THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH DEFENDED: Against a Crying Evil in these Times of the Antisabitarians of our Age: Wherein is showed that the Morality of the fourth Commandment 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 fulfil.  
Verse 18. For verily, I say unto you, till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot, or one title shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled  
Verse 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, 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 sign of the Sun in Paul's Churchyard, 1652.   


AVANCEZ  
ROWLAND HILL A.M.    

The Contents of the chief matters handled herein.  
IN the answer to the Prefacer.  
Section. 1. 
1. The ancients are alleged in vain 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 credit Barclay deserves, relating a consultation of Calvin, about transferring the Sabbath to the Thursday.  Section. 3. 
3. Of the force of Apostolical example.  Section 4. 
4. The vanity of the Prefacers' pretence, in saying Catarinus opposed Tostatus with ill success, while he maintained the Institution of the Sabbath from the Creation. It is made apparent, that his success 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 conceive the institution of the Lords Day, to have been ordered by Christ himself.  Section 5. 

Pa. 70.  2. An examination of that phrase of some of our Divines, affirming the ancients to have changed the jews Sabbath unto the Lord's Day for a probable cause: wherein it is showed that the cause hereof was more than probable.  Section 6. 
6. An examination of Chemnitius his discourse, concerning the authority of the Lords Day.  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 Andrew's, Perkins, Thysius. 2. justified by good reason.    Section. 7. 


7. A brief of the arguments on each side for every point. 

1. As touching the original institution of the Sabbath.  
2. As touching the Morality of one day in seven to be consecrated to God's solemn worship.  
3. As touching the authority of the celebration of the Lords Day, and the immutability thereof.    
8. The Prefacer, and M. Roger's opposing D. bound are showed in every particular to oppose D. Andrew's.     
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 God's solemn service.  Section 2. & 6. 
2 Reasons why the Creator should prescribe the proportion of time to be consecrated unto himself.  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.  Section. 5. 
5. That it becomes not us to affect liberty to design the day for the Sabbath.  Section. 6. 
6 The danger of leaving it to man to make choice 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 Commandment.  Section 8. 
8. That it is nothing strange, the Lords Day should be called by the name of the sabbath.  Section 8. 
2. Sensual pleasures are cleanly carried 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 Commandment, but I never gave myself to look into the bottom of it till now. I ever conceived it for the substance to be Moral; otherwise, what should it make among the ten Commandments, which all account the Law moral, in distinction both from the law judicial, and the law ceremonial given by Moses unto the Jews. These ten Commandments 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 hear him speak unto them, 
Exod. 19.10.  two days were given them to sanctify themselves and to wash their ; 
11.  that they might be ready on the third day: for the third day the Lord would come down on mount Sina. And so it came to pass. For when Moses brought forth the people out of the Camp to meet with God, 
17.  and they stood at the nether part of the Mount: 
18.  Mount Sina was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. And all the people saw the thunderings and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, 
Exod. 20.18.  and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed and stood a fare off. In such heavenly state was this Law delivered, and remember the Sabbath 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.  Ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask 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 hear 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 hear his voice, 
36.  that he might instruct thee; and upon the earth he shown 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 risen 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 sat down 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 picked in the fourth Commandment, concerning the sanctifying of the Sabbath; as if that among all the rest, were not moral, but ceremonial. Yet this honour it hath from God, that immediately 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 Andrew's, ere he died Bishop of Winchester, in his pattern of catechetical doctrine (I commonly cite it under his name, because it is commonly received to be his) and as I have heard upon divers good grounds, treating upon this Commandment; and having proposed this question; But is not the Sabbath a Ceremony, and so abrogated by Christ? Makes answer to it in this manner, Do 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 sin, 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 sins 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 commandment 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 do they find for it by the light of Nature; and now the world is grown 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 do we not all acknowledge the light of Nature to be much corrupted since the fall of Adam? how much more our judgement of moral things; wherein Aristotle confesseth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Eth. 1. c. 3.  demonstration is not to be expected, but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persuasion. And if way be given to men's wanton wills for the gratifying of corrupt affections, more breaches than these are like to be made in the Decalogue. I have heard that Cardinal Cusanus undertook to justify the sin of Sodom. Sure I am, amongst the Lacedæmonians wives were common: And Brennus that Ancient Invader of other Nations made profession, 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 deathbed, being demanded, who should succeed him in the Kingdom, made answer, even He whose sword is the longest. Carneades I think was the man, who having on a day made a singular speech in commendation of Justice; afterwards discoursed as eloquently to the contrary, showing that there was no justice at all by the law of nature; every natural thing seeking to maintain itself by the destruction of others. So the fire maintains itself by the combustion of each combustible thing whereunto it approacheth; and the water overflows all naturally, and beats down all dams, it can, to make room for itself. And the greatest Beasts maintain themselves by praying on those that have no power to resist them. The more cause have we to bless God for giving us the Law Moral 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 me, and assured that the substance thereof is Moral; and that accordingly we ought to inure ourselves to the sanctification of the Sabbath, though naturally we find in ourselves no greater reluctation to any Commandment than to this: Pardon me if I judge of others by myself 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 mixed with manly exercise, well becoming a King; but I hear he never useth to hunt on the Lord's day. And so much the rather should the Lords Sabbaths be dear unto us, because the goodness and mercy of God appears no no where more, than in giving us his Sabbaths; calling upon us thereby to rest from the world unto him (and God knows, a Christian soul finds no rest any where but in him) and to walk with him in holy meditation, as he is pleased to walk in the midst of us, as 
a Hos. 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 ourselves with the knowledge of God, and to recreate our souls in the Lord, as he solaceth himself in us, according to that, 
Prov. 8.31.  He took his solace in the compass of the earth, and his delight was in the children of men. On the Lord's day it is, that in special sort we Christians take hold of that holy Communion, which God in great mercy in his Son Jesus Christ vouchsafeth unto us with himself, 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 dreadful (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 solemn assemblies is not a ladder erected between earth and heaven? is not the Lord on the top of it, 
Deut. 33.3.  and are not we humbled at his feet to hear 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 thanksgiving to him, of rejoicing in him yea, of sorrowing for our sins, are they not as so many Angels ascending to him? Our tears have a double motion, one natural, downwards, another spiritual, upwards, for the Lord puts them into his bottles: the hairs of our head are numbered, how much more the sighs of our heart, and groans of our spirit? And have we not great cause to inure ourselves betimes thus to sabbatise with God, as he sabbatizeth with us? that we may be the fit to keep our eternal Sabbath with him: (for so is our eternal happiness represented unto us) in the enjoying of him for ever, 
Es. 66.23.  and being filled with his glory; which Austin calls 
a De civet. Dei. lib. 22. c. 30.  Sabbatum maximum, our greatest Sabbath; and 
b Quaest. 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 down all rule, and all authority and power, then shall he deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father, and God shall be all in all.  
