of the weeke; the Women that came to the Sepulchre at sun rising, found that he was risen. And what powers are these powers of death, hee rhetoricates of? is there any positive nature in death that our Saviour had neede to take such paines to overcome them; The Lord himselfe when hee rested, he rested onely from Creation; he that was best ac­quainted with his courses hath told us saying, Pater us (que) hodie peratur, my Father to this day, works still, and I worke with him; yet hee proceeds no farther in the worke of Creation, nor Christ being once risen, in the worke of redemption: S. Iude exhorts us to contend the more earnestly for the faith, because some there were craftily crept in, who other­wise were like to bereave them of it: In like sort wee had ne­ver more neede then now to contend for the maintainance of the Lords Day, as our Christian Sabbath, because too many there are whose practise it is to bereave us of the comfort of it.

The Doctrine of the Sabbath considered.

FIrst, I come to the Doctrine of the Sabbath translated by the Prefacer; I nothing doubt but the Author thereof will take in good part my paines in the discussion of it, considering the present occasion urging mee hereunto; Out of the variety of his reading, hee observes many wild derivations of the name Sabbath, and out of his judgment doth pronounce that the Jewes by their Bacchanalian rites gave the World just occasion to suspect, that they did consecrate the Sabbath unto Revells ra­ther then Gods service. As for the rigorous keeping of the day in [Page 188] such sort;Sect. 2. as neither to kindle fire in the Winter-time wherewith to warme themselves: or to dresse meat for the sustentation of them­selves; I am so farre from justifying it, that I willingly pro­fesse I am utterly ignorant, where any such Christians live, that presse any such rigorous observation of it. The Jewes were bound to observe the rest on that day for a mysterious signification sake, and thereupon depended their rigorous observing of a rest, as many thinke, and not Lyra alone. We must know (saith hee) that rest from manuall works is not (now) so rigorously observed as in the old Law, because meate may be dressed, and other things done on the Lords Day, which were not lawfull on the Sabbath: because that rest was in part figurative, as was the whole state under the Law, 1 Cor. 10. All things befell them in figure; Now in that which is figurative, if you take away never so little; (that is, if that which is figurative bee not exactly observed) the whole and intire signification faileth, like as if you take away but one letter from the name of Lapis, the whole and intire signification is destroyed. To deale plainely, my opinion is, that all sports, and pastimes on the Lords Day, are a breaking of the rest belonging to it, and a profanation of that day which ought to be sanctified; And I trust, herein I differ not one jot from the whole Parliament, 1o. Caroli; wherein was expressely prohibited, that any man should goe out of his owne Parish to any sports, and pastimes on the Sabbath day; and this is done to prevent the profana­tion of it, as appeares clearely by the reasons of that Act; which Parliament was held certaine yeares after this Lecture, concerning the Doctrine of the Sabbath, was read in the Ʋni­versity. And I nothing doubt but the censure of a Zelote will passe upon mee for this, though wee shew no more zeale in saying, that The Lords Day is by some licentiously profaned, then others doe in professing that the Lord Day is by us su­perstitiously observed; nay who are the greatest zelotes in their cause, let the Christian World judge by the effects; This is all I have to note concerning the first Section. I come unto the second.

Secondly, and here in the first place concerning the institu­tion of it; let mee take leave to professe, that the question it [Page 189] selfe is not indifferenly stated, when it is stated thus, whether be­fore the publishing of Moses Law, the Sabbath was to be observed by the law of Nature. For I am verily perswaded, that the Doctor himselfe will not affirme, that after the publishing of Moses law, it was to be observed by the law of nature; un­derstanding by the law of nature (as I presume he doth) such a law as is knowne by the very light of nature. Aristotle hath taught us in generall, that morall duties are rather wrought upon a sober conscience by perswasion, than doe carry with them any convincing evidence of demonstration. Yet it is con­fessed, that by the light of nature, some time ought to be set apart, even for the publike service and worship of God, and not onely so, but also it is nothing lesse cleare, that a sufficient proportion of time must be alloted to the professed service of our Creator. But wherein this sufficient proportion of time doth consist, we are to seek, being left unto our selves, and in my judgement, considering what we are, it is very fit we should be to seeke in this; that so our eyes may wait upon the direction of our Maker. For, is it fit that servants should cut out a proportion of service to their Master at their owne pleasure, and not rather be guided herein by their Masters pleasure, espe­cially by such a Master, to whom wee owe not onely all that wee doe enjoy, but our selves also; who holdeth our soules in life, and in whose hands is the breath of all man-kinde. The question thus untowardly proposed, it is subjoyned that, They commonly which are more apt to say any thing, than able af­terward to prove it, maintaine affirmatively that it was. Doctor Rivet having proposed this, addeth, that if it be spoken of the law of nature, properly so called, scarce any one will be found to main­taine any such thing. And indeed, the question in hand, is of the institution of the Sabbath: Now, no wise man useth to in­quire of the institution of that which is written in our hearts, and knowne unto us by the very common light of nature. It is true, some fetch the originall thereof from the beginning of the world, when God first blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: And what other sense this can have, than that God comman­ded it to be set apart for holy uses, wee cannot devise; For see­ing Gods blessing and sanctifying of it doth undoubtedly de­note [Page 190] some act of God, this must be either an immanent act, or an act transient; Not an act immanent, for all such are eternall, but this was temporall, following upon Gods rest on the seventh: For therefore (it is said) God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; and being an act transient and temporall, it must declare his will to have it sanctified, that is (by the gene­rall notion of the word) set apart, that is, from profane and secular, to holy uses; And how could this will of God be ma­nifested but by commandement, seeing it is a will of God not so much concerning what shall be done, as concerning what shall be mans duty to doe? And this hath both Wa­laeus, and after him Rivetus justified, and this latter against Gomarus, once and againe, and that by divers arguments. And thus, as we have expresse Scripture for it, so we have as evident reason to justifie it: For, no other ground can be devised for the dividing of the whole course of time into weeks, each con­sisting of seven dayes, than as it stands in congruity to Gods making the world in six dayes, and resting on the seventh. Which division of time was undoubtedly observed by the Isra­elites, and received by them from their forefathers, yea, and from the Patriarches of old, who lived before the flood, and that continued without alteration even from the Creation of the world; For otherwise they could not have discerned what days had been answerable to the first six of the Creation, and what day to the seventh, wherein God rested, having finish­ed the creation. But this was well known unto them, as appears by their gathering Manna, and promulgation of the 4th Com­mandement, together with the rest on Mount Sinai; Nay, this division of time into weeks, was generally observed among the heathens, as hath been shewed by great variety of reading, and that this hath beene the most ancient division of time, those other divisions into moneths and into yeeres, comming in place long after, according as the motion of the Moone and of the Sunne were found out by Astrologers, not till then, like as the denomination of the seven dayes of the weeke by the se­verall names of the planets, was not brought in, untill the se­verall motions of all the Planets, come to be discovered. As for the second reason proposed thus on our part; If all the rest [Page 191] of the Commandements flow from the principles of nature, how is this excluded? It is not fit that any man should take upon him the shaping of his adversaries arguments; That this Comman­dement should be taken for a part of the morall Law, I wonder that any man should be so unreasonable as to deny; but that this Commandement should flow from the Principles of na­ture; and that delivered without distinction, I know no man that affirmes. But let us distinguish, and I make no doubt, but there will be found no difference of moment betweene Doctor Prideaux and us: For, I find no man to deny, but that some time in generall is to be set apart, as well for Gods publique worship and service, as for private, and that this is acknowledged by the very light of nature; Only as touching the proportion of time that is to be set apart for Gods service, herein we are to seeke; yet herein also the light of nature doth advantage us, and that sufficiently in two particulars: For the truth whereof, I dare appeale to the judgement of Doctor Prideaux himselfe. 1. The first is this, that not onely some time, but a sufficient proportion of time is to be consecrated to the exercises of piety, both publique and private. Gomarus and Rivetus are driven to acknowledge this, in answer to Walaeus about the proportion of one day in seven. And whereas we may be to seeke of agreement about what is suffici­ent: 2. Therefore in the next place, the very light of nature doth suggest unto us; that it is farre more fit that the Master should prescribe unto the servant, what proportion of service he expects from his hands, than that the servant at his pleasure should cut out what proportion of service he thinks good unto his Master; how much more fit that the Creator should pre­scribe unto his creature, then that the creature should prescribe unto his Creator; considering, 1. how the dominion of God over his creature is incomparably greater than that which any other Master hath over his servant. 2. That man may be­come unreasonable in his demands and commands, God can­not. 3. God can give strength to his creature to performe what he commands, man cannot. 4. The more cleare and ex­presse the Commandement is, the more comfortable to the creature, being hereby assured, the service hee performes is in [Page 192] the way of obedience, not unto his owne will, but to the will of his Master. 3. May I not adde a third? namely, that by the very equity of a naturall conscience, it is more fit to apportion unto Gods service one day in a weeke, rather than one day in a moneth; especially considering that ori­ginally time hath beene divided into weekes, and not into moneths, untill along time after. In all which, I am con­tent to appeale to the judgement of Doctor Prideaux him­selfe. Yet we have not done in this argument; For in the fourth Commandement, there is enjoyned, not onely the set­ting apart of some time in generall for Gods service; and the proportion of one day in seven in speciall, but also the particulating of a certaine day under this proportion; and who seeth not, that so many different things (though one in subordination to another) being duly considered, it is no way fit to confound them, and to speake hand over head of the fourth Commandement without distinctions? Now, as touch­ing the particularity of the day, herein I confesse, wee are more to seeke by the light of nature, than for the speciall pro­portion of time due unto God; Yet consider, whether herein also we are not assisted in good measure by the light of nature, and that in certaine particulars. 1. As first the decent propor­tion of time being observed, it is nothing materiall in it selfe, as touching the advancement of the substance of Gods ser­vice; what day of the weeke it be performed under the duly specified proportion. For wee find by experience, that all Masters stand for a proportion of service, which they expect from the hands of their servants; the quantity of service be­ing a very considerable matter in the judgement of all; but whether a man worke the first houre of the day, and rest the second, or five houres in the morning, and rest the sixth; or in what other difference soever, so the quantity and proporti­on of service for that day be performed, all Masters rest satis­fied. So for the service of the weeke, if it be sufficient to per­forme thus much service, as namely, a dayes service in a weeke, it matters not what day it be done, so the work be performed; I say, it matters not, as touching the substance of the worke it selfe to be performed. 2. But though it matters not in this [Page 193] respect, on what day the service is performed; yet it may matter much in another respect: For whereas we are all Gods creatures, and consequently his servants; and the service wee speake of concernes us all in generall, and that equally, and all wee are reasonable creatures; 1. First it seemes fit in rea­son, that there should be an uniformity: For, like as we con­verse together by commerce and trade in the workes of our calling on other dayes of the weeke; so it seemes most fit we should walke together with God in the performance of his service, otherwise there would be a manifest breach of socie­ty. For suppose there be in such a towne as ours, seven times foure hundred persons (for wee have almost 2000. Communi­cants; one of the three parishes in Reading hath as many) if one 400. should keepe the first day of the weeke for their Sab­bath another 400. the second day of the weeke, and so to divide the dayes of the weeke betweene them, here were a manifest breach of society both in thinges humane, and in things Divine; for every day in the weeke 400. would be ex­cluded, from conversing with their brethren, in businesses temporall; and all the rest from them whose day it is to rest unto God, in exercises spirituall, which all I presume by the very light of nature, would judge intolerable. And this or­der would have place not onely in particular townes among themselves, but with other also; considering that six dayes in the weeke wee have converse by commerce and trade, not with our neighbours onely, but with other townes also, farre and neere. Againe, another inconvenience would arise, and that a miserable one, more dangerous than the former; For hereupon a window will be opened unto dissention, each standing for his owne way, as the manner of man is; and what could be expected but wretched confusion should follow here­upon? Lastly consider, should not the service of man prove more comfortable unto him, if God, as hee hath appointed him the proportion of time, so he would be pleased not to leave him to seeke of the particularity of the day under the forementioned proportion. 2. Therefore, as it is fit there should be an uniformity, for the reasons given; so for the main­tenance of uniformity, no meanes sufficient, but Gods owne [Page 194] prescribing of it, hereupon all just occasion of dissention will be cut off, confusion will be prevented, and the service of God, as every way, even in the very circumstance of time, according to his will, shall be the more cheerefully and comfortably per­formed. 3. Thirdly, consider what D. Lake writes in his Theses de Sabbato. Thes. 44. Gods 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, observeable 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 weekly, moneth­ly, or yeerely, as particulars evidence in Scripture and History: 47. No man can translate the workes, therefore no man can tran­slate the day. This is an undoubted rule in Theologie. Now, sup­pose God had not commanded the observation of any one day in the weeke, but left it unto man to choose; if withall hee should observe one day preferred before another in some notable worke; what reason is there, why man should choose any other day rather than that? 1. This discourse proceeds upon supposition of one day in seven, to be set a part for Gods service; and accordingly wee being upon the election of the day. Now, consider the base of Adam; God having revealed unto him how many dayes he had spent in the creating of all things, and in what order hee created them, the last day of the six being the day wherein he created the beasts of the field, then man, and after placing him in Paradise, and after experience of his wisedome appearing in the naming of the beasts brought before him, not finding an help meet for him, casting him in a sleepe, and taking a rib out of his side, thereof made a woman to be a help meet for him. The next day, which was the seventh, God resting from his worke, what day should man have preferred for Gods service before this; considering the proportion betweene Gods rest from his works, and mans rest from his; and that as this day was the first of Gods rest, so it was the first of mans worke; And the very Heathens have counted it reasonable, à Iove principium, to begin with God, especially there being no better meanes to take livery and seisin of the world made by God for the service of man, than by the service of God, man being made to this end, and [Page 195] accordingly after Gods image, indued with an understanding heart to know him, and with rationall affections to feare and serve him. And that with the first, as Caietan observeth, and that out of the judgement of reason, Par est ut post accepta be­neficia agnoscamus benefactorem quando (que) uno statím: It is fit after benefits received, wee should acknowledge our Creator sometimes, yea, forthwith: As wee reade the Angels did; as the Booke of Iob informes us, Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding, who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it. Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof. When the morning starres sang together, and all the sonnes of God shouted for joy. The summe of all is this: 1. It is generally con­fessed, and that by the very light of nature, that sometime, and that in a sufficient proportion, is to be set apart for Gods service. 2. God being our great Lord and Master, it is most fit, by the very suggestion of nature, that God himselfe should set forth unto us his servants, both the proportion of time, according to which, and the particularity of the day where­in he will be served by us. 3 We judge that proportion which God hath designed, and the day also which he hath marked out to us in his Word, to be most agreeable unto reason in the consideration of his works. And in all this I am very willing to remit, my selfe to the judgement of Doctor Prideaux. The next reason here mentioned followeth; Can we conceive that this onely ceremoniall law crept in, we know not how, amongst the morall? Or that the Prophet Moses would have used such care in ordering the Decalogue, onely to bring the Church into greater troubles? I answer, that some time should be set apart for Gods service, was never accounted ceremoniall; As touching the proportion of one day in seven dayes to be consecrated unto God, I never found any Divine ancient or moderne busie his wits about devising any ceremoniality therein; neither did I observe any ancient produced to acknowledge any ceremoni­ality therein; but as it is fit wee should wait upon God for designing the proportion of time, (in which respect divers count that positive) so God having designed unto us the [Page 196] proportion of time, we are bold to say with Azorius, that ra­tioni maxime comsentaneum est, It is most agreeable to reason af­ter six worke dayes to consecrate one unto God. As touching the particularity of the day, under the proportion of one in seven, there is to be considered, both rest and sanctification; As for sanctification, I never read nor heard any man that constituted any ceremoniality in the sanctification of the day, but onely in the rest of the day; yet all these are shuffled together, and usually men talke of the ceremoniality of the fourth Com­mandement hand over-head without all distinction: Now, it is true, the ancient Fathers generally conceived a ceremoniality in the rest of the seventh day; but what was signified by this ceremony, I no where find expressely, neither in Master Broad, nor in this discourse. Other Divines of these dayes, had rather call it positive; but how? Surely in reference onely to the par­ticular day, not to the rest of it, there being a morall rest ne­cessarily required to the sanctification of it, namely, so farre forth in resting from our works, as they are avocamenta à sacris studiis & meditationibus, avocations from sacred studies and meditations, as Calvin expresseth it, and I know none that dif­fer from him herein. Aquinas is of the same judgement; but withall he confesseth, that the Jewes observed the rest of this day for a mysterious signification sake, which is as much as to say, ceremonially; in which respect it ought to be abrogated, when the body came that was signified thereby. So that this no­thing hinders the morality of one day in seven, no nor the ob­servation of any one particular day that Gods Word shall commend unto us for our Sabbath, and that unalterable, save by that authority whereby it was introduced; Neither had Moses any hand, that I know, in ordering the Decalogue, it being first pronounced by the mouth of God, and afterwards written in tables by the finger of God. Nor did the designing of a day expose the Church to any trouble, much lesse the de­signing the proportion of time; It being most requisite, the Law-maker should designe each of these for the preventing of trouble; and each being thus designed, we find the designa­tion of them to be most agreeable unto reason. If Torniellus thought it hardly credible that Enosh should appart himselfe from [Page 195] the sonnes of Cain to call upon the Name of the Lord, without some certaine and appointed time for that performance. I doe not thinke that Doctor Prideaux conceaves it credible, that any wise man would thinke it fit that the servant, and not rather the Master should apportion out that service which is due unto his Lord and master; or that it is more fit the ser­vant should have the designation of the particular time rather then the master, the former reasons duly considered. Or is there any reason why Calvin should have so little authority, when hee discourseth in reason for the originall institution of the Sabbath, as from the Creation; and so great authority when hee speakes upon his bare word against the morality of one day in seven (as some thinke) Septenarium numerum non ita moror, ut ejus servituti quicquam astringerem. It is an easy matter to say they conclude nothing; though I may justly wonder any reasonable man should say so of the argument drawne from those words Gen. 2.3. Therefore God blessed the seventh day, and sanctifyed it; the author alleadg­ing no other exception against it, but the interpretation of Tostatus, namely, that it is delivered by way of anticipation. For this is as good as to confesse, that to blesse and sanctify the seventh day, is all one as if hee had said that God comman­ded it to be sanctified. Onely they will not have it understood of that time, when the Lord rested from the works of Crea­tion. So that the meaning of Moses must be this, In the se­venth day God ended the works which he had made, and the se­venth day God rested from all the workes which he had made, and because God rested on that seventh day from all the works that he had made, therefore he commanded, not then that, that day from thence forward; but 2400. yeares after, that men should consecrate that day to divine service. Now in dis­puting against the unreasonablenesse of this interpretation given by Tostatus, I am very willing to make Doctor Prideaux my judge, and (as it were) under his moderation to proceed in this. And here I purpose not to revive the disputa­tions of Walaeus, and Rivetus against Tostatus his anticipa­tion; but onely to content my selfe with the ground layd by Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath and Wells, in his Thesis [Page 196] of the Sabbath, Thes. 46. The worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekly, monthly or yearely, as particulars evince in Scripture and History. I make bold to lay this for my ground in this place, because it is apparant that God made his worke on the seventh day, the ground of hallowing that day, namely, because it was the day of Gods rest, therfore to make it the day of mens rest, for the sanctifying of it unto the Lord. Now I pray consider is it reasonable, that because such or such a worke hath beene done in such a day, provoking us to keepe it a festivall day unto the Lord, therefore it becomes us accordingly to sanctify it, but when? not that day nor the same day senight, nor throughout the 52. weekes of that yeare, nor any of the 52. weekes the next yeare; no nor for the space of a 1000 yeares, or two thousand: but after the expiration of 2500 yeares and more, then and not till then to sanctify that day, because on that day of the weeke the Lord rested from the worke of Creation, 2500 yeares before? why might not the wisdome of our Parlia­ment have imitated God, and in memory of our deliverance from the Gunpowder treason, on the 5. of November, or­deined that day, should bee kept festivall, so far forth as in the publique congregation to make a solemne, and thank­full commemoration of that wonderfull deliverance, to be­gin forsooth a thousand or two thousand yeares after. So the Jewes observed yearely the feast of Purim, in remembrance of Gods mercifull deliverance of them, from the conspiracy of Haman, but when did they ordaine this feast to begin? not till a thousand yeares after, had they done so, who would not have said, that their wisdome herein had exceeded all humane discretion? Or to avoid the like unreasonable­nesse on their side, well they say that the case is not alike; for as much as the fresh remembrance of the Creation, and of Gods resting on the seventh day was sufficient unto them, both for the maintaining of the division of time into weekes or seven dayes; and of sanctifying each seventh unto the Lord; but when the memory hereof began to be obliterated, to wit, about some 900 yeares after the flood, then it was fit the Lord should revive the observation of this day, by a par­ticular [Page 197] Commandement? But herby they shall make the fourth Commandement not only morall, but also more naturall then they are aware. Though I willingly confesse they might well conceave that after some 15 or 1600 yeares, men might grow weary of observing the seventh day, the day of Gods rest from the worke of Creation, because by experience we finde that af­ter some 15 or 1600 yeares, Christians seem to grow weary of keeping holy the Lords day, the day whereon the Lord Christ rose from the grave, & so rested from his worke of redemption. But as not long after 1600 yeares the flood came to set an end to the World by water; so it may be after 1600 yeares of the Gospell, there are but as few yeares to the comming of Christ, to set an end unto this World by fire: certainely, as often as some festivall day, is grounded upon some singular worke of God done, on that day (which Doctor Lake proposeth as a ge­nerall and undoubted rule, alwayes to hold concerning festi­valls) no time more fit for the observation of such a day, then when the memory of the worke is fresh; then is a man like to be more devout, more chearefull in Gods service, more thankefull unto him for his great goodnesse, like as the Angells imme­diatly upon their Creation praised God Iob. 38.7. When the Starres of the morning praised me, and all the children of God rejoyced, which in Cornelius his language was to observe the Sabbath. Now give mee leave to enlarge this by proportion. As there are Sabbaths of rejoycing, so there are Sabbaths of mourning. And the expiatiō day commanded unto the Jewes, was an annuall feast, to inure them to this holy exercise, not onely once a yeare, but oftner, as God should minister oc­casion: Now this day is called by the Lord also a Sabbath, Levit. 16.31. And Doctor Andrewes in his paterne of Cate­cheticall doctrine, handles the duties of such a day, in his doctrine of the Sabbath. And it is well knowne that dayes of wrath have their course, and shall have their course, as long as this World lasteth as well as dayes of mercy: And wee have cause to blesse God that hee hath inclined his Ma­jesties heart to take notice of such dayes of wrath; and ac­cordingly by Proclamation, to command a generall humi­liation throughout the Land, divers and sundry times. So [Page 198] wee reade that the Jewes observed a fast on the first moneth, (besides the fast of the seventh which God commanded) as wee reade Zach. 7.3.5. and it was observed on the tenth day of that moneth; that being the day whereon Nebuchadnezzar burnt the house of the Lord, as wee reade, Ier. 52.12, 13. Now thus far had they observed the 70 yeares of their capti­vity Zach. 7.5. they did not put off the observation of it till a thousand yeares after; it being most fit, then especially to mourne, when God calleth us thereunto, and not to put it off when hee calleth us thereunto; the Lord sore complay­ning of such courses, and pronouncing an heavy judgement upon offenders in this kinde, Esay 22.12, 13, 14. Now like as it becomes us to mourne, when first God calleth us there­unto, so it becommeth us to rejoyce in keeping a festivall unto him, when hee calleth us thereunto; lest otherwise it prove out of season, when it is begun a long time after, and utterly neglected upon the fresh memory thereof. Wee reade that when the Ilienses, inhabitants of Ilium called anciently by the name of Troy, sent an Embassage to Tiberius, to con­dole the death of his Father Augustus; hee considering the unseasonablenesse thereof, it being a long time after his death; requited them accordingly saying, that hee was sorry for their heavinesse also, having lost so renowned a Knight as Hector was, to wit, above a thousand years before, in the warres of Troy.