Yet I willingly confess, that in my observation, two things there are, which seem to be of great moment, in opposition to the morality of the fourth Commandment: 1. The change of the day. 2. The general opinion of the Father's pronouncing in an indefinite manner the fourth Commandment to be ceremonial. Yet notwithstanding, the registering of it in the Decalogue, which is generally accounted the Law moral, I say, this consideration hath even prevailed more with me, to account the substance thereof moral. Nevertheless for the honour I own, and respect I bear to Antiquity, I have endeavoured to understand the Ancients aright, and to inquire in what respect they accounted it ceremonial. For to my understanding, the sanctification of the rest, or the service of the day, especially unto us Christians is merely moral. But as concerning the rest itself, 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 thank God, I have found good satisfaction unto myself, at last; how I shall satisfy others I know not. And when sometimes I had waded thorough the Epistle to the Romans unto the fourteenth Chapter; there occasion was given me to consider further of this controversy, so fare, as a few days would give liberty 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 seems 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 general to be set apart for God's 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 took, and do 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 seek, as whether one day in a week or more; or one day in a month or more; or one day in a year or more, aught to be set apart for the solemn 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 seems fit he should cut out what proportion of time he thinks convenient. 2. For the maintenance of uniformity 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 own election. For reason of a conjectural nature is very various, and therein commonly affection bears the greatest sway, and draws the judgement to comply with it. But when God hath determined a certain proportion of time, it may be we shall find great congruity therein, even to natural reason, and fare more than in any other. D. Field, as Master Broad reports, professeth, that to one who knows the story of the Creation, it is evident by light of nature, that one day in seven is to be consecrated to God's service. 
Part. 2. lib. 1. cap. 2.  And Azorius the Jesuit in his moral Institutions acknowledgeth that It is most agreeable to reason, that after six work days, one day should be consecrated to divine worship. The least division of days is into a week, the next greater division is into a month, the next into a year. Now by light of nature it seems fare more reasonable, that one day in seven should be employed in God's service, than one day in a month. 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 days, 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 fare from being accounted moral, as perpetual, and still to hold, until God himself shall alter it. 3. As for the particularity of the day according to the forenamed proportion; therein we should be fare more to seek, were we left unto ourselves; time consisting in a continual flux and succession, one part afore, and another after. As namely, supposing one day in seven is to be consecrated to God's service; yet we shall still be to seek, which day of the seven is to be set apart for an holy use. And no marvel; for in itself it is nothing material. For a proportion of service being required within a certain compass, so it be done within that compass, every Master rests satisfied with his servants work. But as for difference in the proportion, every one accounts that a matter of great moment. God himself acknowledgeth this; therefore to whom he gives but little, at their hands he expects but little; to whom he gives much, of them he expects much, as our Saviour teacheth. And Saint John exhorts Christians so to carry themselves in the Lord's service, that they may receive a full reward. 
2 john. 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 read, that He 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 own 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 therein; 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 himself, and that in great congruity, as appears to as many, as are acquainted with the story of the Creation. For the Lord having dispatched all his works in six days, 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 years after gives this reason, why after six days of labour the seventh being the Sabbath of the Lord our God, no manner of work should be done therein: which being once thus ordered by the Lord of the Sabbath, it must be in force of perpetual 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 Commandment it is clear: First, that God commanded some time to be set apart, and sanctified unto his service. Secondly, that 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 jews in correspondency to the seventh day from the first creation, whereon God commanded them to rest from all their works, like as on that day the Lord rested from his works. And I think, there is no question amongst Christians, but that all this aught to be religiously observed by the people of God, until the Lord himself 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 itself. 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 been originally allotted unto his service; we must not presume to allow a less 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 Gospel to allow more time for God's service, rather than less, 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 appear to have been ceremonial, in respect of the rest commanded thereon) and another in the seven substituted in the place thereof, and that according to God's direction, and not otherwise. Secondly, so as touching the rest of the day commanded upon Mount Sina unto the Jews (not so unto Adam upon the Creation; but only we read that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, which sanctification yet on man's part draws a rest with it) if there be found a just distinction between a rest moral, (so 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 moral 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 Jews thereon as ceremonial, is at end; as namely the Sabbath sacrifice which doubled the daily sacrifice. Only the public ministry of the Word and Prayer, as moral, still continueth, together with our Sacramental ceremonies which Christ hath given unto his Church, Baptism and the Lords Supper; and therefore the Lords day was called by the Ancients the day of light, in reference unto Baptism, Baptism being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, illumination, the first work of grace, and the day of Bread, in reference to the Lords Supper. Now all this I hope to make appear, before I give over this task 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 find that Sect. 8. of that his Lecture, be professeth that the Jewish rest cannot stand with our Christian liberty; I say so too, and withal endeavour to give evidence for the abrogation thereof. Further, the same Reverend Doctor professeth, That we only are so fare to abstain from work, as it is an impediment to the performance of such duties as are then commanded. I am not only of his opinion herein, but withal desire no more than this to be granted for the maintenance of the moral rest of the fourth Commandment.  
But I have observed some to deny any thing in the jewish Sabbath to have been ceremonial, yet will not have that fourth Commandment moral, 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 moral, because it hath not evidence by light of nature. But was it evident to the Jews by light of nature, that the God of their Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that brought them out of the land of Egypt, 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 natural evidence hereof fail us in this state of corrupt nature wherein we are, shall these laws be denied to be the moral Law of God? yet I nothing doubt but the proportion of time allowed for God's service, much more the particularity of the day appointed thereunto, is alterable at the pleasure of God. And ceremonials, I confess, are in such a sense positive, or rather more than positive; namely, such as not only may, but must like shadows fly away when the body of them comes in place. And yet I find that Cajetan in this point confounds ceremonial with positive; though I think he would not call it ceremonial, unless he conceived, that this which he calls positive, had some ceremoniality in it. But their reason whereupon they deny the ceremoniality of it, in my judgement 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 judgement. 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 rainbow, which though in course of nature extant before, yet was not a sign till after the Flood: and though I know some who would not admit of this instance, yet the Thesis seems very possible; and clearly of such a condition was matrimony, ordained without all question before the fall. 3. What is that which they say is not ceremonial? is it the service of the day in the sanctifying of it? None that I know, maintains that to be necessarily ceremonial. Or is it the rest of the day? Observe well, and you shall find no rest expressly commanded at the first, but only it is signified, that God dedicated it to his service; which yet, I confess willingly, draws after it a rest from all works opposite or impedimentall to the sanctification of it. 4. Thus they take little care to satisfy the Fathers, who generally concur in acknowledging the ceremoniality of it. And we are too weak in these days, to bear up an opinion in flat contradiction to the Ancients, and to keep ourselves blameless. Yet Doctor Andrews (Bishop of Winchester, ere he 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 Jews did, not to kindle a fire, nor to dress any meat on that day, answereth thus; We say No; for this was but ceremonial, and belonged only unto them. 5. Upon this ground (to wit, upon the denying of the ceremoniality of the particular day) they will hardly be able to justify 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 we find the practice of the Church for the observation of both some hundreds of years continued. 2. And it seems congruous to reason in the judgement of those, who oppose both the institution of it forthwith after the creation, and the morality of one day in seven, that we should consecrate to God's service rather more days 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 we shall find ourselves in greater measure eased, if we can show manifest evidence for the abrogation of the seventh, which was sabbatical to the Jews. Now first, this is clearly performed by acknowledging the ceremoniality of it, which yet I do not affect should be acknowledged without proof. Secondly, thus also the Fathers shall fairly be satisfied. Thirdly, and the Introduction of the Lords day in the place thereof advanced. Fourthly, especially if the ceremoniality be so cleared, as plainly to manifest, that the body thereof was Christ, which is a very hard task to perform of all other ceremonies, yea, of all other Sabbaths or any other Sabbath save of the weekly Sabbath. But of all these, to wit: 1. Of the original 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 Ecclesiastical or Humane constitution, we shall speak more by occasion of the several passages in this discourse, which comes to be examined, so to make way to inquire 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 Lord's day, our Christian Sabbath, do 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 ourselves to the judgement of every Christian conscience, upon consideration of our reasons herein represented. Our Saviour commands us to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God the things that are Gods; and we hold ourselves bound to hearken unto his voice, as we hope to be saved by his grace. And because in some cases it may be doubtful, what belongs unto Caesar, and what belongs unto God, by reason of the darkness of our understanding, and weakness of our judgement; it behoves us so much the more to labour in the investigation of this difference, and carefully look unto it, that under colour of giving unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's, we do not give unto Caesar that which is not Caesar's, and not give unto God that which is Gods: and under colour of giving unto God that which is Gods, we do not give unto God that which is not Gods, and not give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. And albeit D. Prideaux his Lecture was neither delivered (as I am persuaded) by word of mouth, nor afterwards set forth in print to strengthen so sharp proceed 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 proceed, even then (as it seems) intended; and that neither according to any Law or Canon that we know of; therefore I am driven, (who otherwise, I am verily persuaded, should never have set hand unto this work, but lest it unto others, who are better versed in practical and pastoral Divinity than myself) to give myself to the examination, both of the Preface, and of the Book itself: for we labour, as it were, for life under the burden of it; and this is set forth, as it seems, to promote our condemnation.   

THE DOCTRINE OF THE SABBATH DELIVERED in the Act at Oxenford, Anno 1622. By D. PRIDEAUX, His Majesty's Professor in Divinity in that UNIVERSITY. And now translated into English for the benefit of the common people, Mark 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 took beginning even in the Infancy of the Church, and grew up with it. For as we read in the Acts, There risen up certain of the Sect of the Pharises which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise the people, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses, whereof the Sabbath was a part: which in the general, as the Apostles laboured to suppress in the first general Council holden in Jerusalem. 2. So did Saint Paul Sect. 2 (upon occasion of whose ministry this controversy first begun) endeavour what he could against this particular; sharply reproving those, which allowed yet the jews Sabbath, 
Gal. 4.10, 11.  or observed days, and months, and times, as if he had bestowed his labour in vain upon them. But more particularly in his Epistle to the Colossians, Let no man judge you in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath days, 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 suppress this error, it grew up still and had its patrons Sect. 3 and abettors. 3. Ebion and Cerinthus, two of the wretchedest Heretics of the Primitive times, 
See August. de Haeres. & Epiph.  and after them Apollinaris, are said to countenance and defend it, which doubtless made the Ancient Fathers declare themselves fully in it, as a dangerous point: which seemed to confirm the Jews in their incredulity, and might occasion others to make question of our Sect. 4 Saviour's coming in the flesh. 4. Hence was it that Irenaeus, justin Martyr, Tertullian and Eusebius, men of renown 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) affirm for certain, that never any of the patriarchs before Moses Law did observe the Sabbath: which questionless 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 talk 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 rival. 6. Nor do I find but that all superstitious fancies about that day, were as wholly abrogated as the day itself. Save that S. Gregory tells 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 do not envy 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 Rabshakeh, when he refused to speak in the Aramites language, but chose rather to speak in the Jews tongue in the audience of the people that were on the wall; that if they did not hearken unto him, they might eat their own dung, and drink their own piss, with the rest. What will be the condition of some of them who do not hearken to this Praefacer; I know not, but according to my poor judgement, my opinion is, that as many as hearken to this Praefacer, if Christ's coming shall be on his own day as Austin hoped, 
Sermon. de tem. serm. 154.  it would be (and what day more likely in all probability?) and at his coming on the Lord's day he should take them in their sports, their own hearts would misgive them, that their comfort should be as little as that the Orator threatened unto the Jews upon the wall, in case they did not hearken unto him. In a book printed not long ago I hear, there is alleged a passage of one of the 
“ Theodoret.  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 Greek sentence is 
“ and by inquiry I find it true  said to be retained, 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 quality, by occasion of mutual communication between us. But since, I hear the Author hath made amends for that another way. For having in the first edition professed, that Popish errors are not damnable in themselves, which with what respect it should be delivered for the benefit of the common people, amongst Protestants, I know not; in the second edition it is corrected thus, popish errors are not damnable in the issue. But where corrected? not in the text, (that continuing the same still, that such errors are not damnable in themselves) but among the Errata at the end of the book, although the Author was warned of the strangeness of that assertion (as I hear) and that in contradiction to the doctrine of the Bishop of Canterbury in his Treatise of Counsels, professing that the Papists withholding the cup from the 
* people.  people, is a damnable error. Here is brave juggling in the Text to comply with some, and in the Errata, to provide against afterclaps for himself, and to comply 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 task for the benefit of himself, yet he plainly deals upon an advantageous argument. But if his Majesty shall be pleased out of his gracious disposition (whereof he hath given many remarkable documents) to vouchsafe to receive information concerning the honour of the Lords day, in way of a just and necessary Apology, which we are driven to make, I trust (through God's goodness (in whose hands are the hearts of Kings) it shall be neither advantageous to him, nor disadvantageous to us; and his Majesty may perhaps be found to absolve us in the Court of his own conscience. But what is that benefit of the common people, whereof this Translator is so zealous? I guess it is in freeing them from superstition; and that hereafter they may not be so peevishly foolish, as out of any Cabalismes of conscience, to forbear their may-games; and usual dance on the Lord's day; yet some, and they no small ones, as I have heard, do profess them not 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 Tavern, to give God thanks for our deliverance out of the I'll de Re? But how comes that to be accounted superstitious, which all the Bishops of the land, and the whole Kingdom accounts the profanation of the Sabbath, not to speak of particular Bishops, though as great for learning and place, as Bishop Andrew's, who in his pattern of catechetical doctrine, tells us of some, who on the Lord's day, vacant nugis, specta●ulis, theatris, choreis, and approves the styling of such a Sabbath, Sabbatum aurei vituli, the Sabbath of the golden Calf; I make bold to translate it for the benefit of the common people; and B. Downham bestows the like denomination upon such a Sabbath. Bishop Andrew's over and above citys Austin for the like saying, but that is more than any quotation of his doth make good, for aught I find hitherunto. But what should I allege one or two Doctors opinions hereupon though never so great, when an whole Kingdom stands for the same in my judgement, even the Kingdom of England, as may appear 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, than his holy worship and service. 2 That the due sanctification of the Lords day, is a great part of God's holy woship and service. 3 That men are very prone to profane it. Now to prevent this profanation 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 man's parish on the Lord's day, about any sports or pastimes is to profane the Sabbath. For to prevent the profanation of our Christian Sabbath and to maintain the sanctification thereof is this law made. Now to come out of a man's own parish about what business soever, no wise man will say that it is to profane the Sabbath; but according to the nature of the business, whereabout he comes forth of his own parish, so shall he be found, either to profane the Sabbath, or not to profane it. As for example, for a man to come forth of his own parish to hear a sermon, no man I think, will say, that it is to profane the Sabbath. In like manner, to come forth of his own parish, into an other parish to fetch a Physician or Surgeon in case of necessity, no man will say that this is to profane the Sabbath, because the business about which he comes is not to profane the Sabbath. But for a man to come out of his own parish to buy or sell, to trade or traffic, no necessity urging thereunto, this is to profane the Sabbath; because in such sort to trade on the Sabbath day, is to profane the Sabbath. In like sort, for a man to come out of his own parish about any sports or pastimes, is therefore to Profane 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 Lord's day be a profanation of the Lords day our Christian Sabbath; it followeth that may-games and moricings, and dance, at such times usual, are also a manifest profanation of the Sabbath. And hererin we speak, as I conceive, in his Majesty's meaning, assisted with the great Council of his Kingdom, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the House of Commons: and whosoever shall account it superstition to say so, shall therewithal charge his royal Majesty, and all the Lords both Spiritual and Temporal; and in a word, the whole Parliament with superstition. Yet if it were only the benefit of the common people, that this Translator did intent, I for my part should be content to suffer him to enjoy the honour of seeking the benefit of the people; only admonishing the people committed to my charge, to consider well whether there be any such benefit to be reaped thereby as is pretended. 