Surely when in the fourth Commandement, and in the reason given it is sayd; For in six dayes the Lord made Hea­ven and Earth, the Sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, it stands with far better reason to conceave the meaning hereof, in reference to time past, thus; therefore the Lord commanded the sanctification of it 2500 yeares be­fore; then to understand Moses words, Gen. 2.3. Therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it in reference to the time to come thus, therefore the Lord commanded that seventh day to be sanctified 2500 yeares after. And observe I pray the forme of words in the fourth Commandement, when it is sayd, Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, [Page 199] and sanctified it, not of the time present that hee now doth blesse it, and sanctify it, but of the time past, therefore hee did blesse it, and sanctifie it; and when I pray but immediate­ly from the Creation, that very day whereon hee first rested, and consequently that very day, he commanded the seventh day to be sanctified; for to sanctifie the day is to command the sanctification of it, as is confessed; otherwise there were no place to plead anticipation. And that the phrase of speech must signifie Gods Command for the sanctification of it, I have already proved.

As for the Fathers affirming that the ancient Patriarches did not observe the Sabbath, albeit their authority is of no force to countervaile so manifest evidence both of Scripture it selfe; and of the reason drawne from the division of time into weekes, even from the creation, and so continued unto the Jewes in the very dayes of Moses. Yet I may be bold to say, we have better authority from the ancients for justifying of our cause than our adversaries have for theirs. Walaeus hath repre­sented Chrysostome, Theophilus, Antiochenus, Austin, Theo­dor. maintaining that the justification of the Sabbath hath beene from the Creation: To these Rivelies addes Tertullian as of the same mind, howsoever alleged on the adversaries part. And he also acknowledgeth the Jewes to be of the same opinion: Beda is alleged indeed by Pererius as on the part of Tostatus, but no such thing appeares in his Hexameron, but rather expressely the contrary (his words being these of the Sabbath, semper celebrari solebat) as I have shewed in my answer to the preface, Sect. 1. Where also are represented the testi­monies of Athanasius and Epiphanius, as maintaining the insti­tution of the Sabbath to have beene from the Creation; which also hath beene shewed to have beene the opinion of Philo and Iosephus, and divers of the Jewish Rabbins, and of the author of the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the Psalms, and of divers others.In Psalm. 29. Againe, concerning the passages alleged out of some Fathers to the contrary; not onely Hospinian answereth, that those pro­ceed of the rigorous observation of the Sabbath; but Iacobus Salianus a Papist, in particular thus interpreteth Tertullian; and Tertullian must be in some such sense understood, as namely, ei­ther [Page 200] of observation of other Sabbaths in use among the Jewes, or of the rigorous observation of the Jewish Sabbath, or of the Jewish manner in observing it by particular sacrifices appoin­ted for that day; for as much as he clearely professeth, that the Sabbath day was à primordio sanctus, as Rivetus sheweth, and that the other Fathers (which are but foure) truly alleged, are to be interpreted by some such manner, I have endeavoured to evince by divers reasons in my answer to the Preface.Sect. 1. And though some are willing to admit that of Torniellus, that in the accomplishment of the Creation, the Angels did observe the Sabbath, provided he recompence them in this particular now in question, and adde that the observance of it here upon the earth was not till many ages after. Yet this naked authori­ty being little worth, his reason is so weake in the former, that we have cause to suspect it will not prove any thing stronger in the latter; though I should have beene content to afford it due consideration had it been proposed: As for the Angels singing and shouting for joy, this was performed, as Torritallus ac­knowledgeth, the day wherein the foundation of the earth was laid, which undoubtedly could not be after the first day of the creation. For if the foundation of the earth was not laid then, when the Lord said, that it was without forme and voyd, and the waters covered it, I cannot devise when it should be; It is granted that it may be probably conjectured, that the sanctification of the Sabbath was before the Law, as concur­ring herein with Calvin, but that Calvin saith that no more, is not proved, neither is that passage exhibited wherein Cal­vin should deliver his mind so coldly thereof; but Calvin in his harmony upon the foure bookes of Moses, and on the fourth Precept, is expresse, that Diem septimū sibi sumpsit Deus ac consecravit completa mundi creatione, that God assumed and consecrated the seventh day unto himselfe upon the finishing of the worlds creation. And it is enough for us, that then it was instituted; and hereupon let every sober reader judge, whether it be not more then probable, that the holy Patri­arches at least observed it. Neither doe we affect that any man should rest satisfied with our conjectures; but let our reasons be considered, and the plaine Text of Scripture professing that [Page 201] because God rested the seventh day, Sect. 3. therefore hee blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; and let them yeeld thereunto no more in this particular, then whereof it doth convince a man in conscience. Yet who those late Writers be who are so unsatisfied in this point, I know not well, I verily thinke they are very few Protestants. Gomarus (as I remem­ber) allegeth but two, Vatablus and Musculus, whereas Wa­laeus and Rivetus between them, have alleged no lesse than thirty maintaining the contrary. As for the Papists, we shall take notice of them in the next Section.

It is confessed that this proofe is good, God blessed the se­venth day, and sanctified it; therefore he commanded it to be kept holy by his people. The sanctifying of the day in the true notion thereof being nothing but Gods commanding man to sanctifie it, which yet if any man deny, I appeale to my former argument, delivered in the former Section, for the ju­stifying thereof. Onely it is said that therence it followeth not that Then or at that time, to wit, the very day whereon God rested, he commanded it to be kept holy by his people. Now this exception also I have remooved in the former Section. And it is very strange we should be to seeke of the time in reference whereunto this is delivered; most of all, if spoken onely in reference to 2500 yeares after, and not the least intimation of so strange an anticipation beyond all example, as Walaeus and Rivetus have proved. When Abulensis saith that Moses spake this by anticipation rather to shew the equity of the Commandement then the Originall; If the booke of Genesis were written before the Commandement was given on mount Sina, this interpretation must suppose that the Lord had alrea­dy revealed to Moses what hee would doe on Mount Sina; and what ground is produced for the building of so much as any conjecture hereof thereupon? And what wise man would expect that any man should be satisfied herewith? Doth it not concerne them who maintaine this affirmative to make it good by Texts of Scripture? If after the Commande­ments were delivered on Mount Sina; what neede of repre­senting the equity thereof, seeing the equity, and that in this very way, is expressed in the Commandement it selfe, and [Page 202] that in such manner as to manifest evidently that God did not now begin to command this, but that hee commanded it of old, even from the Creation, as already I have disputed and proved. And though Abulensis were of this opinion, yet Catarinus was not; and though Perorius the Jesuite to [...]ke part with Tostatus, yet Rivetus hath shewed that Cornelius de lapide, Emmanuel Sa. Ribera, all Jesuites do not, but with Catarinus rather, or that Steuchus, Eugubinus, Genebrard, and Iacobus Salianus concurre with them, against the opinion of Tostatus, Gomarus acknowledgeth Marius also to be of the same minde, all Papists; and let mee adde unto these all the Remists, as appeares in their notes upon Apoc. 1.10. Enosh might call upon the Lord, and Abraham offer sacrifice, without relation to a set, and appointed time, oftner and sel­domer as they had occasion. It was in the former Section signifi­ed to be Torniellus his reason which here is answered; now Torniellus was of a contrary opinion to us in this particular, yet hee confesseth that it seemed hardly credible; neither doth the Doctor deny it, onely hee saith that Enosh might so doe; hee doth not say hee did; yet undoubtedly many things are done that are hardly credible should be done, much more might bee done, though indeed they are not; Yet this is none of our arguments; but such as it is, let us not extenuate it, but take it aright as it deserves to be taken. Torniellus suppposeth that Enosh did apart himselfe from the sonnes of Cain; Now Enosh was not alone in this, for the Text saith, Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord, not Enosh alone. Now in separation, they that separate from the same com­pany in an holy manner have reason to congregate them­selves; the same holinesse is as powerfully effectuall to the one as to the other; and they are called the Sonnes of God, in distinction from the sonnes, and daughtes of men, Gen. 6.2. though then the very sonnes of God began to degenerate. And that these meetings of many should be without a set, and appointed time, I cannot devise any colour of probabi­lity, 1. For that they could not all meete in one congregati­on. 2. that meeting in diverse, the children of God should desire that at one time their meeting might be, the prayers [Page 203] of many concurring in the same faith, and joyning together doe besiege Gods Eares, and worke an holy violence upon him. 3. otherwise, there would be a breach of society and mutuall commerce, that being an holy day in one place or countrey which was not in another. 4. being divided farre off it would be most difficult to make new appointments. 5. little likelihood of agreement herein if left unto themselves, without some divine direction and appointment. But to re­turne, the next portion of the discourse is this. And as for the not falling of the Manna on the Sabbath day, this rather was a preparation to the Commandement, then any promulga­tion of it. But suppose it had beene a promulgation of it, what could that hinder the discourse of Iacobs not neglecting Labans flocke upon conscience of the Sabbath, which was long before the children of Israells going downe into Egypt; whereas Manna fell not untill their departing out of Egypt, and comming into the Wildernesse, which was diverse hundreds of yeeres after. But yet the ordering of the Manna in the falling of it six dayes, and not the seventh; doth evidently argue that this seventh standing in just correspon­dency to the seventh day from the Creation, (as appeares by the story following) the dividing of time into weekes, and septenaries from the Creation, was exactly observed from the Creation all along untill that time: And no lesse evidently doth it manifest, that the Sabbath day was obser­ved before the Law given on Mount Sinai; and consequently either by light of nature directing them to the day of the weeke whereon God rested; or by Commandement, and Commandement wee finde none before that on Mount Sinai, unlesse that in Gen. 2.3. Goe for a Commandement from the beginning.

The first mention wee reade of the Sabbath is that Exod. 16.23. Where Moses saith, This is that which the Lord hath sayd, to morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; and let every one judge whether there bee any forme of a Commandement in this, and whether hee doth not speake unto them of a Sabbath as of a thing formerly well knowne unto them, and v. 25. To day is the Sabbath unto the Lord; [Page 204] to day yee shall not find it in the feild. This is not spoken as if the condition of a Sabbath were any new thing unto them. But let us see whether there be any great strength in that which followeth. Put the case that Iacob on the Sabbath had neglected Labans flook, and that the Israelites under Pharaoh had not made up their tale of brickes, neither had he escaped a chiding, nor they the insolent fury of their taskmasters. And now according to the principles of these Sabbatarians, what would you counsaile them to doe? did they observe the Sabbath? they were sure of punishment from man, did they neglect it, they were sure of vengeance from the Lord, unto such streights are they reduced, who would impose the Sabbath as a perpetuall Law of nature. As for the first of these, wee cannot be ignorant, that both flockes of sheepe, and heads of greater cattell were looked unto in the time of the most rigorous observation of the Sabbath. Our Saviour observes the Jewes practise (notwith­standing all their rigour this way) was to unloose their Oxe, and leade him to watering: Neither was Laban so rigorous a Lord to Iacob being from the first his unckle, and afterwards his father in Law, and one that had as good meanes to know the story of the Creation as Jacob, and how that the Lord from the beginning Blessed the seaventh day, and sanctified it; afterwards Iacobs posterity met with Taske-masters in Egypt. And if the Aegyptians had made conscience of setting some time apart for the service of God, according to the suggestion of that light which is confessed to extend so farre by nature, how improbable is it they would deny this unto their ser­vants? The Kings of Persia did not use them so hard, but promoted their sacrifices that they might pray for the King, Ezr. 6.10. and the Kings Children; Traian made a Law that the Jewes should not be molested on their Sabbath. The Turkes at this day give liberty unto Christians for the free exercise of their religion. And why should wee thinke the Aegyptians more rigorous to the Israelites then the Babylonians were to the Iewes? Or if alike; why may not a man conclude as well of the Iewes in Babylon, as of the Israelites in Egypt that If they did observe the Sabbath they were sure of punishment from man, if they did neglect it, they were sure of vengeance from God. [Page 205] The Canon of Laodic [...]a enjoyning the celebration of the Lords day hath this caution, si possint; which is thought to be spoken in reference to servants under the tyranny of Hea­then masters. And if the observation of the Sabbath may give way to the exercise of charity towards others, and of mercy towards beasts, may it not much more to the exercise of mercy towards our owne bodies? yet what if all this were granted? who seeth not that if there be any strength in this argument they may by as good reason dispute against the pro­fession of Christianity under persecuting tyrants. For if they doe professe christianity under such; they are sure of punishment from man; if not, they are sure of vengeance from God. So that to no such straights are wee put as is devised, like as the state of the question obtruded upon us is devised also, but that I have formerly cleered, and shewed that wee are to distin­guish. 1. of time in generall to be set apart for Gods service. 2. of the proportion of time in speciall. 3. of the day under that proportion of time in particular. And how farre the light of nature doth—direct us in all these. That the sancti­fication of the seventh day as commanded from the begin­ning unto man, I have already proved in the former Section, and also that reason justifieth this drawne from the division of time into weekes, as which had its course from the begin­ning of the World; and how authority both ancient, and moderne doth countenance this way of ours farre more then the contrary. And Manasses ben Israel one of the ancient wise Doctors of the Jewes observes, that when the Jewes are bid to remember that they were servants in Egypt, this is as if it had beene sayd, remember how that in Egypt, where thou servedst, thou wast constrayned to worke even upon the Sabbath day. In Exod. queast. 36. Upon the Lords blessing the seventh day and sanctifying it from the beginning of the World, and upon the fourth Commandement is founded our observation of the Sabbath; as Chrysostome hath pro­fessed; that God hath manifested from the beginning that one day in the circle of the weeke ought to be set apart for a spirituall rest.