2 Pet. 3.  And seeing Saint Peter exhorts us to give diligence, that we may be found of Christ in peace, when he comes in flaming fire to render vengeance on all them that know not God, nor obey not the Gospel of Christ Jesus: Let every one examine himself, whether he could be content to be taken dancing about a maypole on the Lord's day, when the Lord, even the Lord of the Sabbath shall come, and that to be found of him in this condition, were to be 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 own cause, and to labour herein as for life: even in examination of the doctrine here delivered, that we may find upon how just ground it proceeds; otherwise we may be justly condemned of all: and in the censures that pass upon us whether of Excommunication, or Suspension, or Deprivation, find 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 we nothing doubt but that all the days of the week 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 days of the week are given us to labour in our ordinary callings, for the maintenance of our life temporal: but the seventh is sanctified by God, that is, dedicated to holy exercises in the service of God, and to inure us to recreate ourselves and to delight in the Lord; that as his soul takes pleasure in us, so our souls 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 six days of labour; whence it follows evidently, that when a man was hungry as the disciples were, when they plucked the ears of corn, they were not bound by any religion of the Sabbath to abstain from such a course, whereby a man's strength would become more and more weakened and impaired. Not that these things were commanded on the Sabbath day, but permitted; as is often signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is lawful; and for good reason. 
“ Matth. 12.10.12. Mar 3.4. Luk. 6.9.  For the Sabbath being ordained to promote a man's bene esse, his well being; and that in the best things it supposeth liberty to provide for his esse in case of necessity; lest otherwise he shall be found uncapable of those things that concern his bene esse, his well being. For our nature wanting necessary refreshment doth thereby many times become the more unfit for holy excerises, and to perform that duty which God requires, and hath deserved at our hands. How were jonathans' eyes enlightened upon the tasting of a little honey, 1 Sam. 14.29. But this Translator desires, as it seems, from the generality of man's good to seal up an opinion in the minds of his Readers, that the Sabbath was made not only for the service of God, and for the promoting of a man in the knowledge and fear of God, but for the furthering of his carnal pleasures also. But never was it known that our Saviour justified any liberty to such courses on the Sabbath: Neither were any such things, as it seems in course, in the days of the Prophet Amos, who reprehends them for saying, Am. 8.5. When will the Sabbath be gone, that they might return to their worldly courses? Rather they could wish their sun might stand still on that day, as sometimes it did in the days of joshua, if liberty were given to sports, pastimes, and pleasures on that day: and it wure wondrous strange that liberty should be debarred them from kindling a fire to set forward the structure of the Sanctuary, 
Exod. 35 3. Luke 33.25. ●ast.  made to this very end that the Lord might dwell among them: And from so precious a work 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 sensual course of recreation, according to the common fashion of the world. Undoubtedly, howsoever it stands now with us Christians; in the days 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, than the embalming of the body of the Son of God, who was Lord of the Sabbath. And therefore this text is most unseasonably and impertinently alleged by the Translator to serve his turn, being fare more fit to cross his purposes, than any way to promote them. So from the consideration of the title, I come to the preface.  
If the antiquity of this controversy concerning the Sabbath, were any thing material; this Praefacer were foundered at the first: For what if the Sabbath be 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 Egypt: the law commanding to honour parents, to abstain from murder, adultery, theft, were not all these the Law of Moses? Is not the law of sanctifying the Sabbath one of the ten Commandments delivered by God from Mount Sinai as well as the other nine? and was it not kept in the Ark as well as the rest? Circumcision was no law of Moses, and therefore albeit it be said joh. 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, than was the first giver of it. So that the Law of Moses in this place is to be understood of the ceremonial law, not of the moral law contained in the Decalogue, and among these ten Commandments, that of the Sabbath is one, and commended unto them in that state as none so much, Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it; and not only before Moses, but before Abraham and Noah also, we read, 
Gen. 2. ●, ●.  that the seventh day God rested from all the works that he had made, and that therefore God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.  
Of any Minister or Pastor in the Church of England that maintains 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 years in the Primitive Church, not the Lord's day only, but the seventh day also was religiously observed, not by Ebion and Cerinthus only, but by pious Christians also, as Baronius writeth and Gomarus confesseth, and Rivet also, that we are bound in conscience under the Gospel, to allow for God's service a better proportion of time, than the Jews did under the law, rather than a worse. And further it is well known, that besides the weekly Sabbath, there was variety of observation of times amongst the Jews, 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 Commandment was, for the sanctifying of the weekly Sabbath. So that this Praefacer every way showeth miserable looseness in his discourse. And if Ebion and Cerinthus, and Apollinaris, how wretched heretics soever did still enforce the sanctification of the Jewish Sabbath, (whose wretchedness yet consisted not so much in enforcing this, as in enforcing 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 practice 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 heretics as Ebion and Cerinthus, and Apollinaris, for their blood have gone so fare, as not only to overthrow the observation of the Jewish Sabbath, but the sanctifying of the Lords day also. The opinion of the law ceremonial standing still in force (which indeed was the opinion of the heretics mentioned) is I confess, a dangerous point, and such as not only seemed (as this Praefacer minceth it, out of what degree of wisdom or providence I know not) to confirm the Jews in their incredulity, but indeed justly might confirm them; nor only occasion, but justly cause also others, to make question of our Saviour's coming in the flesh; not so the observation of the seventh day to sanctify it, for aught this Author hath hitherto manifested, or throughout this preface of his doth manifest; and the sanctification of this day is apparently 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 ceremonial. Yet what saith Austin against these heretics, to whom this Author in the first place referreth us? All that he delivers against the Cerinthians in reference to this particular is only this: They say that we ought to be circumcised, and that other like precepts of the Law are to be observed. I translate it for the benefit of the common people. Of the Ebionites thus, They observe the carnal commandments of the Law, to wit, Circumcision of the flesh and the rest, from whose burdens we 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 heretical opinions of the Apollinarists in the last place writes thus of them: After the last resurrection (say they) Sabbaths, Circumcision, jewish difference of meats, and all other legal ceremonies shall have place, yea also there shall be a Temple amongst us. And is not this wild stuff, in reference to the sanctification of the Lords day, now in question amongst us?  
Now let the Reader judge with what modesty it is avouched, That Hence it was that Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Eusebius, do affirm for certain, that never any of the patriarchs 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 patriarchs days Christ was not as yet come in the flesh, but rather to come long after their days; and consequently though it be a dangerous course in these days to lay any ground of suspicion that Christ is not already come, but as yet to come; yet this was of no dangerous condition at all in the days of the Patriarches, because in their days Christ was not come, but to come long after. D. Prideaux gins with Tertullian by this Author translated thus, Let them (saith he in a particular Tract against the Jews) 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 Ark against the Deluge; or finally that Abraham in offering his son Isaak; or that Melchisedech in execution of his Priesthood took notice of it. Now I appeal to every sober man's judgement, whether to put the Jews in those days to show this, be to affirm for certain, That never any of the patriarchs before Moses Law did observe the Sabbath. It is true indeed, we have no particular relation of the observation of the Sabbath in that Book of Genesis, and this Tertullian knew full well; and again it is as true that there is no testimony of aught to the contrary. In the Book of Josuah in like sort there is not any mention of the observation thereof (any more than in the Book of Judges, of Ruth, of the two Books of Samuel) but rather something to the contrary, to wit, in the siege of jericho, and marching round about the walls of jericho seven days together. But yet in general we read in Genesis, that when God had finished all his works in six days, 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 certain years after, I appeal to every Christian to judge between 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 Adam's days for divine service, how improbable is it, that Cain and Abel should concur at the same time, in bringing their offerings unto the Lord; and if not at the same time, how could Cain discern that Abel's offering was respected and accepted of God, when his was not? Yet for certain, it was observed before Moses Law, if by the Law we understand the Law given on mount Sina, as appears manifestly Exod. 16. And withal it is thereby evident, that from the beginning of the world until that time, the distinction of the year into weeks was observed, otherwise it were impossible to know, which day was the seventh in correspondency to the seventh from the Creation, (save by particular revelation whereof we read nothing) now that being unknown, the reason of sanctifying the seventh day by an holy rest, drawn from God's rest on the seventh, that is, the last day of the first week from the Creation had been utterly void, and nothing at all agreeable. And this distinction of time into weeks was observed from all Antiquity by the Gentiles, as hath been confirmed by Wallaeus and Rivetus, with the help of Claudius Salmasius, that learned Antiquary; and likewise that the seventh day was a Festival even among the Gentiles. And albeit divers others of the Ancients are alleged to the same purpose, as affirming that the patriarchs 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 justin 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 Sabbaths. And Irenaeus in like manner, thus, Abraham himself without Circumcision, and observation of the Sabbaths, believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; 
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 (alleged 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 Jews; I add, or in reference to the other Sabbaths commanded in the Law of Moses; or lastly in reference to the manner of solemnising them among the Jews, 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 known; for they take no pains to prove it. Now consider, what ground could they have for the custom of the Patriarches 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 moral way only, than any they could bring to the contrary. Secondly, than again, could they have better grounds for the practice of those ancient Patriarches both before, and after the Flood than the Jews themselves? I presume none will be so immodest as to affirm this; and if they had any such evidence, it stood them upon to produce it, especially in dealing against the Jews. Thirdly, they deliver this as a thing undeniable by the Jews themselves, with whom they deal in this particular: but the Jews had no such faith, as to believe that the ancient Patriarches never observed the weekly Sabbath. For none are of this opinion but such as think that passage Gen. 2.3. of God's 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 Jews. Manasseth Ben Israel a modern Rabbin, in his book entitled The Reconciler, Conciliator, according to the argument of that his writing, which is to reconcile places of Scripture, in show 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, think (with thyself) that in Egypt where thou servedst, thou wast by force constrained to labour, on the very Sabbath: Evidently manifesting not out of his own particular opinion, but as out of the general opinion of their ancient Rabbins, that the Sabbath and the observation thereof was a duty in the very days of the Patriarches. 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 that the Sabbath might be 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 ten Commandments) to the end that knowing those precepts to be everlasting, they should understand that this Commandment also was to be accomplished amongst them. And indeed Tertullian himself professeth that the Jews were of this opinion, as Rivetus observes out of his book against the Jews, thus translated, God from the beginning did sanctify the seventh day, resting from all the works that he had made, and that thereupon Moses said unto the people, Remember ye the Sabbath day to sanctify it. And therefore when Mercer saith concerning the meaning of these words, Genes. 2.3. Hebraei fere referunt in futurum: the Jews for the most part refer it to the time to come: he is to be understood of the later Jews; but of this more shall be spoken ere we part from this section. 4 Fourthly, not one of the ancient Fathers is alleged by our adversaries, delivering his opinion upon that passage, Genes. 2.3. to show what he conceives to be the true meaning thereof, which yet is the only ground whereupon our doctrine is built concerning the original institution of the Sabbath; and seeing it contains a meaning at first sight manifestly contradictious to that which they affirne, as we interpret it of the weekly 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 fair interpretation vindicate themselves from suspicion of contradicting the express Word of God. 5 Tertullian himself justifies our doctrine, namely, that God from the beginning sanctified the seventh day, as Rivetus shows out of his fourth book against Martion, cap. 12. where he saith, Christum ipsum Sabbati diem, benedictione Patris à primordio sanctum benefactione sua efficere sanctiorem, That Christ himself 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 Tertullia's meaning in the place alleged to the contrary, cannot be, that the ancient Patriarches simply observed not the weekly Sabbath, but only that they observed it not after that manner the Jews did; and that the like interpretation must be given of the passages alleged out of other of the Ancients. 6 For further proof whereof, observe that Theodoret, albeit on the 20. of Ezekiel he saith in like manner that God prescribed unto the Jews the sabbatical vacations,  haec civilis administrationis ratio peculiaris à Gentium quidem eos distingueret institutis: that this peculiar administration might distinguish them from the customs of the Gentiles: yet Wallaeus shows 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 ordain this day to rest and sanctification. As who having created the creatures in six days, by the rest of the seventh day manifested the creation to be perfected; like as in seven days he concluded the whole circle of days. 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 he did not think that day unfit to have any thing created therein, but only it was his pleasure to ordain it for a day of rest. The same Author shows chrysostom to be of the same opinion in his 10. Homily on Genesis, whose words in Latin he rendereth thus, jam 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 week one entire day is to be sequestered and employed on spiritual actions. These authorities in my judgement should be of the greater force, for as much as they deliver their opinion by way of interpretation of God's Word, and that according to the plain literal meaning, and that such as whereunto every Christians conscience, not forestalled with prejudice, is prone enough to yield by reason of the native evidence of the words. For they denote an external action and transient, not an internal and immanent in God, (all of which kind are eternal) which external action is the dedication of the day to holy uses, which cannot be imagined to be done any other way (as I should think) then by commanding it to be sanctified. The same Author shows Austin to have been of the same judgement, writing thus, 
August. epist. 86. ad Casulanum.  When God sanctified the seventh day, because thereon he rested from all his works, he did not deliver aught concerning the Fast or Dinner of the Sabbath: nor afterwards, when to the Hebrew people he gave commandment for the observation of the day itself, did he mention aught as touching the receiving or not receiving of food: only commandment is given concerning men's vacation, from their own or from servile works, which vacation the former people receiving as a shadow of things to come, in such manner rested from their works as now we behold the jews to rest. He citeth also Theophilus' Patriarch of Antioch a most ancient writer in his second book to Autolychus writing thus, Furthermore, as touching the seventh which amongst all 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 Greek, 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 he had finished all his works in six days, and thereupon blessing it and sanctifying it, whereupon it grew to be a festival day generally amongst all? Tertullian though alleged on the other side, yet hath been already showed to be of the same mind, in this particular with chrysostom and Austin. Add 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 spoke in the creation of the world, which by revolution from that time to this, according to the circle of seven days returneth. Athanasius also upon those words of our Saviour, 