All confesse that there is a difference betweene. 1. Time in [Page 290] generall to be set apart for Gods service. 2. And the pro­portion of that time. 3. And the particularity of the day in that proportion. The first is generally receaved to be morall, the other two some had rather call positive, then ceremoni­all, because they conceave it to have beene instituted in Pa­radise before the fall, when there was no neede of any ce­remony. They who do most judiciously discourse of ceremo­ny in the fourth Commandement, doe not call it ceremoniall hand over head, but with reference to the rest of the day. And herein the ceremoniality they apply to the rest on the seventh day. As for the ceremoniality to be found in the pro­portion of time indefinitely considered, as in one day of seaven, I never read nor heard, till now. Yet wherein this ceremoniality doth consist, I meane the thing signified there­by is not explicated at all, neither in respect of the propor­tion of time, as of one day in seven, nor in reference to the particular day. Yet the Jewes rest on the seventh day, is ge­nerally conceaved to prefigure Christs rest in the grave that day full and whole, and onely that day. And as Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester in his Starre Chamber speech professeth, that It hath ever been the Churches doctrine that Christ made an end of all Sabbaths by his Sabbath in the grave. That Sabbath was the last of them. So Austin de Gen. ad lit. l. 4. c. 11. Beda in Hexameron on Genosis, Aquin. 2.2. q. 121. art. 4. Piscat. on Luc. 14. And albeit the rest from workes may have a ceremoniall significaton of a rest from sinne in the way of grace, as, Ezech. 20.12. and a rest both from sin, and sorrow; (which is also a speciall worke of ours through sin, Ier. 2.17. hast thou not procured this unto thy selfe because thou hast forsaken the Lord.) and that in the way of glory, Hebr. 4. yet this is no such ceremony as to be abolished upon the fulfilling of the thing signified; for even the Jewes under the Law had their rest from sinne, (in the way of grace) as wee Christians under the Gospell, yet neverthe­lesse observed the Sabbath, and that glorious rest which shall not be accomplished till the end of the World, is com­monly called an eternall Sabbath. And undoubtedly that is to be accompted as a rest morall whereunto the sanctifica­tion [Page 207] of the day calleth us, namely to rest from all workes, as they are Avocations from sacred studies, and meditations. But doth Abulensis accompt the rest of one day in seven ceremo­niall, and not morall? Doctor Willet relates him as of an other opinion, and distinguishing thus. There are some things which are simply morall, and some things simply ceremoniall; and some things of a mixt kinde, as being partly morall, partly ceremoniall. Simply morall are those things which are grounded on the judgement of naturall reason, as when naturall reason doth dictate that some time is to be set apart for Gods service; But precisely to appoint the seventh day more then any day of the weeke, is simply ceremoniall, quia non habet fundamentum à ratione, sed à voluntate condentis legem; because it is not grounded on reason, but on the will of the law-maker. But to appoint one day of seven, and that day wholy for the space of 24. houres to consecrate to Gods service, as therein to abstaine from all kinds of worke, these things are not purely or simply ceremoniall, but partly morall as grounded on the judgement of reason, though not totally and wholy. For the first, if above one day in the weeke should be kept perpetually holy, Gravamen esset laborantibus to­ties vacare; it were a grievance to labourers to rest from worke so oft (his meaning is in this case, they could not sufficient­ly provide for themselves, and their families, as touching the maintenance of this life temporall) and if but one day in a fortnight or a month should be appointed, oblivisceremur Dei per desuetudinem cultus ipsius. We should forget God through not accustoming our selves sufficiently to his service. Therefore it stands with reason that one day in seven should be celebrated to the Lord. This surely is not to deny the proportion of one day in seven to be consecrated unto the Lord, to be morall; but to confirme it rather. Neither doe I finde that Aquinas resolves it so, as here it is pretended; that which hee sayth to be ceremoniall, is applied by him onely to the particular day of the weeke. Indeed hee doth say that the proportion of one day in seven to be consecrated to the Lord, is morall, neither doth hee deny it; onely hee sayth, it is morall that some time should be set apart for Gods service.Zan. in 4. praecep. p. 599. And it may be under this he comprehends the proportion of one day in se­ven, as Zanchy doth.

[Page 208]For albeit hee treads in Aquinas steps when hee sayth, Morale est quatenus natura docet & pietas postulat, ut aliquis dies destinetur quieti, ab operibus servilibus, quo divino cultui vacare possit Ecclesia; ceremoniale est quatenus septimus dies fuit praescriptus, & non alius. It is morall to have a day destinate to rest from servile workes so to be free for Gods service. It is ceremoniall, that the seventh day, and no other is pre­scribed for this: yet a little before hee manifesteth that by one day to be set apart, for this he meanes one day in seven, when he thus sayth.

Ibid. p. 595. Con. 1. Morale est mandatum, quatenus praecipit ut è septem diebus unum consecremus cultui divino—& proinde quatenus tale mandatum est nunquam fuit abrogatum nec abrogari potest. The Commandement is morall as it commands us to consecrate one day in seven unto divine service. And so doth Dominicus Bannes 22. q. 44. art. 1. & Bellarmine de cultu Sanctorum lib. 3. cap. 11. And if no other be the opinion of Aquinas, if the school­men of what sect soever say the same, it followeth that they differ no more from us then Aquinas did; it may be they will be found to agree with us. For I doe not thinke any schooleman, being put to it will deny but that by the very light of nature, not onely some time, but a sufficient propor­tion of time must be set apart for Gods service. And albeit had we beene left unto our selves without any indication of this proportion from God, wee might well have beene to seeke in the setting forth of this convenient proportion Yet considering how God hath gone before us making the World in six daies, and resting the seventh, and considering there­upon the division of time into septenaries of dayes, reason I should thinke with Tostatus, doth dictate that the pro­portion of one day in seven was more convenient then any other. Or if this were not sufficient for our direction here­in; yet when God hath manifested unto us both after the Creation, and in the fourth Commandement what propor­tion of time hee likes best for this (as it is in reason fit that the Master, especially such a Master should prescribe what proportion of time shall be set apart for his service) then with Chrysostome wee have cause by the very light of nature [Page 209] undoubtedly to conclude; that if in the beginning, and under the Law God required one day in seven to be consecrated to his service; wee surely cannot allow unto him a worse pro­portion under the Gospell. And Iacobus de Valentia advers. Judae. q. 2.Conclus. Praeceptum de Sabbato celebrando est partim morale propter primam conditionem. This first condition in respect whereof he sayth it is morall, hee professeth to be two fold. 1 in regard of the rest. 2. in regard of the sanctification of it, then hee proves it saying, probatur, Adi. & 2. Nam primo Sabbatum fuit praeceptum ad requiem hominis, & sanctificationem Dei, ut homo cessaret ab omni negotio mundano, ut facilius posset Deo servire & latriam exhibere. Then comming to specifie the pro­portion of time to be allowed hereunto, Oportet (saith hee) ut aliqua dies in septimana ad hujusmodi sanctificationem & latriam sit Deo dedicata. Et ut sic hoc praeceptum est stabile & aeternum, ut patebit. One day in the weeke must be dedicated unto God for this sanctification and worship, and thus the precept is stable and everlasting as it shall appeare. In like man­ner Stella upon Luke 14. In the sanctification of the Sabbath there was something morall, and something ceremoniall. It is morall to observe one day in the weeke; but that it should be this day or that day, this is ceremoniall. Adde to these Bellarmine de cultu sanctorum lib. 3. cap. 11. Ius divinum requirebat, ut unus dies hebdomadae dicaretur cultui divino. Thus we see these are directly for us; Aquinas and the schoolemen are not di­rectly against us, (as hitherto it hath appeared,) no more then Zanchy, who yet is directly for us, as hath beene shewed. By the way, it doth not follow from any evidence, that either these or Tostatus have given, that the assigning of one day above another was ceremoniall, taking this word (ceremoniall) in proper speech: for 1. it may be accomp­ted positive. 2. what have wee to doe with ceremonialls (in proper speech) now under the Gospell, who yet doe still observe one day in seven. 3. nay why may not that also justly be accompted morall, if God hath marked out that day wee celebrate by some notable worke, to be consecrated to the Lord, above others? especially accord­ing to Bishop Lake his grounds, namely that the worke of [Page 210] the day is the ground of hallowing the day: for proofe whereof hee appeales to the institution of all feasts both humane and divine. In this case, I should thinke there is no colour for suspition of any Judaisme; who those fathers are, who have pronounced (as here it is said) the fourth Commandement to be a ceremony, a shadow, and a figure only, here it is not mentioned, but delivered at large, but I finde that Isychrius rejects from the Decalogue this precept for the observation of the Sabbath, esteeming it to be only ceremoniall, opposed herein by Dominicus Bannes;22. q. 44. art. 1. Sed profecto fallitur quoth Bannes: for the precept is morall as touching the substance of the praecept, to wit, that there be a certaine time wherein a man ought to rest unto God, although the determination of such a time be not designed: But heretofore the seventh day was designed by a Divine praecept positive; in the Law of grace, the day of the Lords Resurrecti­on; so that amongst the people of God, one day in the weeke hath been determined for divine service. As for our Divines, the most generall opinion amongst them is, that the observation of one day in seven is of perpetuall observation. For albeit Brentius upon Leviticus affirmes, that the Church may in these dayes observe but one day in 14. if they will. Yet not onely Gomarus, and Rivet professe that under the Gospell wee must allow a better proportion of time for Gods service, rather then a worse, in reference to that which was allowed under the Law: But Luther tom. 5. fol. 610. professeth that ad minimum unus dies aliquis per hebdomadam, is to be chosen for Gods worship, and Baldwin in his cases of conscience. 2. c. 13. cas. 2. touching feasts. It is morall (saith hee) to sanctifie one day in seven. Master Hooker confesseth as much in his Ecclesiasticall policy. And if Calvin hath a way by himselfe in this; there is no reason hee should be introduced to affront the most generall current of our owne Divines, mustered up by Walaeus as a cloud of witnesses, standing for the morality of one day in seven. Yet Walaeus hath cleared also Calvin in this point, and that in reference to more preg­nant passages then are produced here; where nothing is deli­vered in opposition thereunto; the last tends to the confir­mation of it.

[Page 211]For if it be reasonable that one day in seven should be al­lowed for the ease, and recreation of servants; what day shall be their Sabbath, if not the day of rest? and if this be most reasonable, I hope in the second place it will be judged most unreasonable that there should be one Sabbath for the Master, and another for the servants: undoubtedly, now God hath gone before us in allotting this proportion of time for his service; wee may be bold to say with Azorius (and that incorrespondency to Tostatus his discourse) that rationi maximè consentaneum est after six worke dayes to consecrate one unto divine service. And seeing God hath required such a pro­portion of time for his service under the Law: by the very light of nature it appeares to be most unreasonable wee should al­low him a worse proportion under the Gospell, and Calvin professeth that Nobis cum veteri populo quoad hanc partem com­munis est Sabbati necessitas. Harm. in 4. lib. Mosis in praecep. 4. We have as much neede of a Sab­bath as ever the Jewes had. As touching the three particulars wherein Tostatus is vouched to affirme the fourth Com­mandement to bee an unstable, and alterable ceremony. First I have not hitherto found, that Tostatus confoundeth the proportion of one day in seven, with the particular day under this proportion; as if these were equally ceremoni­all. The rest on the seventh day in the judgement of the an­cients prefigured the rest of Christ (that day) in his grave, and in that respect was accompted by them ceremoniall. But as for the proportion of one day in seven, never yet did I meete with any who set his wits on worke to devise any thing in Christ to be prefigured thereby, that so it also might be accompted ceremoniall. Yet I nothing doubt but this proportion is alterable by that power whereby it was pre­scribed, but not by any inferour power; and so it is accompted by Jacobus de Valentia, stabile & aeternum, stable and ever­lasting; and most unreasonable that wee should not be bound to allow as good a proportion of service unto God under the Gospell, as the Jewes were bound to allow him under the Law.

The rest of the seventh day being ceremoniall, wee hold not onely with Tostatus that it is alterable, but with Stella that [Page 212] it must be altered; and I hope the word it selfe affords evi­dence enough for this. It is true, the fourth Commande­ment in the very front commands the sanctifying the Sabbath not the seventh day, but the Sabbath: and in like maner it ends with professing that the Lord Blessed the Sabbath day (not the seventh) & sanctified it. But when the question is made what Sabbath? I should rather answer a rest from all servile works, then as here it is answered, The seventh day. For un­doubtedly God doth not therein command us to rest the seventh day in correspondency to the seventh day from the Creation, there is commanded one day in seven, and a seventh after six dayes of worke. But wee must leave it unto God as to prescribe unto us, the Master to his servants, the propor­tion of time to be set apart for his service, so the particula­rity of the day also under the specified proportion; least o­therwise there might be as many different opinions herea­bouts, and courses according thereunto amongst the people of God, as there be dayes in the weeke. Now God did ap­point the seventh day of the weeke unto the Jewes for their Sabbath; but the first day of the weeke, hee hath appointed unto us for our Sabbath; still observing six dayes worke be­fore, and a seventh of rest unto God, after. And thus Zanchy a learned and judicious Divine interpreteth the fourth Com­mandement in 4. praecept. p. 599. Col. 2. Stat sententia non sine causa factum esse, ut in substantia praecepti dictum non sit, Memento ut diem septimum, sed ut diem Sabbati. i. quietis sancti­fices. Hac enim ratione nos quoque praeceptum hoc servamus, dum sanctificamus diem Dominicum, quia hic quietis dies nobis est, sicut Judaeis fuit septimus. I am still of opinion, that not without cause it is so ordered, that in the substance of the precept it is not sayd, remember the seventh day, but remem­ber the Sabbath day, that is, the day of rest to sanctifie it. For by this meanes, wee also keepe this precept in sanctify­ing the Lords Day.

So that this is not the opinion of Doctor Bownde onely, and of Master Perkins, but of Zanchy also, and Iacobus de Va­lentia advers. Iudaeos qu. 2. conclus. 4. Christian Religion cele­brates a true morall Sabbath on the Lords Day, as touching the [Page 312] time, in as much as it celebrates it on the day, whereon it ought to be celebrated, and concludes, So the precept of the Sabbath as it is morall remaines in the new time celebrated on the Lords day. So Dominicus Bannes formerly alleaged distinguisheth the substance of the praecept, from the particular determination of the day; and addes, that by a positive precept the seventh day was designed unto the Iewes; Bannes 22. 4. 44 art. 1. but afterwards under the Law of grace was designed the day of the Lords Resurrection, So that alwayes to Gods faithfull people was designed one day in the weeke, for Divine Service. Whereas other festivities (sayth hee) are in course by the institution of the Church. And Doctor Andrewes also sheweth out of Math. 24.20. that there must needs be a Sabbath after Christs death, and addes, that Those which were ceremonies were abrogated: but those which were not cere­monies were changed; at the Ministery from the Levites to be chosen throughout the World So here the day changed from the day of the Jewes to the Lords Day. Revel. 1.10. And according­ly interpreteth the fourth Commandement as belonging un­to us Christians as bound to observe the Sabbath 1. in our judgment by a reverend esteeming of it, not as a day appointed by man. 2. in our use set downe, Esay 58.13. not following our owne will, nor doing our owne workes. Hereupon a question is proposed thus. But is not the Sabbath a ceremony, and so abrogated by Christ? and the answer is this. Do as Christ did in the case of divorce, looke whether it were so from the beginning; Now the beginning of the Sabbath was in Paradise before there was any sin, and so before there needed any Saviour, and if they say it prefigured the rest we shall have from our sins in Christ, We grant it, and therefore the day is changed, but no ce­remony proved. The practise of piety is a booke dedicated unto his Majesty that now is, when hee was Prince Carles in the yeere 1626. which is now 15. yeeres agoe, came forth the 10th Edition of it; wee have heard it highly commended by King Iames, and that it commended the author of the de­dication to a Bishoprick. The author of this treatise, is large upon the Sabbath, and concurres with us in every particu­lar wherein wee are by the Prefacer to this translation op­posed. Amongst other particulars this is one, that hee in­terpreteth [Page 214] the fourth Commandement as Zanchy doth, say­ing, The Commandement doth not say. Remember to keepe holy the seventh day next following the sixt day of the Creation or this or that seventh day: but indefinitely, Remember that thou keepe holy a Sabbath day, and that Our Lord Iesus having authority as Lord over the Sabbath, had likewise far greater reason to trans­late the Sabbath day, from the Iewish seventh unto the seventh day whereon Christians doe keepe their Sabbath; which also hee proves by diverse reasons. And the booke of Homilies where­unto all our Ministers are required to subscribe, professeth that wee Christians are still bound to the observation of the Sabbath, and that the Sunday is now our Sabbath. So then as the Jewes were tied to the observation of the Sabbath on the day prescribed too them, so are wee Christians tied to the observation of the Sabbath too, but on the day prescri­bed unto us; should wee observe the same day with the Jewes, wee should fall justly under Austins censure, that every such one carnaliter sapit. And the same Austin professeth that Doctores Ecclesiae decreverunt omnem gloriam Iudaici Sabbati in illam transferre. August de. Tem. Ser. 251. The Doctors of the Church have de­creed to transferre all the glory of the Jewes Sabbath unto the Lords Day. So that the censure following in these words. They therefore are but idly busied, who would so farre enlarge the Sabbath or seventh day in this com­mandement, as to include the Lords Day in it, must light not upon us onely, but upon other greater Divines, yea and upon the Church of England also; but our comfort is, that wee finde it very weakly grounded. As for the institution of the Lords Day, I never reade nor heard any that grounded it upon the fourth Commandement otherwise, then by pro­portion.

That Commandement containes two things 1. the sancti­fication of the Sabbath. 2. a designing of the time when; both as touching the proportion of time, to wit of one day in seven; and as touching the particularity of the day under the forementioned proportion. For in commanding a seventh, it commands one day in seven, the former inferring the lat­ter, as well as it doth inferre the setting of some time in ge­nerall [Page 215] a part for Gods service, which not one (that I know) denies to bee the substance of this commandement. Now as the Lord designed, what should bee their Sabbath day unto the Jewes; so hath hee designed what shall bee the Sabbath day to us Christians.

This designation made to us we do not derive from the fourth commandement; but this day being by the word of God de­signed unto us, still holding up the same proportion of time: the rest of this day and the sanctification thereof, this and this alone doe we derive from the fourth commandement, and al­so, that undoubtedly we Christians ought not to allow unto God a worse proportion of time for his Service, then did the Jewes: and the proportion is apparant betweene the Lord the creators rest, and the Lord the redeemers rest. And our rest on the day of our Lord the creators rest, being abolished as a type of Christs rest in the grave; what is more con­venient to come in the place thereof then our rest on that day, which is the Lord our redeemers rest. As tou­ching the passage here alleaged out of Calvin, I am sorry to observe the common errour of others committed here also; by dismembring Calvins sentence, leaving out one halfe of it, ma­king him to deliver that absolutely, which hee utters onely conditionally. And the other halfe of the first sentence here mentioned doth manifest as much, namely that Calvin speakes only against them, who think themselves obliged to the obser­vation of one day in 7. for some mysterious significations sake; and accordingly Wallaeus sheweth that he opposeth none but Papists, whose course is to observe festivall dayes for some mystery sake, whereof hee gives good evidence by a passage which he allegeth out of Bellarmine, all which I have former­ly represented more at large, in my answer to the Preface Sect. 4. I come to the fourth Section of the Author; That some doe urge the words of this Commandement, so farre till they draw blood insteed of comfort, are but words: nothing of this kind hath beene hitherto made good so much as in the least colour of probabilitie: And who upon due observing of the fourth commandement may not well be brought to admire the wise­dome of God, that as hee hath placed it in the morall law, [Page 216] which concerneth all times and persons; so he hath ordered it after such a manner; that howsoever the day should be alte­red, yet the proportion of time still to be kept; and a Sab­bath still to bee of force, whether on the seventh day which was the Sabbath day unto the Jewes, or the Lords day which should be our Christian Sabbath; thereon to rest unto God and to sanctifie that day unto his service; we make no doubt but the Sonne of man is Lord of the Sabbath, and so hath po­wer to change it, and none hath power to change it, but hee that is Lord of it▪ It is true, this was one argument amongst many, which the Author of the Practice of Pietie useth to prove that the fourth commandement stands still in force; be­cause our Saviour professeth that, He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it: and that the least of them, should not be abroga­ted in his kingdome of the new Testament. In so much that who­soever breaketh one of the least of these tenne commandments and teacheth men so, hee should be called the least in the Kingdome of heaven, that is (saith the Author) he should have no place in his Church. To the first of these here the Doctor answereth thus, To which we say with the Apostle: Doe we destroy the Law by faith? God forbid: We confirme it rather. 2 Christ then hath put away the shadow, but retained the light, and spreads it wider then before: shewing thereby the excellent harmony, betweene the Gospell and the Law. As touching the first part of this present answer; that is too aliene from our present purpose; the question betweene us, being not whether the Law be destroyed, by preaching justification by faith; we know that as touching the ceremoniall Law, whatsoever was prefigured thereby is fulfilled by Christ; and as touching the morall Law, Christ hath fulfilled that also partly in himselfe by perfect obedience thereunto, and making satisfaction for our disobedience; and partly in us, by giving us more power to performe obedi­ence thereunto through faith in him, then ever we had before since the fall of Adam. But our Saviour, Matth. 5. treats of destroying the law by abrogating it or any part thereof, which how they can avoid, who teach that Christ by his death, hath freed us from the Yoke of the fourth commandement, I cannot comprehend; Suppose it be but one of the least com­mandements, [Page 217] yet let them looke to it, who discourse of abro­gating it, and teach men that they are not obliged by it, hand over head; least they be accompted by the Lord of Sabbath the least in the kingdome of heaven: therefore it stands them upon to confirme it rather as they professe, but how they doe performe that which they pretend, I am utterly to seeke. 2. I come therefore to the consideration of the second part of the answer consisting of two parts, 1. That Christ hath put away the shadow, 2. That he hath retained the light & spreads it further. As for the first wee have heard the proportion of one day in seven allowed unto Gods service, to be called a ceremony, and consequently a shadow; But what this prefigured is not ex­planed at all, nor ever hath beene that ever I read or heard. Neither is this put away, but continueth still in the observati­on of the Lords day all the Christian world over; and I doubt not but it will continue to the end of the world. The restraint of the worship to the seventh day hath beene also called a ce­remony, but too too crudely and without all explication of what it figured: yet we willingly grant a faire prefiguration of somewhat concerning Christ is found in the seventh day ac­knowledged by the Ancients and by moderne writers, both Papists and Protestants, both Lutherans and Calvinists; but that is not in reference to the worship restrained to that day, but in reference to the test, fairely representing Christs rest that day in his grave; and thereupon grounding the rigorous condition of the Jewish rest, which is the practise both of Papists & of Protestants so that the Sabbath is not taken away neither as touching some time, in generall to be sanctified un­to God, nor as touching the proportion of time in speciall, as of one day in seven; but only as touching the particular day which is changed into the Lords day: Our Saviour pro­fessing that a Sabbath still was to bee kept of Christians, as Doctor Andrewes proveth out of Matth. 24 20. As for the second, to wit, the light that is said to be retained and spread wi­der then before; this is meere darknesse unto me, for I cannot by any meanes comprehend the meaning of it: Neither is here any course taken to expound it, and bring us acquainted with the interpretation of it. Suppose by the light is meant [Page 218] the thing prefigured; and that is devised to bee a spirituall rest from sinne.Sect. 4. But this I hope the Prophets and holy ser­vants of God under the Law were partakers of, together with the rest of the Sabbath and the sanctification of it, as well as we under the Gospell; and if the sanctification of the Sab­bath (I speak of our Christian Sabbath, according to our Savi­ours language, Matth. 24.20.) be taken from us, I doubt wee shall enjoy that spirituall rest from sinne, in farre lesse measure under the Gospell, then the Jewes did under the law. Yet neither they nor we shall enjoy it intirely, till we are brought to our rest in glory. Certainely the conscionable observation of the Sabbath ever was, and is a principall meanes to draw us to that spirituall rest from sin, and eternall rest in glory. If Saint Paul by taxing the Jewish observation of dayes & times, doth therewithall tax the observation of the Lords day in place of the Jewish: then let us turne Anabaptists, and Soci­nians, and utterly renounce the observation of the Lords day, as well as of the Jewish Sabbath. The same Apostle Col. 2. speakes not of the Sabbath, but of Sabbaths; and there were dayes enough so called amongst the Jewes, and that by the Lord both of dayes and yeares, besides the weekely Sabbath; yet we are content the rest of the seventh may be ranged a­mongst other Sabbaths, as prefiguring Christs rest that day in the grave. But to speake of the Sabbath hand-over-head without distinction we love not; nor see I any cause, why men should be in love therewith unlesse withall they love confu­sion: and to fish in troubled waters, is many times an advan­tage to serve turnes. Let the rest of the seventh be in Gods name crucified with Christ upon the crosse, or at least be bu­ryed with him in his grave, and so as never to rise with him; but let our Christian Sabbath (our Saviour speakes of Matth. 24.20.) take life together with our Saviours resurrection that brought with it a new creation, a new world, and there withall a new Sabbath, as Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Win­chester delivers it in his Starre Chamber speech in the case of Trask. As reason tells us that there must be some certaine ap­pointed time for Gods publique Service; so as good reason tells us, wee Christians cannot without sinne, allow unto God for [Page 219] his publique service a worse proportion of time under the Gos­pell, then the Jewes were bound to allow unto him under the Law. God himselfe never having deserved so much at the hands of man as under the Gospell; and there never being greater necessitie of observing a Sabbath, then under the Gos­pell, the way of truth and holinesse being so beset, and with such encombrances as the like were never knowne to the world before; yet still from the bondage and necessitie of the Ie­wish Sabbath, we are delivered by the Gospell; for neither doe we keepe their day, then called the Lords holy day; but the first day of the weeke, the day of Christs resurrection in the new Testament, called the Lords day, Revel. 1.10. And so willing­ly we come to the consideration of the right, whereby The Lords day hath succeeded in the place thereof; Let it be the shame of the Anabaptist, Familist and Swenk feldian, to make all dayes equall and equally to be regarded, so insteed of Christian liber­tie to bring into the Church, an Heathenish licentiousnesse, yet surely the heathens ever had their festivalls even weekely, and that on the seventh day, which was sometimes called in this respect [...]. And at this day the Turkes festivall is their Friday, the first day of Mahumets kingdome, when hee fled from Maecha to Iethrib, and thenceforth constituted both the first day of their weeke and of their yeare. Let as many as by their Sabbatarian speculations, bring all to Iudaisme bee censured as they deserve; but as for them that desire to have all the glory of the Iewes Sabbath transferred to the Lords day, take heed how you censure them, least you censure Austin also, and the Doctors of the Church mentioned by him, who have de­creed this. As for the river called Sabbaticus, let such lettice serves their lips that like them. Censures of fanatick and pee­vish spirits, are as liberally bestowed by some; as the Baiocchi and Bagalini, which the Pope scatters at the day of his coro­nation; but who they be that deserve them, God will one day Judge. But I perceive whither this tends; If some conceive the Lords day to be prophaned by Maygames and Morice dances, they are censured for men fanatick & of peevish spirits; but they little think that all the Prelates of the kingdome may as well come under their lash, and the whole Parliament in the [Page 220] first of king Charles. Sect. 3. But that thred which here is begun, is drawne out somewhat longer in the next Section following.

5 In this fifth Section things are so carryed, that it is an hard matter to discerne the Doctors meaning, especially in relating the different opinions, concealing the Authors of them and the place where they are to be found, and their arguments which here are only said to be derived from the sanctification of the seventh day in the first creation of the world, and from the institution of the Sabbath in the fourth commandement: For herence it is said, that they who stand for the translation of the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week, to the Lords day, as by divine authority, doe draw their arguments for the justifying of their Tenet; which I willingly professe, doth seeme a prodigy unto me; namely that any man should dis­pute thus. In the beginning of the world, the Lord com­manded the seventh day to be sanctified, therefore now under the Gospell, the Sabbath is to be translated from the seventh day to the first day of the weeke. Or thus, the Lord in the fourth commandement gave in charge to sanctifie the Sab­bath, and tells them, that the seventh day (of the weeke) was their Sabbath, therefore the translation of the Sabbath from the seventh day of the weeke to the Lords day is of divine in­stitution: As touching the first of these deductions, that which comes nearest thereunto, is the discourse of Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester, in the Starre Chamber. 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 Athana­sius his discourse long agone upon that of Matth. 11.27. All things are given to me of my Father, Finis prioris creationis Sab­batum, The end of the first creation, was the Sabbath day, but the beginning of the second creation is the Lords day: and of this hee discourseth there more at large. And we find manifestly this notable congruitie betweene the Sabbath day and the Lords day, that like as God on the seventh day rested from the worke of creation; so Christ our Saviour rising on the first day of the weeke from the dead, made that the first day of his resting from the worke of redemption. But when I consider the Do­ctors sharp censures of weaknesse, of impudency, of ignorance; it [Page 221] is not credible he should closely let flee at such as Athanasius and Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester; Neither doe I find thoroughout this whole discourse any notice taken of this ground, whereupon their discourse runnes. It is more likely by farre that some lo [...]ner persons, and poore snakes are herein set up as markes to shoot at, and as signes to be spo­ken against It is true, many doe prove herence the morality of the fourth commandement; The author of the practice of pi­etie which goes under a Bishops name, takes this course of his tenne arguments to prove the commandements of the Sabbath to be morall; this is the second; Because it was commanded of God to Adam in his innocency. Bishop Andrewes in his Patterne of catecheticall doctrine taketh the like course, as formerly hath beene mentioned and which is more, professeth This to be a principle: that the Decalogue is the law of nature revived, and the law of nature is the Image of God▪ now in God (saith he) there can be no ceremony, but all must be eternall: and so in this Image which is the law of nature; and so in the Decalogue, whereas a ceremony is [...], and accordingly that one day in seven is to bee observed, and consecrated unto Gods Service, as Chrysostome long agoe hath inferred herence; but it is nothing usuall to in­ferre herence the celebration of the Lords day. In like man­ner not one that I know, ancient or late, doe conclude from the fourth commandement, either the celebration of the Lords day, or the translation of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the weeke. But herence indeed they inferre (and most justly in my judgement) that if one day in the weeke were to be consecrated unto the Lord. by vertue of the morall law, in the dayes of the old Testament, much more doth it become us (by the very light of nature) to consecrate as good a proportion of time to Gods service under the Gos­pell; And accordingly to rest from all workes, that hinder the sanctification of that day in the exercises of pietie, and so farre forth as they are found to hinder it, not for any mysterious sig­nifications sake, in which respect a very rigorous rest is most commonly conceived to bee enjoyned to the Jewes. I doe wonder the Canonists are reckoned amongst those, who doe build the celebration of the Lords day, upon the constitution of [Page 222] the Church and affirme this absolutely; Sect. 4. when in the next Section many Canonists are alleaged out of Azorius, as maintaining the divine authority of the Lords dayes: and one of them, Syl­vester by name,22. q. 44. art. 1. professing it to be opinionem communem. And as for Schoole-men, it is apparant, that Dominicus Bannes, puts a manifest difference betweene the Lords day and other festi­vities, which are ex institutione ecclesiae. And whereas Bellar­mine is alleaged as the mouth of the Schoolemen, to affirme absolutely, that the celebration of the Lords day, is by the constitution of the Church, and that in distinction from them who say it was ordered by the Apostles: I find no such matter in the place quoted, but rather the contrary, both confirming, that one day in a weeke is to be consecrated to the Lord by law divine, and whereas it was not fit, that now the Saturday should be it; therefore the Sabbath was turned into the Lords day by the Apostles; his words are these, Ius divinū requirebat ut vnus dies hebdomadae dicaretur cultui divino: non autem con­veniebat ut servaretur Sabbatum. Itaque Sabbatum ab Apostolis in diem Dominicum versum est; likewise Sixtus Senensis saith, that the institution of the Lords day is of the Apostles. as I have shewed in my answer to the preface S. 5. It is true that which is here reported of Brentius, as who professeth it to be left indifferent to the Church to ordain one day in seven, or on day in fourteene to be consecrated; which whether it be not an unreasonable conceit, I am willing to appeale to the judge­ment of Doctor Prideaux, yet Gemardus the Lutheran will not follow Brentius in this (as I have shewed in my answer to the preface and 5. Section) For hee acknowledgeth the celebrati­on of the Lords day, to be juxta Apostolorum constitutionem. And as for Chemnitius what he writes hereof, is not expressed, but for the divine authority of the celebration of the Lords day, I have represented the joynt consent of some 11. or 12. of our moderne divines in the place before mentioned; Besides the concurrence of the ancient Fathers, not one of them being so much as pleaded for the opposite Tenet; and lastly the ge­nerall answer of Christians in the times of persecution, when they were demanded in this manner Dominicum servasti, hast thou kept the Lords day; for usually it was this, Christianus sum, [Page 223] intermittere non possum: I cannot omit it, for I am a Christian. Sect. 5. The first opinion (to wit of those who maintained the divine authoritie, of the celebritie of the Lords day by the old Te­stament) is here censured for inclining much to Judaisme, but it is not expressed wherein. And it is apparant, they doe not maintaine the observation of the seventh day. Certainely this is delivered in reference to somewhat, that is not thought fit to be expressed; yet the prefacer did expresse it, imputing unto them whom he opposeth, that they doe observe the Jewish Sabbath, not in respect of the Jewish day, but of the Jewish manner observing it, to wit, in the way of a rigorous rest. But I know none that maintaines any other rest from works, then as they are avocations from sacred studies and me­ditations: whereas the Jewes observed it for some mysterious signification sake, and thereupon were tyed to a more rigorous rest. But let them speake plainly, and say we are too rigorous in thinking sports and pastimes unlawfull on the Lords day. And herein I appeale to every Christian conscience; whether these be not as great avocations from sacred studies and medi­tations, as the workes of our ordinary callings. Then againe which of us comes nearest to Judaisme herein? Is it not a­gainst the Jewes, that Austin professeth? Melius est orare quam saltare, Better to goe to plough then to dances; and Foeminae ve­strae melius lanam facerent quam saltarent. Better it were your women should spin wooll then dance: as their course was in their festivalls. Againe, why should their opinion be Jewish, by maintaining it out of the old Testament; rather then out of the new? Then, who are they that maintaine it onely by the old Testament? And lastly, not one that I know (neither doe I thinke it can be justly obtruded on any) doe maintaine the succession of the Lords day, in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, either by the originall institution of it, as from the creation, or by the fourth commandement; yet upon these nullities▪ is founded the imputation of both impudency and ignorance, in oppugning the received opinion of Divines: That confidently taken up for a received opinion among divines, which is in no tolerable sort proved; not one Ancient alleaged for it, and but two Papists quoted; the one of which I have shewed to be [Page 224] of a plaine contrary opinion.Sect. 4. And of Protestant Divines, I have represented no lesse then eleven, maintaining the Aposto­licall and divine constitution of the Lords day, besides Gerar­dus the Lutheran, to affront Brentius; Nay, Doctor Prideaux himselfe Sect. 7. maintaines that it is of Divine authority; and as I remember, in the vespers at the last act unalterable by the Church; That the Priesthood being changed, there is made also a change of the law we beleeve because the Apostle saith it Heb. 7.12. & it is well if the Schoolemen make the word of God their principles; but of what Law? of the morall law, or of the tenne commandements; or any one of them? (yet we willing­ly confesse a change of one particular in one of them) & not ra­ther of the law of sacrifices; & such a change as to set an end to them. That herence the Schoolemen conclude that at this day, the morall law bindeth not, as it was published and proclaimed by Moses; but as at first it appertained no lesse to the Gentiles then to the Iewes; this I say is a mystery: And to confesse a truth, when I met with this, in a certaine manuscript of one Brewers, it seemed to me a very wilde discourse, from this place of the Apostle to inferre so much; but now I meet with it in a lecture, of so judicious and learned Divine as Doctor Prideaux, I will suspend my judgement, and waite untill I heare what those Schoolemen are, and where it is that they make such infe­rences; that being made acquainted with them, I may judge of them according to my capacity, as they deserve. Certaine­ly Zanchy in the place quoted, makes no such Inference from that place, Heb. 7.12. yet the Doctrine which he delivers is good and sound, though the instance he makes of the Sabbath, too weake to prove it, as appeares to all that acknowledge the Commandement of sanctifying the Sabbath to be given to Adam, immediatly after his creation; who deserve to be ac­compted more hot spurres then they, in whom The desire of prey doth over-runne the sent? Now what one of our Divines can be alleaged to derive the authority of the Lords day from the law of Moses? I am verily perswaded, not one: The sanctify­ing of the Lords Sabbath they derive from thence, and the sanctifying of one day in seven, but not the authority of the Lords day: But if it may appeare otherwise, that the Lords [Page 225] day by good authority is substituted in the place of the se­venth to become our Christian Sabbath, such as our Saviour fore-prophecied of Matth. 24.20. then from the fourth commandement, they may make bold to conclude, that it ought to be sanctified. And this Zanchy himselfe justifies in the place quoted Chap. 19, as before hath beene shewed. And our booke of homilies expresly tell us, that now Sunday is be­come our Sabbath. But we keepe not the seventh day, the rest on that day being ceremoniall, and prefiguring the rest of Christ that day in his grave.