Matth. 11.27.  All things are given to me of my Father, distinguisheth between 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 six days working, semper celebrari solebat, was always wont to be celebrated: If always, then before the children of Israel's coming out of Egypt, before Abraham, before the flood, even from the beginning of the days of Adam the first of men. Add unto this the received, and most current opinion of the Jews, 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 weekly revolution thereof? and he delivers this not of the Jews only, but of the Greeks' and Barbarians, of inhabitants of Mayn-land, and Lands, those of Europe, of Asia, and of the whole habitable part of the world to the very ends thereof. josephus' 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 Jews rested, had not reached. Add unto this the testimony of two Rabbins, mentioned by Broughton in his Consent of Scriptures acknowledging this, and another Rabbin alleged by Peter Martyr upon Genesis, both cited by Master Richard B●field in his answer to Master, Breerwood. Give me leave to add my mite also of mine own observation. The 92. Psalm hath this title. A Psalm 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 Jews in those days, Adam sanctified the Sabbath. Rabbi David Kimchi testifies the same in his Commentary upon that Psalm, to be the doctrine delivered in their Darash, namely, that Adam the first conceived this Psalm after he was created on the Sabbath day, and that afterwards he sinned, and so profaned the Sabbath. So that notwithstanding all the bluster which this Author makes, this fourth Commandment may continue moral nevertheless. And sure I am, Irenaeus puts this difference between the words of the Decalogue (so he speaks and consequently expungeth not, but rather includeth the fourth Commandment) and the ceremonial laws, 
Iren. l. 4. cap. 31.  that Decalogi verba, the words of the Decalogue spoken by God himself unto all, do therefore continue in like manner with us, receiving extension and augmentation by the coming of Christ in the flesh, but no dissolution. But the precept of bondage (so he calls the ceremonials) by themselves he commanded unto the people by Moses, fit for their instruction and discipline. And Doctor Andrew's I am sure, so great a Prelate in our Church, denies all ceremonialitie thereunto, save only so fare as may justify the change of the day, and in reference to the rigorous rest of the Jews. And Azorius confesseth (as before hath been alleged) that after six day's work, one day should be 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 feign obtrude upon us; but rather with Chrysostom, that God by creation hath taught us as much, and now God hath gone before us herein, we conceive it to be most agreeable to reason. And D. Field did profess as much upon acknowledgement of the Creation, as Master Brode confesseth.  
If all talk of observation of the Jewish Sabbath vanished not till the days 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 find no mention. Yet I think 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 been instituted by the Church from the Apostles days, which latter clause is an ambiguous phrase. For it may be applied to the days after the Apostles. If in the Apostles days, then undoubtedly it was instituted by the Apostles, what meant he then to say it was instituted by the Church, and not to be so ingenuous as to confess that it was instituted by the Apostles? How far off is he from acknowledging it to have been 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 festivity truly the Lord hath translated unto the Lord's day. And Cyrill in his 12. book on john, chap. 58. considering the Lords appearance a second time on the eighth day, Thomas then being present, and upon consideration finding it to have been the first day of the week, concludes thus: jure 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 he concludeth thus, so undoubtedly his opinion was the Apostles themselves did conclude in like manner.  
Now albeit much had been effected for the abrogation as well of all superstitious fancies about that day, as of the day itself (that is of the Jewish sabbath) by the labours of the Father's , 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 kind, that they would neither work upon the Saturday, no nor so much as wash upon the Sunday. So little effectual were the labours of Damascen and venerable Bede, that they could not prevent the superstitious fancies of some that lived an hundred years before. For Gregory by Bellarmine's account died in the year of our Lord 604. and Damascen lived long after the year 731. and Bede was living in the year 731. as Bellarmine observes out of his fifth book of Historia Anglicana. Who would desire an adversary should betray more weakness than this Author? but we see manifestly whither he tends, and no marvel if God smites him with the spirit of giddiness and confusion. His quotation of Gregory seems to be the same with that which we find in the decrees De consecrat. didst 3. cap. Pervenit. Now whereas this Praefacer relates it as of the same persons, it is fare otherwise in Gregory, for apparently the relation in Gregory is concerning different persons, for thus it runs, Pervenit ad me, etc. Relation is made unto me, that certain men of a perverse spirit have sowed amongst you some corrupt doctrine contrary to our holy faith: so as to forbid any work to be done on the Sabbath day: these men we may well call the Preachers of Antichrist. Then he sets down what shall be the practice of Antichrist at his coming, 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 means to imitate Christ; and therefore will conform himself to the practice 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 himself to die and rise again, therefore he will have the Lords day to be had in veneration. Where by the way observe two things; 1. The practice of Christians in Gregory's days, to keep themselves from all work on the Lord's day. 2. That Antichrist would imitate Christ, as in pretending to die and rise again: so in commanding the Lords day to be kept holy. A shrewd evidence that both Gregory, and the whole Church in those days, were of opinion that the Lords day was of Christ's institution; which Antichrist perceiving would conform thereto, the better to promote his own counsels. Now the reason why he would command the Jews 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 jews Sabbath kept also, compelling the people to judaize, and restoring the outward ceremonies of the Law, that so he may bring the jews in subjection unto him also. Then he makes mention of another relation; Aliud quoque ad me perlatum est; Another report was brought unto me; 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 Lord's 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 mark 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 profess I was not a little moved at this his Translation, nothing answerable to Gregory's 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 do not permit this to be done on any day. But if the body's necessity require it, we do not forbid this on the Lords day. Now I do not find that any man useth to wash hands or face out of any luxurious disposition, neither do I know in what sense the necessity of the body can require it. For the necessity of the body in this place, seems to me to be spoken in reference to the recovery of a man's health, requiring no time to be neglected. Hereupon I am verily persuaded, that by Lavari in Gregory, is to be understood a man's going into the Bath; which may be done out of a luxurious disposition, and merely for pleasure. Then again, the necessity of the body may require it, and according to these different cases it is by Gregory both permitted on the Lord's day, to wit, in case of necessity, and denied on any day, in case it be done only to satisfy a man's lusts. And I find a great difference in the Latin phrase, between Lavare to wash, and Lavari to be washed, and that out of Varro his eight book of the Latin 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 Baths it is not well said, I have washed, but I am washed. And accordingly runs 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 usual fee to be paid of them that made use of the Baths, was not exacted of such. Hence is that phrase, Mercede lavari, to go 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 heresy 1126.) began to draw too deep on these lees of Judaisme, which here our Doctor intimates in the seventh Section, where he joins 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 counted 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 Moses gave commandment to the Jews, that they should sanctify 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 clock, and to continue till Sunrising upon the Monday morning: During which latitude of time, it was not lawful to do any kind of work what ever; no not so much as bake bread on Saturday for the Sundays eating; to wash or dry linen for the morrow's wearing. Yea, they had miracles in store, pretended to to be wrought on such as had not yielded to their doctrine, thereby to countenance the superstitious, and confound the weak. And which was more than this, for the authority of their device, they had to show a letter sent from God himself, and left prodigiously over the Altar in Saint Simeons' Church in Golgotha: wherein the Sabbatarian dream was imposed forsooth upon all the world, on pain of divers 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 do withal repeat the miracles, whereby this doctrine was confirmed. I add no more but this, that could I either believe 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 persuade myself to entertain it.  