And as for the authority whereby wee have substituted the Lords Day in the place of the seventh, we answer, that we are not they that have substituted, but the Apostles have sub­stituted it unto our hands; God having marked out that day unto them by a worke nothing inferior to the worke of Crea­tion; to wit, the worke of Christs Resurrection, such a worke as brings with it a new Creation, and therewithall a new Sabbath, as Doctor Andrewes observes out of the an­cients, and delivered as much in the Starre Chamber. And whereas under the Law the Jewish Sabbath was called the Lords Day; Now under the Gospell the first day of the weeke is called the Lords Day in the language of the holy Ghost in the new Testament. And whereas our Saviour gives us plain­ly to understand, that wee are to have a Sabbath under the Gospell Math. 24.20. as the aforementioned Doctor An­drewes doth observe in his patterne of Catecheticall doctrine, In common reason, and in the conscience of a Christian what day ought to be this our Sabbath rather then the Lords Day, so called in the language of the holy Ghost; especially considering that not that day of the yeere, but that day of the weeke is called the Lords Day, as by most generall acknow­ledgement of all the ancients hath beene supposed. And to urge one place more out of the old Testament, then here is in a violent manner obtruded upon us, Psal. 118 14. This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoyce, and be glad in it, is evidently spoken of that day wherein the stone which the buil­ders refused was made the head of the corner: Now by that stone the holy Ghost chiefely understands the Lord Christ, Mat. [Page 226] 21.42. Marc. 12.10. Luc. 20.17. Acts 4.11. 1 Pet 2.7. and when was hee made the head of the corner,Sect. 5. but in the day of his Resurrection;Rom. 1.4. the Apostle professing, that He was declared mightily to be the Sonne of God touching the spirit of sanctification by the Resurrection from the dead. And under what stile did they reject him, and condemne him as a blas­phemer but for making himselfe the Son of God? As for the rigorous observation of the rest prescribed unto the Jewes; as from kindling of fire, and dressing of meate; some qualifie that rigour, conceaving that kindling of fire was forbidden onely for the works to be done about making the Tabernacle. This being delivered as a preface, Exod. 35.2. when the free will offerings were now to be receaved for the promoting of the workemanship of that which formerly was comman­ded. And that dressing of meate was not forbidden them, no not in the gathering of Manna, as some thinke; if then, yet not as a generall course to be observed for ever; And as touch­ing the Table that Nehemiah kept, thus we reade. Moreover there were at my Table, Nehem. 5.17.18. an. 150. of the Iewes and rulers which came unto us from among the Heathen that are about us. And there was prepared daily an Oxe, and six chosen Sheepe, and Birds were prepared for me—and hee was so farre from conscious­nesse of profaning the Lords Sabbath herein, that hee con­cludes thus, Remember me O my God in goodnesse, according to all that I have done for this people. But suppose they were tied so strictly to such a rest, as from workes not servile, onely in seeking againe, (as Zanchy instanceth the condition of a worke servile) but even from such as ten led to the refreshing of their natures; yet the reason hereof depended upon the my­sterious signification of this rest, as formerly I have repre­sented out of Lyra, from which ceremoniality wee are absol­ved, and consequently freed from that rigorous rest depend­ing thereupon, and rest onely from works so farre forth as they are avocations from Sacred Studies and meditations, as Calvin expresseth it; and this wee accompt a morall rest, distinguished from ceremoniall. And whereas the Doctor tells us that such a like distinction is infirme, being content to say nothing to confirme it, save that the Text (as hee [Page 227] saith) affords it not: I had thought the very light of nature had beene sufficient to embolden us to conclude,Sect. 6. that where the sanctification of the day is commanded, therewithall is commanded abstinence from all such things as would hinder the sanctification of it, And as for the text it selfe, it is apparent that neither the kindling of the fire, nor dressing of meate is particularly forbidden in the fourth Commandement. Neither doth hee so much as obtrude upon his adversaries that they derive the sanctification of their christian Sabbath from ought in the old Testament, save from Gen. 2.3. and from the fourth Commandement. In neither of which doth he deale fairely; but is content to confound things that dif­fer, as if in this particular he affected to fish in troubled waters; and we have better evidence (and indeed it is our only evidence therence) out of the old Testament, for the festivity of the Lords day, then he is willing to take notice of, namely out of the Psal. 118.24. Neither is it possible he should be ignorant thereof, howsoever hee doth dissemble his knowledge of it. Yet I hope it is enough for us to finde evidence for it in the Sunshine of the Gospell; and indeed here alone we have the originall observation of it, though that it should be observed, is as evidently prophecied in the old Testament, as that Christ is the stone which was first refused of the builders, and after made the head of the corner, adding only this unto it, that the day wherein the Lord did this, and made so glorious a worke, marvellous in the eyes of men, was the day of the resurrection, which I suppose no intelligent Christian will deny, I come unto the 6. Section.

6 Who they be that make their boast, that they have found the institution of the Lords day in the new Testament expressely, J wil­lingly professe I know not, neither doe I thinke the Doctor knowes. It is true our Saviour oftentimes disputed with the Pharisees about their superstitious observation of the Sabbath day, which at length degenerated into voluptuous living on that day; in so much, that Austin tells the Jewes plainly It is better to goe to plough then to dance: but if hereupon you aske, where is any the least suspicion of the abrogating of it? I answer every one knowes, The time was not yet come for the abrogating of it. Nay, [Page 228] he discourseth so as if 40. yeares after his death, the observa­tion of the Sabbath should continue,Sect. 4. as when he exhorts them at such a time, to pray that their flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day Matth. 24.20. what will you conclude he­rence? therefore the observation of the Jewish Sabbath was still to continue among Christians? if you doe, who shall more de­servedly be obnoxious to the censure of Judaisme, you or wee? yet when he tells them, that the Sonne of man is Lord of the Sab­bath, how few interpreters writing hereupon, doe not take notice of his power to abrogat it? But is it not enough that Paul cryeth downe the ceremonies of the Jewes, and in speci­all their holy dayes, and particularly Sabbaths; to wit, so far forth, as they are found to be shadowes, the body whereof was Christ, such was the rest on the seventh day, as prefiguring Christs rest in the grave. But no sober man (I trow) will he­rence conclude that herewithall hee cryeth downe the setting apart of any time for Gods service, that having no colour of ceremony, or rest from such workes, as hinder us in the ser­vice of God, this being as little ceremoniall as the former. I make bold to goe one step farther, and conclude by the same reason, that neither doth he cry downe the proportion of time, to wit, of one day in seven, to be set a part for the exercises of piety, because in this particular, there is no more ceremonia­litie to be found, then in any one of the former. But to pro­ceed, what indifferent man would once expect, that in our Sa­viours disputations with the Pharisees about the Sabbath, mention should bee made of the Lords day instituted in the place thereof? It is enough, wee find it instituted after our Sa­viours resurrection; and sufficient I trowe it is to prove that it was instituted, and that in the best manner, namely by esta­blishing it de facto in practise amongst the Churches; I say this is sufficiently proved by the observation of it; which un­doubtedly, neither was nor could be by chance. A Sowe mufling in the earth, may make something like the letter A. but not Ennius his Andromacha saith Cicero. In like sort the con­currence of the Churches, in the observation hereof from the Apostles, and continuance therein unto this day, could not be by chance, but by order, and that from the Apostles. When [Page 229] you aske, Did not the Apostles keepe the Iewish Sabbath? I answer, I doe not finde they did, yet I finde revelations were made unto them of what was to be done by degrees. Peter was challenged Acts 11. by the rest of the Apostles, for preaching the Gospell unto the Gentiles. They tooke indeed advantage of the Jewes Sabbath, to preach the Gospell unto them congregated together Act. 13. so did they to the same end take the oppotunity of the feast of Pentecost, Acts 18.21. I grant the Sabbath day was observed together with the Lords day by some Christians; Baronius imputes it to the Orientales, and gives the reason why formerly represented. If any man inferre herehence that the celebration of the Lords day, is grounded upon the constitution of the Church onely, let him make it good; for there is no reason that words should carry it, much lesse the voyce of one Papist who here is quoted. I am sure Dominicus Bannes and Sixtus Senensis, are of another opinion, formerly produced; and hereafter follow many Ca­nonists that maintaine the contrary, by the relation of Azo­rius, and one of them, Sylvester by name, professeth that it is Communis opinio, that it is of Divine authoritie. If Brentius thinkes otherwise, yet Gerardus refuseth to tread in his steps, though both are Lutherans. And if the Remonstrants concurre with Brentius, it is nothing strange, they are so neer a kin to the Socinians and Anabaptists, who renounce altogether the obser­vation of the Lords day. I have formerly reckoned up and produced no lesse then eleven of our Protestant Divines main­taining the ordinance thereof to be Divine and Apostolicall. Besides the Ancients who are many, and they expresse for the same, and not one that I know avouched to the contrary. Pre­cept indeed we have not for this in the new Testament, but that wch is better then a precept. For had the Apostles commanded it, and the Churches not practised it, their commandement had beene obnoxious to various interpretations; but they tooke order to establish it as appeares, de facto. And D. Lake tels us, that where divine precept is wanting, practise guides the Church; and that the worke of the day is the ground of hal­lowing the day; and the worke of redemption is nothing in­feriour to the worke of creation; and I appeale to every Chri­stian [Page 230] conscience,Sect. 6. whether upon suspition that we Christians must have a Sabbath to observe, as the Jewes had, for which we have the expresse words of our Saviour, Matth. 24.20. D. An­drewes concurring with us in this; and that this Sabbath must be some one day in the weeke; which from the ordinance of God immediately from the creation, that God himselfe hath declared unto us, as Chrysostome observeth, and reason conclu­deth as much for this, and that from consideration of the pro­portion of time which the Lord required of the Jewes under the law, for undoubtedly we should sinne if we should allow God a worse proportion under the Gospell; and it is evident that no ceremoniality can be found in the sanctification of one day in seven, or in the rest of one day in seven. I say let every one judge whether in Christian reason any day in the weeke be to be preferred for this before the Lords day; that being the day of Christs resurrection, the day wherein The Stone which the Builders refused was made the head of the corner; and this day not of the yeere, but of the weeke being in Scripture-phrase called the Lords day; like as the Jewish Sabbath was formerly called the Lords holy day, Es. 58. Adde unto this that D. Prideaux here justifieth their observation who maintaine the celebration of the Lords day to be by authority divine consisting in these particulars. 1. That it seemed a dangerous thing to the whole Fabricke of re­ligion, should humane ordinances limit the necessity of Gods worship. Or that the Church should not assemble but at the pleasure of the Clergie, and they perhaps not well at one among themselves. For what would men busied about their Farms, their yokes of Oxen and domesticke troubles ('as the invited guests in the holy Gospell) would they not easily set at naught an humane ordinance, would not prophane men easily dispense with their absenting themselves from prayers and preaching, and give themselves free leave of doing or neglecting any thing, were there not something found in Scripture which more then any humane ordinance or institution should binde the conscience? yet it is easie to conjecture what would be an­swered to all this, for excommunication upon disobedience to the Church may be a bond strong enough to oblige them hereunto; Or if men be not so sensible hereof, yet the lawes [Page 231] of the land and penall statutes, may provide for such restraints by such punishments; as whereof every naturall man will be sensible enough; we have other considerations to propose, as 1. Touching the proportion of time, to be allowed to Gods service, which concerneth the quantity of the service it selfe. 1. This is a thing very considerable and of moment. 2. We have no example, that the quantity of service to be performed to the master, was left unto the conscience, or pleasure of the servant: but rather is to be prescribed by the Master, especial­ly by such a Master as God is. 1. Who hath made us? 2. Who will infinitely reward us? 3. To serve whom is our most perfect freedome and happinesse. 4. And who is able to give us strength to performe it? 5. And who is tenderly sensible of our weaknesses, as he is most privy to them. 6. And after God hath discovered this unto us, and required the propor­tion of one day in seven to be consecrated to him, and that un­der the Law; surely reason doth suggest, that we cannot per­forme lesse unto him under the Gospell. 2. As touching the particularity of the day under this proportion. 1. We read that there is one, that is Lord of the Sabbath; Now in reason, who shall appoint this day, but he that is Lord of it? especial­ly considering that it is his holy day Es. 58. and such festivalls were said to be of his making Psalme 118.24. This is the day which the Lord hath made, not of mans making: secondly, but it may be said, he may leave unto man the appointing of it, if it please him; I answer, that in this case it stands them upon, to shew their Charter for this. Thirdly, for my part, I see no cause, we should desire any such liberty, but rather pray un­to God to blesse us from it, 1. For as I am flesh, I shall bee sure to put it off to the end of the weeke; and I may be gone out of the world ere that day comes; and when that day comes, I shall be as loath to come to the service that day re­quires as ever, and assoone weary of it, and say, when will the Sabbath be gone, that I may returne to my former courses, se­condly, as I am spirit, I have cause to make choyce of the first day; for à Iove principium; and Adam and Eve, being af­ter the beasts of the field, made on the sixt day, and planted in Paradise, the seventh day, was the first entire day to him [Page 232] 4. Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath and Wells, observes that festivalls dayes have ever beene commended unto us; by some notable worke done on that day. Now what worke, like un­to the resurrection of Christ, on the first day of the weeke? 5. Bishop Andrewes observes in his Starre Chamber speech, that this resurrection brings with it a new creation, and calls for a new Sabbath; and I find this, to have beene the obser­vation of Athanasius, about 1300. yeeres agoe. 6. If we were left at liberty in the choyce of the day, it is to be feared, that if there were twenty dayes in the weeke, there would be twen­ty differences betweene us thereabouts, 7. Lastly, if left at li­bertie; I find no reason why we should keepe ourselves, to the observation of the same day; this is so apt and prone to breed in us an opinion of the necessitie thereof, and so plunge us into superstition ere we are aware, and thereby make our whole service of God, on that day distastfull unto him. To proceed, the Practise of the Apostles is in Scripture, represen­ted unto us in three severall places; the first whereof is Act. 20▪ 7. upon the first day of the weeke, when the Disciples came to­gether to breake bread, Paul preached unto them. The practise is improved thus, why is it said expressely, that the Disciples came together to heare the word preached, and receive the Sacraments, rather on this day then any other; rather then on the Iewish Sab­bath, were it not then a custome, to celebrate on that day their publique meetings, the Sabbath of the Iewes, beginning by degrees to vanish? It is farther confessed, that the Fathers and all inter­preters (almost) doe so conceive it. Observe, not a Father is found, to take it in any other sense, only the Magdebur­genses, and Calvin, are said to stick at the phrase [...], as if it might signifie some one day of the weeke; and yet in Scripture phrase, it is apparant that, [...], Marc. 16.9. is all one with, [...], Joh. 20.19. And it is Sal­masius his observation, that the Pythagoreans called the first day of the weeke [...], insteed of [...]. But the Doctor pro­fesseth, that from a casuall fact he seeth not, how a solemne In­stitution may be justly grounded; but it is not proved, that this fact was casuall; nay the text carryeth in the face of it mani­fest evidence against casualitie. For it is said that they came [Page 233] together to eat bread; all then convening to a sacred action, how could this be done, if they had not agreed hereupon be­fore; especially it being a businesse whereabout they came, that required solemne and sacred preparation? all which af­front casualitie. Take the circumstances aright, The Disciples from divers parts came together that day about solemne and sacred action; therefore it was ordered before, to meet together on that day; Now this concludes only concerning them; and there­fore Wallaeus professeth, that the force of these three texts, taken apart doe not conclude, but joyntly; Now by the next place, 1. Cor. 16.2. it appeareth, that the same day was the ordina­ry day of meeting for the Corinths; and for the Churches of Ga­latia also: Now how came it to passe, the same day was the day of meeting about holy exercises, in the Church of Ephe­sus, the Church of Corinth, and in the Churches of Galatia? could this ordinary course (for so much is signified, 1. Cor. 16.2.) of so many Churches concurring herein, come to passe by chance, or could their consent herein, so many Churches so farre distant one from another, be wrought by chance, and not rather in all reason, was wrought by authority Apostoli­call? And as for the second place, 1 Cor. 16.2. whereas the exception is, that there it is said the Apostles ordered collections on that day, but not their meetings; yet Doctor Andrewes in his Starre Chamber speech alleageth it, as the Apostles precept, for their meetings on that day; and so doth Paraeus; for though it be not expressed, yet so much is implyed, as by the reason formerly mentioned hath beene argued: especially conside­ring the last place, Revel. 1.10. where the first day of the weeke is called the Lords day, a notable evidence of the di­vine authority; the Scripture phrase no where calling any the Lords day, or the Lords Altars, or the Lords feasts, but such as are of the Lords institution; and in this particular, Bishop Andrewes compares the Lords day with the Lords Sup­per, professing the notion to be a like in both. And hereupon it is most ingenuously acknowledged, that The alteration of the name doth intimate, that the Sabbath was also altered, in relation to Gods worship, but the appointment of the tim, &c. wherein en­deth this Section. And the next begins with this question, [Page 234] what then? shall we affirme that the Lords day is founded on divine authority? and the answer is, For my part (without prejudice to any mans opinion) I assent unto it; how ever the arguments like me not, whereby it is supported; well therefore, let us lovingly and candidly, as it becomes the gates of the muses, conferre about these arguments. First, this inference offends me; That in the cradle of the world, God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; therefore all men are bound to sanctifie it by the Law of Na­ture: since I both doubt, whether the Patriarches did observe it before Moses time, and have learnt also that the Law of nature is immutable; Doctor Andrewes in his patterne of Catecheticall Doctrine writes saying, This is a principle, that the Decalogue is the Law of nature revived, and the law of nature is the Image of God. But let us consider the argument: It is one thing to ex­cept against the antecedent, another to except against the in­ference made herence: As touching the Antecedent, it is one thing, what God hath ordained, and may be another thing, what the Patriarches observed; we say God ordained it in as much as hee commanded it in these words, Therefore God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, that is, commanded man to sanctifie it as hath beene proved: and is also confessed; only to helpe themselves, as it were at a dead lift; they say, those words in Genesis, are uttered by way of anticipation; as much as to say; because God rested on that day, therefore God commanded man to rest on the same day, and sanctifie it, but when? 2500. yeeres after; for the unreasonablenesse of which interpretation, and the incongruitie thereof unto the same words, repeated in the fourth commandement; I ap­peale to that which I have formerly discoursed hereupon: Now if God from the beginning ordained the seventh day to be kept holy; wee leave it to every sober conscience to judge, whether it be not most likely, that both Adam and the holy Patriarches observed it; for we insist not in this argument upon humane observation, but meerely upon Divine institution. And though God did from the beginning command it, yet it followeth not, that all men are bound to sanctifie that day, unlesse they have some evidence of Gods command, where­with we are made acquainted by the Scriptures. If the law of [Page 235] nature be meant a light of nature convincing us, we doe not in­fer herence or at all maintaine (nor any that I know) that in this sense, all or any are bound to keep the seventh, or a seventh day holy; but onely by vertue of Gods command. Yet this wee professe, that seeing it is generally confessed that by the very light of nature some time is to be set apart for Gods service. Wee cannot devise in reason any better course, then to set one day in seaven apart for this; considering the first divi­sion of dayes is into weekes, and if a seventh part of our time be in reason to be consecrated unto God, wee thinke it more convenient to set one intire day in seven apart for this, then the seventh part of every day, because the other busi­nesses of every day are apt to cause distraction from the Lords service. And as I have but erst discoursed; it is more fit the Master should appoint unto the servant what proportion of service hee shall performe unto him; then that this should be left to the discretion or liberty of the servant. 1. both the honour of the Master requiring this. 2. and the good of the servant; for hereby hee shall be assured of the better accep­tance at the hands of his master. And so for the particular day, it is fit the Master should marke out that also unto him by some prerogative set upon the day, as hee did the se­venth day, by finishing the worke of Creation, and by his rest thereon from his workes to call man to an holy rest from his, so to be more free for the service of his Creator. In which cases, both touching the proportion of the time, and par­ticularity of the day, the Law being made, it shall continue immutable and unalterable by the will of the Creature; but mutable, and alterable according to the will of the Creator: so that things being well distinguished, and rightly conside­red and stated, I see no bug beare of inconvenience in all this. Neyther doe I see any reason why the spending of one day in Gods holy worship as a morall and perpetuall duty, should seeme distastfull to any. Since it is apparant that God commanded it unto his people of the Jewes; and for 1600 yeares it hath beene continually observed by Christian Churches unto this day; and I make no doubt, but it shall hold till Christs comming; though from the beginning of the World it was [Page 236] never found to be so hotly opposed as at this day. And why should any man stick in acknowledging it to be morall; when never any man busied himselfe to finde out any ceremonia­lity in reference to the proportion of one day in seven? Neither doe I thinke ever any man called it judiciall, but Azorius professeth it to be rationi maxime consentancum most agreeable to reason: and no man that I know hath at any time set himselfe to devise a proportion of time to be spent in Gods service, more agreeable to reason then this. And as for the third offence taken (for I know not any that give it) The fourth Commandement is brought by none that I know to prove that the Lords Day is now become our Christian Sabbath; but supposing it to be our Sabbath, as the booke of Homilies sayth it is; and our Saviour signified that Christians should have their Sabbath, as well as the Jewes had theirs, Math. 24 20. wee produce the fourth Comman­dement to prove, that wee ought to sanctifie it, and that we may the better sanctifie it, to rest from all workes that hin­der the sanctification thereof; And indeed the Commande­dement is so drawen, as to command one day in seaven to be observed, and whatsoever is that seventh prescribed by lawfull authority, to sanctifie it, and abstaine from all works whereby the hallowing of it is disturbed; and all this we take to be morall, namely the worshipping of God in a cer­taine proportion of time prescribed by him, and to that pur­pose to rest from workes, not for any mysterious significati­on sake, as did the Jewes; wee thinke the practise of the Church in the Apostles dayes is sufficient to inferre the apo­stolicall, and divine institution thereof; from hence Athana­sius, Cyrill, Austin, and the Fathers generally, (for I know not one alleaged to the contrary) so take it. And the Lords Day hath no other notion in Scripture language, then a day of the Lords institution; and this is confirmed in that it comes in the place of the Jewes Sabbath, which is called in Scripture, the Lords holy day Esay 58. and Psal. 118.24. of the day wherein Christ was made the head of the corner, ha­ving beene formerly refused of the builders, it is expresly said, that it is the day that the Lord hath made; and thereupon wee [Page 237] are called to rejoyce and be glad in it. And it hath this con­giuity in the cause of its institution to the first Sabbath; that as on the seventh day the Lord rested from his worke of Creation, so on the first day of the weeke the Lord Christ rising from the dead, then rested from his worke of redem­ption. And lastly Christ bringing with him a new Creation is it strange that he should bring with him a new Sabbath▪ and no day so fit for this, as the day of his Resurrection. And lastly whosoever doth not rest satisfied with the bare ordinance of the Church; must hee not be driven to acknowledge an ordination more then humane, requirable thereunto? Of the necessity of my consequences, and evidence of expresse Scripture formerly mentioned, I leave it to the indifferent to judge; and to none sooner then to Doctor Prideaux him­selfe, none being more able to judge of consequences then hee, being so versed therein, and I am well persuaded of the indifferency of his affections, and had those writings in the canvassing of this point beene extant before this Lecture of his which hath since come to the light of the presse; I am apt to conceave that either hee would have given way to that which seemes in my judgement to be the truth, or re­presented good reason of his dissenting from it. The Apostles example, nor so onely, but drawing the Churches generally to the same practise, doth argue a constitution; yet more is brought for the confirmation of the authority of the Lords Day then example. That of searching into the veyles and sha­dowes of the old Testament to finde this institution is a mystery unto mee, and so farre am I from that course, that I know none guilty of it; The ancient Fathers sometimes doe expa­tiate this way, for the setting forth of the honorable con­dition of the Lords Day; but they build not doctrines there­upon; which if they had done in some particular case ad­vantageous to our adversaries, it had beene enough to have cryed us downe.