Exam.  It seems this Author is not of their opinion, who think those times wherein Peter de Bruis lived, about the year 1126. to have been darker times than the days of Gregory; though some pass such censure on those times, accounting them times of darkness, he is more wise than to concur in opinion with them; and it is a part of his wisdom (as it seems) 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 darkness. Now who are those some? not Papists I presume, but Protestants rather; and what true Protestant can he name that thinks otherwise? we have cause to fear that too many for their advantage, can be content to veil themselves under the vizard of Protestants, when in heart they are Papists▪ neither is it possible, (I should think) that any other but such, should think any better of those times, than as of times of darkness. It is very likely, this Author is not of opinion, that the man of sin is yet revealed, or any such time the Apostle prophesyeth of 2 Thess. 2. of giving men over to illusions to believe lies, for not receiving the love of the truth. I much doubt whether he believes that Rome is the whore of Babylon, whereof Saint john speaketh, Revel. 17. though he professeth of that whore of Babylon, that it is that City, which in his days did rule over the Kings of the earth: yet in that which he accounts light, he can be content to concur with Calvin, in denying the morality of the fourth Commandment, as touching one day in seven to be sanctified unto the Lord. But whatsoever this Peter de Bruis was, whom he professeth to have drawn too deep on the lees of Judaisme, he avoucheth no testimony hereof, but only D. Prideaux his joining the Petrobrusians with the Ebionites, Sect. 7. Now Hospinian professeth that which is directly contrary, of the Petrobrusians; as whom he joins 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 Holidays belong to the ceremonies of the jews, 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 coming of Christ. And the Anabaptists now adays seem to be of the same opinion. In the third Tome of the Counsels set forth by Binius, and 2. part, there is an enumeration of his opinions in five particulars, and that, as it seems 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 seems, was the man that most opposed this Petrus de Bruis. Against his errors he wrote a book in form of an Epistle on these points. 1. Of the Baptism of children. 2. Of the authority of the book 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. Again, of the baptism of children. 7. Of Temples, Churches, and Altars. 8. Of the veneration of the holy Cross. 9 Of the sacrifice of the Mass, and of the truth of Transubstantiation. 10. Of prayers for the deceased. 11. Of praising God by Hymns and musical instruments. Thus Bellarmine relates the heads of that discourse of his; not any of which, for aught I perceive, savoureth of any such Sabbatarian fancy, 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 certain notes, wherein upon these words in the Preface Contra haereses Petri de Bruis, he writes thus; Of this Peter of Bruis who gave name to the Petrobrusian heretics, no mention is found, neither in the historians, who writ the story of those times, nor with them, who then, or a little after, contrived the Indices of heresies and heresiarchs. Alphonsus à Castro (as I think) was the first, who after this our Author, remembered him, lib. 3.5. Baptisma. haeres 5. and writes that he was a French man of the province of Narbon. Although Bernard the son of Guido writes that Pope Calixtus the second, in the year 1128. on the eight of the Ideses of june held a Council at Tolouse with Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Abbats of the Province of Gothia, Gascony, Spain, and hither Britain. In which Council, amongst other things ordered there, all those haeretiques were damned and driven out of the Church, who counterfeiting a show of religion, did condemn the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood, the Baptism of children, and all Ecclesiastical Orders, and the bands of lawful marriages. All which heresies as invented by Peter Bruis, and propagated by Henry his successor, our Peter in this Treatise of his doth pursue. So that this whole story seems very obscure; and yet the two latter points mentioned by this Andreas, I do 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 he calls them) but to these five heads. 1. He denies that children before they come to the age of understanding can be saved by the Sacrament of Baptism, and that another's faith can profit him, who cannot use his own; because by their opinion, not another man's faith but his own with Baptism saveth him, the Lord professing, that whosoever shall believe, and be baptised, he shall be saved; but whosoever will not believe shall be damned. 2. That there ought not to be any fabric of Temples or Churches, that such as are made, aught to be thrown down; that holy places for prayers are not necessary for Christians, because as well in a Tavern as in the Church, as well in the Marketplace, as in the Temple; before an Altar, or before a stable God doth hear being called upon, and heareth them who are worthy. 3. He commands holy crosses to be broken in pieces and burned, because the representation of such an instrument, whereupon Christ was so direfully tortured, and cruelly slain is not worthy of any veneration or supplication; but in revenge of Christ's torments and death, to be disgraced with all manner of ignominy, and to be bewen in pieces 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, alms, and other good works, which the faithful that are living perform for the faithful that are departed, and maintains 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 spoke 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 wondrous strange, that none of the Historians of those times should make any mention of him? And that may be the reason, why we find no mention at all made of him in the Book of Acts and Monuments. And Philip Mornay in his mysterium iniquitatis, 
Pag. 309, 310.  makes an apology 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 do not find, 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 Usurers, were by his preaching taken off from their lewd courses. That he foretold the Kings of France and England, that except they gave over their hostility the sooner, one of them should shortly die of an evil death. But of any Sabbatarian speculation he was addicted unto I find no mention. It is true, King Richard sometime called him simply Hypocrite, not notable Hypocrite, as this Author expresseth it, affecting rather to speak with a full mouth, than according unto plain 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 appears 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 days of yore. For on a day that Priest Fulco came to King Richard, and in very bold manner spoke 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 liest against thine own head, for I have no daughter at all. Truly I do not lie, quoth the Priest, for as I said, thou hast three wicked daughters, one of them is Pride, another Covetousness, the third Luxury. When the King heard this, he called his Earls and Barons that were about him, and said, Hear 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 Templars; my Covetousness upon the Monks 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 profess continency, they might be luxurious enough, and that not only in ways natural, but in ways unnatural also. This was a biting answer of the King, which the Historian no way liked, and therefore he cries out in a poetical strain, 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 read afterwards, fol. 457. p. 2. what wondrous works were wrought by him, and what were the effects of his preaching among them, namely, that In London and divers other places in England, they would no more presume to make the Lords days their market days. And that in every Church there should be a lamp, or some light burning continually before the Lord's body; and that Citizens and others would have an Alms vessel upon their table, to lay aside therein some provision for the poor. And that hereupon the Devil raised up against him some Ministers of iniquity, who said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to put thy  into another's harvest; to whom he answered, The harvest is great, but the labourers are few. Therefore the foresaid Abbot being thus rebuked by the ministers of Satan, he would no longer trouble the Prelates of England with his preaching, but returned unto his own home in Normandy from whence he came. Seven leaves after this, we find in the same Author, to wit, fol. 466. p. 2. That this Abbot of Flay returned into England, and preaching the Word of God from City to City, forbade all to make the Lords days their market days. For he said that this Commandment for observation of the Lords day came from heaven. So that this speculation of his was dominical rather than Sabbatarian. And the mandate concerning this, is there set down 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 shows how that this Predicant coming to York, was there honourably entertained by the Archbishop, and Clergy, and whole people of that City; and albeit these things, you will say, were acted in times of darkness; yet this Prefacer seems 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 afternoon, until the Sunrising on Monday, in which time he would have them do 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 days of the week, yea, and hours too, I see no cause why for this he should be censured either as an hypocrite, or heretic. But as for the strictness of observation here mentioned, as namely, That during the foresaid time, it was not lawful to do any kind of work what ever, no not so much as to bake bread for the Sundays eating; to wash or dry linen for the morrow's wearing. I find no such thing prescribed by Eustachius, in the relation made by Roger Hoveden; and if Parisiensis hath any such, surely he took it not out of Roger Hoveden; from whom yet this Prefacer affirms he took 