As for Judaisme, I have often shewed, how little colour there is for any such imputation to be cast upon us, but ra­ther upon our adversaries: I see no cause to range the Petro­busian with the Ebionite, but were they yoake-fellowes, [Page 238] whereof I finde not the least evidence; yet should not wee draw with them under the same yoake; Chemnitius his dis­course I have formerly examined somewhat at large; The voluntary consecration of it by Christians no man hath cause to embrace, who professeth himselfe not satisfied with the bare ordinance of the Church, as but erst the Doctor did. Of Brentius I have spoken enough; yet well fare him that pro­fesseth the authority of the day to be so farre divine, that he who shall neglect it, or rashly breake it, doth forthwith become worse then the Jew or Infidell. As for the Arminians, what respect soever they pretend to the patterne of the primitive Church, like enough they could be very well content with the Socinians, to make all dayes equall in use, as well as they are in nature, or in respect of any mysterious significa­tion; I leave Azorius to refresh himselfe with the juyce of his owne distinction; It is well that Suarez comes so farre as to professe that practically it is not alterable by the Church. As for Calvin, Bucer, Chemnitius, and the rest, who are onely sayd to affirme that still the Church hath power to change the Lords day to some other, I finde no such thing in Calvin, and Bucer: as for what Chemnitius delivers hereupon, in my judge­ment hee sayth no more then Calvin: though some particu­lars in him I have found to be weake enough, upon discus­sion in the 6 Section, of my answer to the Preface: having there met with the same names, named to the same purpose. It is not credible to mee they should give power to the Church to bring us backe to the Jewish Sabbath: in that case who should savour most of Judaisme? or preferre us to the Turkes festivall day which is the Friday. To be instituted in me­mory of our redemption, admits an ambiguous significati­on; That bringing with it a new Creation, and so requiring a new Sabbath; as Bishop Andrewes discourseth and Athana­sius 1200 yeares before him; No day had a better marke for this to be preferred into the place of the Jewes Sabbath then the day of Christs Resurrection; yet considering that not that day of the yeare; but that day of the weeke is called in Scripture the Lords Day, this maketh it evidently to savour of Divine institution, yet it is well that here it is acknowledged [Page 239] to be expresly of traditions Apostolicall. Beza addeth, & vere Divinae, on Revel. 1.10. I trust we shall ever give due respect, both to Law, and Gospell; and the better concurrence wee finde of them for the maintenance of any doctrine of ours, the more cause wee shall have to rejoyce therein without feare of censure for the mixing of them, or framing any Sabbaticall Idoll out of them. It is not the first time I have read of some such aspersion in Rogers his preface to his Analysis of the Ar­ticles of the Church of England; And the next yeere was prin­ted D. Willet upon Genesis dedicated to King Iames, where on the 2. ch. 3. v. he concludes his discourse on this argument after this manner; But these allegations are here superfluous, seeing there is a learned treatise of the Sabbath already published of this argu­ment (meaning D. Bownds discourse thereon) Which contain­eth a most sound doctrine of the Sabbath, Girded at by Mr. Rogers. as is layd downe in the former positions, which shalbe able to abide the triall of the Word of God; and stand warranted thereby, when other humane fantasies shall vanish: howsoever some in their heate and intemperance, are not afraid to call them Sabbatarian errors, yea hereticall asserti­ons, a new Iubily, Saint Sabbath, more then either Iewish or Popish institution; much lesse doe wee feare the story of the Jew of Teukesbury; Solomon hath taught us that the righteous spareth his beast, and in our Saviours dayes the Jewes themselves though very superstitious in the observation of their Sabbath, yet shewed mercy towards their beasts in leading to them to wa­ter, and helping them out of the ditch on their Sabbath day. But God can give men over into a minde voyd of all judge­ment, as to the destruction of their soules, so to the temporall destruction of their bodies also, and that as in the way of pro­fanenes, wherof we have manifold experience, so in the way of superstition. Now such stories are pretty flourishes, and plea­sing to the judicious, provided they are to purpose, and sound argument hath not beene wanting to justifie the doctrine they maintaine: but when they are out of season, or supply the want of better argument, they want their grace, and are pleasing only to the ignorant or partialist. At length I am come unto the last Section.

For the one halfe of this Section, there is little or nothing controverted betweene us. But here we have a faire distincti­on [Page 240] as good as confessed, betweene a ceremoniall rest, and another rest, which is described by a rest from workes, as it is an impediment to the performance of such duties, as are then com­manded: this I can a rest morall, the rather that the distinction may not flye with one wing: That of Saint Hierome is a quick passage on Act. 18. affirming that Saint Paul when hee had none to whom to preach in the congregation, did on the Lords day use the workes of his occupation. I will not answer, as the outlandish Priests fashion was, as Sir Thomas More reports the story, Domine novi locum, verum respondeo, sumitur duplici­ter; so gratifying his adversaries argument with one member of his distinction; and his owne, in providing for escape out of the briers by the other: least I might be served as Sir Thomas More served the Priest, pretending to quote such a chapter of Saint Matthew, or Marke, when there were not so many in the whole Gospell, or such a verse in a certaine Chapter, when there were not so many verses at all. Therefore I desire to consult Hierome, but Hierome hath not at all written upon the Acts; and where else to seeke it I know not. Yet I deny not, but that Dietericus the Lutheran upon the 17. Domini­call after Trinity Sunday, hath such a passage, Hieronymus ex Act. 18. v. 2. & 4. colligit, quod die etiam Dominica, quando quibus in publico conci [...]na [...]etur, Pa [...]lus non habebat, ma­ [...]bus suis lab [...]ravi [...]. But where it is that Hierome doth collect this he doth not specifie [...]t our Saviour was borne under the Law, and knew full well, it became him to fulfill all righteous­nesse, and therefore undoubtedly he never did transgresse the fourth commandement: indeed some there are, who distaste the name of Sabbath now a dayes; and truly the Ancients doe usually speake of the Lords day, in distinction from the Sab­bath, because that denomination doth denote the Saturday; but I doubt, that in these dayes it is distasted in another re­spect, even for the rest of it; which I no where finde distasted amongst the Ancients, nor any libertie given by them for sports and pastimes on the Lords day: But our booke of Homilies speakes plainly in saying, The Sunday is our Sabbath day. And Proclamations that come forth in his Majesties name usually call the Lords day by the name of Sabbath. And in the conference at Hampton Court, Doctor Raynolds made a [Page 241] motion, for preserving the Sabbath day from prophanation, according to the Kings proclamation, neither have we heard of any prelate of this kingdome, that then interposed to alter that phrase; And which is more, our Saviour calls it the Sabbath, speaking of the times of the Gospell, when the Jewish Sabbath was to bee buried with Christ, to wit, Matth. 24.20. and Doctor Andrewes in his patterne of Catecheticall Doctrine, justifieth this interpretation of that place, and that to this end, so to maintaine the continuance of a Sabbath amongst us Christians. I doe highly approve the distinction following of things commanded, and things permitted on the Lords day, and the explication of each member; the object of the one, all actions advancing Gods service, the object of the other, such things as are no hinderance thereunto; As in the first place workes of necessitie; then workes of charitie; yet the permitting of these, is rightly to be understood; not so as if the workes of necessity here mentioned, were in such sort per­mitted as left to a mans liberty, whether he will performe them or no. For undoubtedly we are bound as much as lyes in our power, to quench a dangerous fire kindled in a Towne, on the Sabbath day, it being a worke of mercy, necessarily re­quired. For if to returne a pledge ere the poore pawner of it went to his bed, in case it were his covering, were a worke of mercy, how much more to save a mans house from burning, how much more to save a whole Towne from being consu­med, whereby many might bee driven to lye without doores, void of all comfort to the body? So to draw the ox out of the ditch, and to lead Cattels to watering, I take it to bee a worke of mercy, as tending to the preservation of life in a dum creature. In like sort the dressing of meat for the health of mans body, I take to bee a worke of mercy. So that the per­forming of these in reference to the end whereto they tend, I take to be of necessary duty (as here they are called workes of necessitie) and consequently not permitted only, but comman­ded also in the generall, though not in this commandement; but in the second commandement of the second table only they are said to be permitted on the Lords day to signifie, that the fourth commandement doth not enjoyne them nor forbid them, in commanding rest from workes on that day, and the [Page 242] sanctifying of that rest. I doe not doubt but that charitie be­gins from it selfe, and the Scripture commands us to love our neighbour as our selves. And can wee performe better love to our selves in advancing our owne good, then by making The Sabbath our delight, to consecrate it as glorious to the Lord? As for the recreations, which are here said to serve lawfully to the refreshing of our Spirits; this appellation is very ambiguous, neither doe I know any difference betweene the recreating of our Spirits, and the refreshing of our Spirits: yet here the re­freshing of our Spirits is made the end of recreation. Againe it were good to distinguish betweene recreation of the body, and recreation of the mind. I thinke the refreshing of Spirits pertaines to the recreation of the body; mens spirits are natu­rall and materiall things, and they are apt to bee wasted first naturally: for as life consists in calido, in an hot matter, so heate is apt to spend and waste the matter wherein it is; and Spirits thus wasted are recreated, that is, repaired by eating and drinking. And thus provisions of victuall are commonly called recreats. 2. Secondly they are wasted also by labour voluntarily undertaken, and these are repaired, as by the for­mer way, so by rest also. And each way we are allowed to re­create our spirits on the Lords day; and as to allow such rest to our servants as a work of mercy, so to our own bodies also. But now a dayes many courses are called recreations, wherein there is found little rest; and the naturall Spirits of man are ra­ther wasted, and his nature tyred; farre more then the one is repaired, or the other eased. And when all comes to all, I doubt the issue will be, to stile the pleasures of our senses by the cleanly name of recreations. Now the Jewes were expressely forbidden to find their owne pleasure on the Lords holy day Es. 58.13. yet were they not forbidden all pleasure, that belonged on­ly to such a Sabbath as was a fast; and therein indeed hypo­crites are taxed for finding pleasure on that day Es. 58.3. But the weekely Sabbath, was for pleasure and delight, but not for mans owne pleasure, nor for the doing of their owne wayes. But to delight in the Lord, which is spirituall pleasure, and the recreating of our souls in the Lord: this is a blessed rest, thus to rest unto him; and the word of God is the best food of the soule; No recreates like unto Gods holy ordinances. Of wise­dome [Page 243] it is said, that her wayes are the wayes of pleasantnesse. I willingly confesse, that to the naturall man, as the things of God are foolishnesse, so the word of God is a reproach unto him, Pro. 3.17. 1 Cor. 2.14. Ier. 6.10. Luc. 8.14. hee hath no delight in it. Hee delights rather in carnall pleasures; and is it fit to humour him in such courses, and that on the Lords day? our Saviour expresly tells us, that The pleasures of life choake the word, and make it become unfruitfull: Therefore it no way fits a man to Gods Service; And if way be opened to such courses, though not till after evening prayer; as many as are taken with them, will have their minds running upon them, so as to say, when will the Sabbath be gone, and the time of Divine service be over? that so they may come to their sports, as well as covetous persons longed after the like, that they may returne to their trading. A naturall man, before his calling is discribed unto us in Scripture, to bee such a one as served lusts and diverse pleasures, Tit. 3.3. Iob. 36.11. Es. 47.8. and the wicked are said to spend their dayes in pleasure; and such are they, whom the Pro­phet describeth after this manner, Heare now thou that art gi­ven to pleasure. As for the children of God, as they are renew­ed in their affections generally, so the matter of their delight is much altered; His delight is in the Law of the Lord; Psal. 1.2. Psal. 40.1: as Christ sayeth, I delight to do thy will, and Psal. 119.16. J delight my selfe in thy Statutes, & v. 24. thy testimonies are my delight, and 47. I will delight my selfe in the commandement, and Psalme 94.19. Thy comforts delight my soule: on the other side, the Character of the foole is this, H [...] hath no delight in understanding. Psal. 18.2. As for the reformation of such fooles, let every wise & sober Christi­an consider, whether it be a fit course to let the reynes loose upon their neck, and give them liberty to take their courses, and not rather to endevour to weane them therefrom by re­presenting the vanity of them, witnessed by the experience of King Solomon, Eccles. 2.8. who was acquainted with the delights of the Sonnes of men as much as any, and tells us what fruit and profit hee reaped by them, saying, vanitie of vanities, all is but vanitiy; and that the end of all that discourse of his, is to promote this ex­hortation, Feare God, and keepe his commandements, For this is whole man; then on the other side, the blessed, the comforta­ble and only profitable condition of delighting in the Lord, in the judgement of David, the Father of King Solomon, De­light [Page 244] thou in the Lord, and he shall give thee thy hearts desire; to meete with the contrary judgement of carnall men, who say, It profitteth not a man, Ps. 37.4. Job 34.9. that he should delight himselfe with God. If it be said that such sports are tolerated, to fit a man for his calling the day following; It is very strange, that workes of our cal­ling should not be permitted on any part of the Sabbath day, and sports and pastimes should; And shall not the spending of our time in Gods Service, not publique only, but private also, farre better fit us to serve God in the workes of our calling, and make us more capable of his blessing upon our labours, then the exercising of our selves in sports and pastimes? As for the maintaining of good neighbourhood, I appeale to every mans conscience, whether Christian neighbourhood be not better maintained, in meeting together in the repeating of a Sermon, the word in the originall being only Consortium, or in edifying one another in holy communication; then in meeting toge­ther at beare-baiting, or at a play, or at a may game, or to look upon a morice dance. 2. whether on the Lords day which is our Christian Sabbath it is not fit to maintaine neighbourhood, and Communion in things spirituall; as at other times to maintaine neighbourhood in things civill, and temporall. To conclude this, there are 3. things that in this discourse give little satisfaction. 1. that under recreations are comprehended not only such courses as recreate, and refresh the Spirits, wher­by men are made more fit for labour both of body, and minde, but also, (and that more principally intended as it semees) the pleasing of the senses, and especially the eye and the eare, and thus mens pleasures carnall pleasures are cleanely carryed un­der the stile of recreations, and refreshments of the spirit, when they deserve rather to be called the tickling of the flesh. 2. here is no mention made of the end whereunto recreations tend which ought to be only to fit us either for the labours of our speciall vocations, or for the works of our generall calling, as sause is for meats. 3. Lastly under recreations lawfull there seemes to be no intention to acknowledge our conversing with God in any recreation; yet Aristotle could take notice of a plea­sure taken in this that a man knowes by curious demonstrati­on, that a Triangle containes three angles equall to two right: such like thing was that which Archimedes rejoyced in, when [Page 245] he cried out [...]. And Pythagoras as I remember, sa­crificed a great sacrifice upon the finding out the equality of the square of the subtendent line in a rectangle Triangle, to the squares of the two sides. So a scholar takes delight in finding out by curious demonstration the squaring of a Circle, a thing confessed by Aristotle to be knowable, but the demonstration of it hath not beene found untill about fifty yeares agoe, as Salmuth writes upon Pancirolla. Should any pleasure taken in any other worldly thing, be comparable to that which ought to be taken in the enjoying of friends, and their mutuall com­munication? I have heard it accompted the best musick; how much lesse should be all other pleasure in comparison to that pleasure which is taken in God,Psal. 36.8. who hath Rivers of pleasures in his house, wherewith to entertaine us? not to speake of that fulnesse of joy which is in his presence, Psal. 16.11. and at his right hand plea­sures for evermore, Gods soule [...] takes pleasure in us: why should not we take delight in him? Is not all other rejoycing in comparison to our rejoycing in him a rejoycing in a thing of nought▪ Amos 6.13. Certainly he that loveth any pleasure or pastime in com­parison to this, will in the end prove to be a very poore crea­ture. But to proceed; after this a rule is given, That this our christian liberty be voyd of scandall, to wit, of scandall justly given, Prov. 21.17. and not vainely caught at; but in what cases it falls out to be justly given, and in what not; in what case it is vainly caught at, and in what not, here we find no explication; which yet I pre­sume will seeme necessary in every wise mans judgement; es­pecially to me it must needs seeme so, being as I am, in extreame despaire of devising these different cases of mine owne head. Of Christian liberty from the yoke of Jewish ceremonies I have read, but of Christian liberty unto sports, and pastimes, under the gentile notion of recreations, and that on the Lords day, I never read till now. The Jewes to this day continue their ceremonies, but not any abstinence from al sports, and pastimes on their Sabbath; for if they did, why should Austin tell them, it were better for them to goe to plough then to dance? In the very festivalls of the Jewes which were yearely, a difference there was in the dayes of each; the first, and last were Sabbaths appointed for holy convocations, and thereon abstinence commanded from all servile works; I no where finde any pi­ping [Page 246] and dancing on those dayes, saving their temple musick; how much more undecent is it to clap the weekely Sabbath, together with other festivalls, as if there were no difference: [...] signifies to be moved round, and consequently it signifies, as sometimes to dance, as 1 Sam. 30. so sometimes also to stag­ger like a drunken man, Psal. 107.27. And dancing was used sometimes in the festivalls of the Jewes, whereby they testified their rejoycing in the Lord, Ier. 31. and with a pipe they came to the mount of the Lord, Es. 30. and Miriam Moses sister, and other women also with Timbrells, and dances expressed their joy in the Lord for their deliverance from the hands of the Egyptians, and for their safe passage through the red Sea, where­in the enemies were drowned. But of any such course used on the first, and last day of their yearely feasts, which were set a­part for holy convocations, we find no example amongst them; much lesse as approved, while they continued the Church, and people of God, least of all on the weekely Sabbath. As for love feasts on the Sabbath untill abuse crept in, they continued without exception in great sobriety, only to quicken one ano­ther, and provoke unto love, and gracious communication for the edification of their souls. I never heard of any schismatique how rashly zealous or Stoicall soever, that tooke upon him the authority of the civill magistrate: All for ought I know, concurre in this, that it belongs onely to the magistrate out of coercitive power to command, and compell, but to the Mini­ster of what sect soever, only to persuade, and worke upon mens consciences: so that the members of this comparison are most indecently yoaked feigning men to be of what spirit soever it pleaseth to shape them, and to doe whatsoever they thinke good, though never so unreasonably, and without all example. Of the Jewes I have read, that they count it unlawfull to kill a Flea on the Sabbath; and such things must be pinned upon the sleeve of opposites to grace their cause, for want of better argu­ments to strengthen it. Infine we have a buffe givē to debauch­ed companions in words, when under the cleanly terme of Recreations on the Lords Day, the course here taken is to sacrifice unto them in­deed, and in effect.


Doctor LAKE Bishop of BATH, and Wells, Theses de Sabbato.

1. GOD at first made us not only men, but also children of God.

2. Therefore wee had a double being, or were fitted for a double Societie

  • 1. Civill.
  • 2. Ecclesiasticall.

3. These states are inwrapped the one in the other; For the Ecclesiasticall presuposeth the Civill, He that is a child of God is a man, and hee must be of the Civill that is of the Ecclesiasticall society.

4. And the Civill state must be seasoned with, and mo­derated by the Ecclesiasticall; for a man in his Civill state must live as a child of God, and member of the Church.

5. Notwithstanding God would that each of these states should during this World, have successively their principall imployments.

6. And for these imployments hee appointed certaine times.

7. The proportion of time allowed, the principall imploy­ment of the civill state was six dayes; And that which was allowed the principall imployment of Ecclesiasticall state was one day.

8. What times himselfe tooke for to work in or rest after the Creation, the same did hee assigne to men, and made his patterne a perpetuall Law?

9. So then of our time God reserved a seventh part for his service.

[Page]10. But in this apportioning as he reserved a seventh part of time; so was that seventh the seventh day of the weeke.

11. Whereof the ground was his rest from labour.

12. For that he would have to be the day of mans rest, be­cause he sanctified it.

13. And though, no meane both Jewes, and Christians doubt of the beginning of this observance by man, yet I thinke it began with Adam.

14. God had a Church and a service of his owne prescript from the beginning; and why should we doubt whether hee cloathed then his service with due circumstances of

  • Time.
  • Place.

15 Did he sanctifie it for his owne use? That were absurd to thinke the Word sanctifying doth refute it; for whom then? surely for man.

16. And the place Exod. 16. together with the Preface to the fourth Commandement [remember] weigh more with me then all the weake presumptions that are brought to the contrary.

17. I conclude then, that the fourth Commandement is not an introduction, but a declaratory Law.

18. But moreover I adde, that when it was delivered to the Jewes there was superadded, a distinguishing reference to that Church.

19. For it was prescribed as a signe of Gods sanctifying residence amongst them; and a memoriall of their freedome from Egyptian bondage.

20. But these accessories derogate not from the first insti­tution.

21. No more doth the forme of Liturgy which was oc­casioned by the fall, or their freedome.

22. These things shew rather to what speciall use they did apply the time, then touch the apportionment thereof.

23. The apportionment of time (of which I take these Questions moved) hath two remarkable things.


  • 1. That God reserveth a seventh part of time,
  • 2. That hee designeth which of the seven days shall be his.

[Page]25. The reserving of the seventh part I hold, to be by Gods Ordinance who is not variable in his choice, as everlasting as the World, because appointed before the fall.

26. And so should the hallowing of the seventh day from the Creation have beene as lasting, had it not beene for sin, for what could have altered it but a new Creation?

27. But man having sinned, and so by sin abolished the first Creation de jure, though not de facto, God was pleased to make by Christan instauration of the World.

28. Hee (as the Scripture speakes of Christs Redemp­tion) 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, make 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, Therefore.

33. This first day succeeded the seventh, and by that was this memoriall abolished.

34 And although the Apostles were indulgent to the Jewes in keeping the seventh as well as the first, when they conversed with them; untill the destruction of the Temple.

35 Yet would they not endure, that the Gentiles should be tied to the observation thereof.

36. This first day Christ sanctified not only by his resurre­ction, but also by sundry apparitions before his ascension, and after his ascension by sending thereon the Holy Ghost; this is cleare in the Gospell and Actes.

37 The Apostles directed by Christs not onely example, but spirits also, observed the same; witnesse in the Acts S. Paul; S. Iohn in the Revelation.

38 And from the Apostles the Catholike Church uni­formly received it; witnesse all Ecclesiasticall writers.

39 And the Church hath received it not to be Liberae obser­vationis, as if men might at their pleasure, accept or refuse it.

[Page]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 hee will take for his portion, for hee is Lord of the Sabbath.

41 And he doth it by the worke which hee doth on the day; the worke I say doth difference a day from a day.

42 Whereas otherwise all dayes are equall, and the same in themselves; as the sonne of Syrach teacheth.

43 Now then when God doth any remarkable worke, then will hee 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.

44 And his will is understood often by his precept, but when we have not that, the practise doth guide the Church.

45 This is a catholick rule observeable 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 weekly monethly or yearly, as particulars evince in Scripture and History.

47 No man can translate the worke, therefore can no man translate the day; this is an undoubted rule in Theology.

48 And no man can in reason deny due respect unto the worke, therefore hee cannot deny the hallowing of the day; a true rule in morality.

49 Now then seeing the Lords Day hath not altered the proportion of time, but onely changed the day, though not properly, yet by analogy; though not with the accessories, yet according to the Originall Sabbath, It may well agree with the tenor of the fourth Commandement, and the observance thereof be commanded therein.

According to these Theses which I hold true, untill any of them be confuted, I will point out what I mislike in the Questions or the Answers: not every particular, but some principall points.

Figure the Section of the Answers in your booke, and you shall the better fit my Theses to them.

Question 1.

VVHat doe you mean when you pray after the fourth Commandement, Lord have mercy upon us, &c. The 49 Theses answereth, that we meane not the Jewish Sabbath, but that which analogically to the Originall Sabbath we observe, The Lords Day.

Question 2. Sect. 1.

The observation of the Sabbath some say is morall, and perpetuall.]

By Sabbath you must understand the Lords Day, other­wise none but Hereticks hold this opinion.

Then I thinke the proportion of time is perpetuall Thesi 15; though if you looke to the assignation of the day, it is not perpetuall; sin hath altered it occasionally, and God Causally; absque hoc it was intended that it should be per­petuall, Thesi 26.

But whether is the observation of the Lords Day morall?

Certainly this is a morall rule; to hallow the day where­in God doth some remarkable worke. Thes. 43. & 48.

But Christ did rise for the restauration of the World this day, therefore the observance thereof morall.

Were it an absolute assignation of time, the appointing of the Lords Day, it might be doubted: but take this cir­cumstance as it cloatheth the worke, then I hold it cleare, that though time be but a circumstance, yet the obser­vance of time so understood is Morall.

But there is a mutability in the observance of such times as cloath Gods works, because the works themselves are sub­ject to mutability, and so the seventh day was changed for the first, because the first Creation needed an instauration; and he that caused the Instauration might make the alterati­on. Thesi 33.

Question 1. Section 1.

The Text is cleare Colos. 2. that the observation of the Sabbath was ceremoniall]

As a shadow? meane you this of the originall Sabbath or [Page] the declaratory cloathed with the accessories. Thes. 18, 19, &c. It is certaine the originall could be no shaddow, for it is precedent to the fall.

The declaration may; true; as considered with his acces­sories, but the author of the Questions (I thinke) mistaketh the text of S. Paul.

For the words referre to the controversie betweene the Jewes and Gentiles, both believers; but the beleeving Jew would have put upon the believing Gentile the ceremonies, which S. Paul indureth not, either here or in the Galat.

As for the place to the Rom: that tempereth the presum­ption, of the Gentile, who out of the conceipt of Christian liberty forgot to beare with the weake Jew.

All this is nothing to the Originall Sabbath, whereunto (I say,) the Lords Day succeedeth, and is by analogy in the fourth Commandement, which hath no mixture of those ac­cessories, for ought I can see in the words.

Question 1. Section 2.

It cannot be proved, that the Apostles commanded to sanctifie the Lords day in memory of Christs Resurrection.]

No can? what author ancient is there that doth not hold it to have had its originall from the Apostles? he should doe well to alleage them.

It is something discrepant from the doctrine of our Church.]

You alleage the words of the Homily, but streighten the tense of them; for the Christian People that chose the first day, were those that lived in the dayes of the Apostles, all of them and their posterity successively to us.

Doth it therefore follow that wee may not keepe the seventh day in memory of the worlds Creation?

It doth; for the Lords Day succeedeth in stead of that, ut Thes. 33. Therefore they cannot consist with the purpose of the alteration, which is to note a New Creation.


Constantine commanded the sixt day should be kept in me­mory of Christs death]

Kept as a fasting day, not as a festivall day; and so the Church keepeth it still.

[Page] Ibid.

Sabbato & postridie Sabbati conveniunt.]

So doth the Church now; but Saturday is Parasceve to the Lords Day; and least they should seeme to Judaize, they did and do begin the Eve after noon, to note it is but a preparation to Sunday.


Saint Austin termeth the Sabbath in the fourth Com­mandement, Sacramentum Ʋmbratile.]

True, as the Jewes did observe it; So himselfe there ex­poundeth himselfe.

Question. 1. Section 4.

The observance of the Sabbath day by Christ compared to Jewish sacrifice.]

This speaketh not of the assignation of dayes, but how strictly the day must be kept, and it is as true of the Lords Day.

Section 5.

Hebrewes 4. mention is made of three rests.]

Or one rest rather, which is Gods rest,Gen. 2. and the participati­on thereof 2 wayes

  • Typically.
  • Spiritually.

The Typicall is the entrance into Canaan, which carried with it a cessation from labours of the Jewish servitude, and Pilgrimage.

From this Typicall many (saith the Apostle) were ex­cluded through infidelity, and by fayth some did par­take it.

But there was another participation, a spirituall, which came by Jesus, whereunto Iosuah could not bring, which is a ceasing not from corporall, but spirituall toyles and sinnes immediatly: but mediately it will bring unto a spirituall blessed rest both of body and soule in Heaven.

This spirituall immediate rest or participation of Gods rest is called Sabbatismus populi Dei.

If this be (as I conceave it is) the meaning of the place; what is this to dayes?

[Page] Ib. Section 6.

Some will have a weekely Sabbath a shaddow in regard of the strictnesse of the Rest.]

I thinke the strictnesse was not it, at least not principally: but the Accession; of which in the Theses.

But you are out of your argument, for S. Paul speakes of shadow whereof the body is Christ, Now before the fall the Sabbath was a kinde of shadow of our eternall rest; but not of that whereof Christ is the body.

And to us the Lords day is a foretast of that eternall rest, and I hold this shadow to be as lasting as the World.


New Moone Et caetera shadowes in their substance not their accessories, Ergo the Sabbath.

A weake collection; for other feasts were instituted af­ter the fall under the Pedagogy of the Law, the Sabbath before; therefore this might be made a shadow by acces­sorie, these not so. Ibid.

Shall I demand of them, when this Sabbath began to be a shadow.]

When after the fall it received accessions, it became such a shadow, as Saint Paul speaketh of Col. 2. otherwise it was a kinde of shadow of eternall rest in the foundation, and the Lords Day continueth so now.


The Apostle Hebrew 4 speaketh of the seventh as rested upon, not sanctified.]

Reade the mistake of this place before.

Ib. Section 6.

The Sabbath more ceremoniall then the other Comman­dements: you prove it out of S. Austin.]

And it is plaine hee speaketh of the Sabbath as the Jewes observed it, and had it given in charge with his accessories, but I still call you to the Originall Sabbath. Gen. 2. Res.

Respons. ad quaestion. 1. Section 1.

Our words and meaning must not agree in our Prayer, Lord have mercy upon us, &c.

[Page]A strange answer; I thinke they must and doe agree; for by analogy is the Lords Day contained in the Commande­ment, and the Church directeth us so to understand.

The apportionment of time is everlasting, only the tran­slation of the day is by all that have any understanding to Catechize taught to be grounded upon a new Creation suc­ceeding the old.

The personall defects I cannot reply to, but leave them to be reformed. Though the imperfections of the ignorant should not be presented, when the question is made so difficult that the learned can hardly assoile it. As the author of the questi­ons thinketh.

Question 2.

How shall the fourth Commandement bind us considering the forme of words to keep any day but only the seventh?]

I suppose in my Theses I have given a probable answer.

Seeing the apportionment of time is eternall, which I thinke cannot justly be denyed, I hold the translation of of the feast from the seventh to the first day is grounded up­on Analogy.

For seeing God was pleased that the day of the Creation should be commemorated (as appeareth by the Letter of the Commandement) and the first Creation being by sin dissolved jure, & restored againe by Christ upon the first day; where we find the rest after the new Creation, there we must fix the feast; And this is perswaded by the drift of the Law.

Except we lay this for a ground; God will have the day of Creation observed.

Observed after the rule of the first Creation it cannot be, for then we doe not acknowledge the dissolution thereof, I meane still merito.

In testimony of that, and Christs restitution, we keepe the day of the new Creation, and we are guided to it by the fourth Commandement.

Question 3.

How shall it appeare to be the Law of nature to sanctifie one day every weeke?

Surely here the Author of the questions makes a strange answer.

[Page]For he looseth himselfe in his distinction of the Morall Law and the Law of nature which he seemeth not to understand well.

He would have the Law of nature to prescribe circumstan­ces to actions, and not the morall Law, whereas the mora­lity stands in observing the circumstance of actions, as the Ethicks will teach, and this in the phrase medium ra­tionis.

Secondly, hee thinketh that all the Lawes morall are as he calleth them of nature, doe represent the Image of God, and are unalterable even by God himselfe.

Not considering that there is a morality that concerneth man as he is Animal rationale, and reason moderateth the sensuall part, which commeth not within the compasse of the Image of God.

And in many particulars is mutable, and dispensable in cases of necessity; as it is held against the Law of Nature that bro­thers and sisters should marry, but God dispensed with it, but I should wade into a large argument if I should rippe up these two Errors.

I rather note, that hee understandeth not the ground of a Festivall day, that maketh no other ground of it than Omnia fiant ordine & decenter.

The Lords Day had a higher ground, which I opened in the Theses, and that is Christs Resurrection, and thereby a new Instauration of the World.

Which wee are bound to observe upon the grounds set downe in the Theses.

And in a word; Hee that doth not let Gods Word be the guide directing to sanctifie a Festivall day, I thinke hee squareth not his opinion according to truth, neither hath he any president from Gods Word.


Defensio Thesium de Sabbato.

13 I Take notice of Tertull. Iustin Martyr:] Thes. 1. true; but they alter not my judgement: And why? I finde in them onely a bare as­sertion, and that of a thing so remote from their times, that they could not know it otherwise then by relation. From the Scripture they had none; happily they had it from some Jewes. Galatinus alleadgeth some. But I oppose Jewes to Jewes. Philo Iudaeus de opificio Mundi not onely is of a contrary o­pinion, but holdeth also that it was a feast common to all Nations, [...]. And peradventure some such thing is meant by Hesiod his [...]. And it is not unlike­ly that God made the observation of the day a memoriall of the Creation. But I will not enlarge that discourse. It shall suffice that Philo Iudaeus, In Decalog. and Aben Ezra also and others thinke otherwise, whose judgement our Ortho­dox Divines doe, if not all, yet for the most part follow. Read them upon the second of Genesis.

14 What the Patriarks did in point of religion,2. I thinke they did it by Divine direction. Yee know that [...] did never please God; wherefore the Mo­saicall Lawes (other then those that had reference to the Church as nationall, and delivered out of the Egyptian bondage) are to be thought not introducto­ry, but declaratory. Out of question those that concer­ned the substance of the service which stood in sacri­fices, and I thinke concerning the circumstance of time, and place.

[Page]The place; for there where God appeared, there did they erect their altars: yea, and in the story of Re­becca it is plaine that shee went to a set place to consult the Lord.Gen. 25. And why shall not the time come under the same condition?

15 The [...] must receive an answer from that which is added in confirmation of the 13 Thesis. It is but an ungrounded conjecture.

16 Where had Rhenanus that opinion? his varying from those whom I answered on the 13 Thesis sheweth that hee was not of Iustin Martyr or Tertullian his opi­nion, and yet giveth no reason that may move to cre­dit him, or countervaile what I have alleadged for my opinion.

18 Yes, there is more, if you compare Deut. c. 5. with Exodus c. 20. but I meant not onely that, but other passages which make the Sabbath a signe of Gods re­sidence sanctifying the Jewes, &c. which I expressed in the next thesis.

19 Bedes conceipt may passe for an allegory built upon a witty accommodation of the literall sense which other fathers observed before him. But that cannot be the literall sense of the Commandement. You will not deny it, if you grant that the Sabbath was insti­tuted before the fall, which I thinke more then pro­bable, though the Broughtonists hasten the fall before the Sabbath. And I cannot without good reason yield that the patriarchs had no set time for divine service, I meane a weekely time.

31 True it is, that Christ did rest from suffering upon the seventh; but the last enemy death was not apparently overthrowne untill the reunion of his soule, and body, till he rose againe for our justification, &c. Therefore did the apostles make that the consummati­on of redemption in Christs Person.

[Page]35 You cannot finde in all the 14. to the Romans that the Apostle is positive in the doctrine of dayes, he expres­seth a mutuall indulgence untill men had attained [...] concerning the liberty from Moses Law. Neither doth he beare out the Gentiles against the Jewes, but qualifie rather the destempered zeale of the Gentiles that were too hot against the Jewes; Sensus dictorum sumendus est ex causis dicendorum, It is plaine that there was a questiō, whether the Christian gentile should be pressed to observe the ceremonies whereun­to the christian Jewes were pertinaciously addicted? but never was there (for ought I read) a question whe­ther the Jewes should keepe the Lords day? for I think they never refused it. Had there been such a quarrell, I would enlarge the sense of that Chapter, as you doe, to our question, but seeing there was not, I see not how it should be reasonably done.

36 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 Theses. You cannot observe from the beginning of the world any other inducement to the institution of feasts, but Gods worke done on the day; If it were not a continued worke, as the dwelling in Tabernacles.

But you thinke the Apostles did not prescribe the obser­vation of that day; No? you confesse they made choice of it, and were moved so to doe by the reason which I alleage, And were they not scattered over all the world? & where they came did they not all give the same order for the sacred assemblies? And shall we thinke that this could be done with­out an apostolicall prescript?

37. & 43. I conjoyne them, because one answer will cleare both; Let us then first agree, what it is for a thing to be Liberae observationis. The Questonist in his interpretation, which commonly is received, [Page] leaveth a possibility for an alteration by humane auctority, if any reason shall perswade a conveniency so to doe; though so long as publike auctority com­mandeth it, he will have it dutifully observed.

Whereupon will follow a Consectary or two. First, that this Law doth not immediately bind the conscience, because Merè humani Iuris positivi.

Secondly, that Extra scandalum, a man may trans­gresse it. For example, a Tradesman may worke in his Chamber, if no body bee privy to it.

If this be the Commentary upon Libera observatio (and if it be well inquired into, you will finde that I doe not mi­stake the meaning) then I prof sse I cannot like of such a Libera observatio.

For I am perswaded that if all Christendome should meete, and have never so plausible a ground, they cannot alter the day de jure, though de facto they may; but it is worse then previshnesse so to doe. And why? they cannot alter the first ground, Christs ri­sing upon that day. Secondly, they cannot alter the uniforme order that upon that undenyable ground was set down by the Apostles themselves, which were infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost.

And out of these grounds I deduce, that the Law doth im­mediately bind their conscience.

And that it is to be observed, even where it may be transgressed without any scandall.

Christ and the Apostles were not absolutely bound to lay such a foundation of the Lords Day, and so it was Liberae in­stitutionis; but they having layd it, I deny that it is now Liberae Observationis; so that under God I know no power that can alter it.

Thes. 49.The Fathers speake of the Jewish Sabbath, and Allegorize that as it was carnally used by the Jewes. But we shall wrong the Fathers, if we thinke they held that there was no Morality in the Letter of the Commandement.

[Page]For though there were a mystery figured in it, yet they doe not deny that there was a morall proportioning of time for Divine Service prescribed therein, which is the seventh part of the weeke.

It is one thing to say that all our life time we must be religious in our conversation, and keepe a spiri­tuall Sabbath; another thing to affirme that we must not have a solemne weekely day, wherein to intend onely Divine worship.

This last point the Fathers doe not say, the former they doe, and to argue from their Omission, is to ex­tend their words beyond their meaning; at least, their meaning is not adaequate to the sense of the Com­mandement.

No nor to their practise; For they did constantly ob­serve a seventh part of the weeke, which I say is the first prin­ciple contained in the fourth Commandement.

Though I deny not but there is moreover a limita­tion to the seventh day from the Creation exprest, which Christ and his Apostles altered; but this alte­ration cannot overthrow the first principle; they may both well goe together.

To the particular allegations out of the Fathers I will an­swer no more then, that what they say is true, but doth not contradict what I hold. For the mysticall sense doth not o­verthrow the literall of the Commandement. And they un­derstand the seventh day precisely from the Creation▪ which we confesse altered, and speake not of the divine Ordinance, for the apportioning of time, but the carnall observation of the Jewes.

And your answer to the first Question grounded on the Fathers words may passe for good; but there is more in the Commandement then so.

Your Answer to the second I cannot so well approve, be­cause it is Exclusive.

[Page]As for your third answer, That the fourth Com­mandement is not the Law of nature, but a positive law; take the Law of Nature for Morall Reason, then I think there is more then meere positivenesse in it. For morall reason teacheth to honour the day whereon the work is done; and that morall reason which gave this in charge was Apostolicall, and so of a comman­ding power in both. And then you see that it is nei­ther meerely positive, nor meerely naturall, but mixt, and so binding accordingly, ut supra ad Thesin. 37. & 43.

You adde two Questions.

1 Whether seeing the Lords day succeeds the Jewish Sab­bath, wee are to keepe it in the same manner, and with the same strictnesse?

First I hold in my Theses, that our Lords day doth properly succeed the Sabbath instituted at the Crea­tion.

Whereupon I separate all the Accessories from Moses Law.

Secondly, The Jewes did misconstrue the strick­nesse of their Sabbath, as appeareth by the many corrections of our Saviour in the Gospell, and his Generall Rule: The Sabbath was made from man, not man for the Sabbath.

Thirdly, They held that they might not so much as kindle a fire, or dresse Meat upon that day, groun­ding their conceipt upon the Texts that are Ex. 35. & cap. 16.

But both Texts seeme to be wrested; for that Exod. 35. about kindling a fire, must be limited by the verse going be­fore, and is not to be understood of any other kindling of fire, then for following of their Trades or Servile workes, as they are called. And so Munster, Vatable, and others upon that place censure their mistake.

[Page]And that it is a mistake against the meaning of the Commandment, I gather from hence: For the Jewes that will not put their owne hands to kindle a fire, will hire Christians to doe it for them; as if the Commandment did not reach Servants and strangers within their gates; and they offend as much in doing it by others, as if they did it by themselves. But so doe they use to abuse the Scripture, and confute their Glosses by their owne practice.

As for the 16. Chapter of Exod. which seemeth to forbid the dressing of Meat, I hold that mistaken also. Read the Chapter and mark whether you can finde that upon the sixth day they were to dresse any more then served for that day, and to lay up the rest undressed untill the Sabbath; at what time (I hope) they were to dresse it before they did eat it.

And indeed only the providing of Manna is there forbid­den, and a promise (whereof they had experience) that it would not putrifie upon the Sabbath, though they kept it till then, whereas upon other dayes it would.

And in this sense doe I understand the severe pu­nishment of him that gathered sticks upon the seventh day, it was because he then made his provision, and did it, it should seeme, with an high hand. Numb. cap. 15.

As for recreations I can say nothing, but that seeing the Lords day is to be the exercise of that life which is spirituall, and as a foretast of that which is eternall, it were to be wisht that wee did intend those things as farre as our frailty will reach.

But Vivitur non cum perfectis hominibus, and wee must be content to have men as good as we may, when it is not to be hoped they will be as good as they should.

Yet we must take heed that we doe not solemnize our feast vainly as either the Iewes or Gentiles did.

Against whom Nazianzene is very tart, & Tertul. in his Apolog.

[Page]In the Civill Law we finde a dispensation for Husbandmen in case of necessity, contrary to the Jewish policy, Exod. 34.

Which is followed by our Law. Edward. the 6.

Wee may in apparrell and diet, be more liberall and costly on feasts then on other dayes.

[...] were Corporall feasts joyned to the Eucharist, wherein the rich did feed the poore.

Which afterward for inconvenience was removed out of the Church.

I meane the Corporall feast (although in Saint Austins confessions you shall find, that in Saint Ambrose days there were [...] at the Toombs of Martyrs which Saint Ambrose tooke away.

But though the [...] were taken out of the Church, yet upon those dayes the rich relieved their poore Brethren.

Which they little thinke of, that for feare of breaking the Sabbath have taken away Hospitality.

Some men are over-nice in this point, more nice then Christ himselfe, Luc. 14. who on the Sabbath went to a feast, and that was to a wedding feast▪

And why not? seeing the Sabbath is Symbolum Aeternae, not only quietis, but Laetitiae; therefore resembled to a feast without the toyle of Acquisition.

So that the Sabbath is not violated by feasts, if wee exceed not Necessitatem Personae, though Naturae wee doe.

Now Necessitas Personae requireth that more be imployed in providing feasts; as a Kings diet then a Subjects, a Noble then a Common mans, a Colledge then a single Person:

But we must take care Ne quid nimis in victu, joy &c. Alogia which S. Austin reproves Epist. 86. ad Ca­sulanum must not be used.

And we must keepe the Apostles rule; Whether wee eat or drinke, we must doe all to the glory of God.

And it were to bee wished, that the old practice, whereof there is a Patterne in the Kings house, & some [Page] Cathedrall Churches, were every where in use.

That at six a Clock in the Morning Prayers, were every where appointed for Servants and such as were to prepare dinner, to goe then to Church, at whose returne the Masters might goe with the rest of their familie.

As for other recreations, if they be not opposite or prejudiciall to Piety, they may well stand with the solemnizing of the Sabbath and other feasts.

Too much Austerity doth rather hurt then good; especi­ally in those dayes, wherein Indulgence, where of we have Pat­ternes in Gods Synchoreticall Lawes, is extorted from those that are in Authoritie, by the generall corruption of the time.

Wherefore I would distinguish in such cases be­tweene the Precept and permission.

The Precept sheweth whereunto men should tend and be exhorted; and it were to be wished they would follow, and keepe the Lords Day, as they are directed by the Canon and Injunction.

The Permission sheweth what must be tollerated for the hardnesse of mens hearts.

Vacation from bodily labour is required both Per se; for it is a figure of our freedome from those Ani­mall toyles in the Church Triumphant, and also Propter aliud, that we may the better intend our spi­rituall life.

To conclude all, seeing all agree that it must be obser­ved, and differ onely upon what ground and how farre; see­ing to fetch the authority from God, and to keepe it with all reasonable strictnesse maketh most for Piety, in a doubt­full case, I incline thither, though I condemne not them that are otherwise minded, wishing that sobriety of judge­ment to all in such disputes, which Saint Paul commendeth Rom. c. 14.


An Errata.

IN the preface p. 8. li. 22. 23. it is so far to be accompted mo­rall, In the treatise, p. 3. l. 20. report, read repent. p. 7. l. 28. to seale, reade to steale, p. 36. l. 35. a new Father, r. a new master, p. 37. l. 31. Mockel. p. 38. l. 6. blot out and p. 39. l. 32. wee, r. who r. [...] l. 8. would read could, p. 48. l 2. Piloponus, p. 50. l. 39. rather then p. 53. l. 31. unto p. 56. l. 3. from sins, read for sins, p. 59 l. 30. [...]. l. 33. purse, read purpose. p. 110. l. 10. 6 toh read both p. 110. l. 16. and by sending the holy Ghost, p. 122. l. 2. read Rom: 1.4 p. 122. l. the last, now read was, p. 129. l. 4. read because on that day, p. 133. l. 9. Qua, read quae, page 137. l. 5. his read is, p. 144. l. 23. some without, read shins with our p. 151. l 26. yet read yea p. 152. l. 6. walaeus, that, read walaus say that p. 152. l. 27. & made read & the seventh made, line last, that on that day read, that one day. p. 158. l. 11. is to be proved, read is, to prove only. p. 162. l. 18. read Banbury, p. 165. l. 7. Rogers upon. read Rogers. Vpon, l. 26. is contrary read it contrary p. 167. l. the last, dele which the Jewes keepe, read as the letter soundeth, p. 168. 29. against, read againe, p. 170. l. 16. be, read to be, l. 171. l. 1. 15. dele now being, read to be, p. 180. l. 6. though he read though I. p. 180. l. 27. that, read and that, p. 187. l. 12. peratur, reads operatur, p. 195. l. 5. uno read imo, p. 196. l. 32. well, read will, p. 198. l. 6. observed the, read observed it in the p. 20. l. 27. saith that no more, read saith no more, p. 205. l. 20. as, read was p. 207. l. 24. he doth say, read he doth not say, p. 222. l. 27: Gerardus, p. 230. li. 1. read supposition l. 6. that God, dele that, & read God p. 233. l. 14. of Ephesus, read of Troas p. 240. l. 4. I can, read I call.

Thes. de Sabbat.

Thes. 26. the seventh day from 27. Christ an. 37. Spirit.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.