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 afternoon of the Eve preceding, in which time is found space both to bake bread for the Sundays eating, and to wash or dry linen for the morrow's wearing, if the weather hinder not. And as for the extension of the dominical observation thus fare, in respect of the bounds thereof; I find no other doctrine preached by Eustachius, than by the Laws 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 spiritual, 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 Edgar's laws, one was, That the Sunday should be kept holy from Saturday at noon, till Monday in the morning. King Canutus also commanded celebration of the Sabbath from Saturday at noon, till Monday morning, forbidding markets, hunt, labours, and Court-keeping during the said space. And it seems to be the general practice of Christendom to allow (or command rather) a preparation for the sanctifying of the Lords day; as appears by the observation of Evening prayers, the day before, warning whereunto is usually given at three of the clock, by the ringing of a bell, or as in some places especially in the winter season, an hour sooner, and scholars accordingly give up school, and present themselves at Evening prayer. And we commonly account Saturday to be half holiday, and warning thereof is usually given at noon by chiming the bells. And whereas we read Exod. 31.15. Six days shalt thou do thy work, and the seventh day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schindler renders it Sabbathum Sabbathuli, and interprets it thus; Sabbathum is from evening to evening, Sabbathulum is that 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 fare from any such Sabbatarian speculation, that none of us (in my knowledge) do think it unlawful to dress meats on the Lord's day. And whereas the Prefacer adds that they had miracles in store pretended to be wrought on such as had not yielded to their doctrine, thereby to countenance the superstitious and confound the weak. What one of an hundred in reading this would not imagine, that Eustachius wrought these miracles for the countenancing of his former strictness: whereas yet on the contrary, neither doth it appear, that he taught or obtruded upon them any such strictness, preaching only against marketting on the Lord's day. Neither were those strange accidents which here are called miracles, any miracles wrought by him: But the Monk, Roger of Hoveden writes, That the Lord jesus Christ, whom we 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; shown miracles of his power, upon some transgressors of the Lords day in this manner. On a certain Saturday after three of clock, a certain Carpenter of Beverlac, as he was making a wooden peg, contrary to the wholesome admonitions of his wife, fell to the ground, taken with a palsy. The like story followeth of a woman, which this Author, according to the Monk's phrase, is content to call Miracles. Now when we hear of as strange a thing as this to have fallen out not long since in Bedfordshire; as namely, a match at Football, being appointed on the Lord's day in the afternoon; while two were in the Belfry, and one of them tolling a bell to call the company together, there was heard a clap of thunder and lightning, seen by some sitting in the Church-porch, as it came thorough a dark lane towards the Church, and flashed in their faces who sat in the Church-porch, and scared them; thence it went into the Church, and turning into the Belfery, tripped up his heels who was tolling the bell, and struck him stark dead; and the other with him blasted in such manner, that shortly after he died; we do not call this a miracle, though we count it a remarkable judgement 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 hear of the like sport at Football on the Lord's day, at a place called Tidworth, after Evening prayer in the Churchyard, and that therein one had his leg broken, which thereupon gangrened, so that forthwith he died thereof; we do 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 Emperors, 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 exercentes fulmine intèremptos, quosdam artuum contractione multatoes, quosdam visibili igne absumptos, subito in cincrens resolutos, poenaliter occubuisse. Proinde necesse est, ut primum Sacerdotes, Reges, & Principes, cunctique fideles huic dici debitam observationem atque reverentiam devotissimè exhibeant; We have known some busied in works of husbandry on this day, to have been slain with lightning, some punished with the contraction of their limbs, 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, than Kings, Princes, and all faithful persons, most devoutly exhibit due observation and reverence unto this day. The other miracles mentioned by the Monk are of another nature; as of a cake baked on the hearth on Saturday after three a clock in the afternoon, 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 Monk relates to have been in great esteem of the Clergy in those days, and to have prevailed much with many of the people, though for the general he could not bring them off from their marketing on the Lord's day. Yet what are these to be talked of in comparison to those which are comprised in two books of miracles, written by Cluniacensis? and albeit those times may be accounted times of darkness, in comparison of ages foregoing, yet this Prefacer is ready to make answer, that that is but the opinion of some. But whereas he 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 afternoon, the whole Kingdom observes it; as for the strict observation thereof, here mentioned, I have showed that Eustachius speaks of no such thing. If he 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 show this to be their opinion? If he can, why doth he not? And if from three a clock on Saturday in the afternoon, people do prepare for the Lords day, and abstain from such works, 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 Western parts, the Controversy broke out a fresh; though in another manner than before it did. For there were some, of whom Calvin speaks, 
Instit. lib. 2. sect. 33.  who would have had all days 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 cross the doctrine of Saint Paul, who in the text before remembered, and in the fourteenth to the Romans did seem to them to cry down all such difference of days and times as the Church retained. To meet which vain and peccant humour, Calvin was feign to bend his forces, declaring how the Church might lawfully retain set times for God's service, without infringing any of Saint Paul's commandments.  
But on the other side, as commonly the excess is more exorbitant than the defect; there wanted not some others, who thought they could not honour the Lords day sufficiently, unless they did affix as great a sanctity unto it, as the Jews did unto their Sabbath. So that the change seemed to be only of the day; the superstition still remaining no less Jewish than before it was. These taught, as now some do, moralem esse unius diei observationem in hebdomada, 
Ibid. sect. 34.  the keeping holy to the Lord one day in seven, to be the moral part of the fourth Commandment: 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 himself, so fare was he from favouring any such wayward fancy, that as john 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 took the Lord's day to be an ecclesiastical 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 moral part of the fourth Commandment. Secondly, that the day was changed from the last day of the week 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 ceremonial, 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 days, even of the Lords day also, as if that were Jewish. This is the course of the Anabaptists, unto whom Wallaeus adds the Socinians; and Hospinian the Petrobrusians. By what authority 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 jerusalem, 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 shows both in his institutions thus; for seeing in the Lord's 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 shadows, 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 Lord's Day was chiefly chosen, because the Lord's Resurrection did set an end to the shadows of the Law. And in the words immediately preceding he expressly professeth that this change was made by the Apostles, though not so soon in his opinion, as chrysostom thought; who interprets that, the first day of the week, of the Lords Day. And Cyrill long ago upon consideration of our Saviour's apparitions on that day, and then again the eighth day after, makes bold to conclude, 
Cyrill. in joan. 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 author's spirit, he accounts it more exorbitant to think, 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 maintain that none at all is to be set apart to religious worship by Divine authority. And to this purpose he premiseth a general rule, that commonly the excess is more exorbitant than the defect; yet I never heard, that prodigality was censured as worse than covetousness, in opposition to liberality; or rashness, accounted worse than cowardliness, in opposition to fortitude: or superstition worse than profaneness, in opposition to true Religion. As for the sanctity of the day in calvin's 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 plain meaning; not out of excess in the way of superstition, but out of a less exorbitant defect. For the sanctity of the day, in Calvin's language is, when Religione quadam feriando, mysteria olim commendata recolore se somniabant, by resting in a religious manor they thought as it were dreaming, that they observed certain mysteries of old recommended unto them. As appears in his sect. 33. Of the 8. Chap. of his second book of institutions; and such indeed was the sanctity of the day in the Jewish observation thereof. This religion, this holiness Calvin will have to be at an end; and that the Apostle Gal. 1. and Coloss. 2. disputed against them who would have that holiness, that religion to continue still: not against them, who will have one day in the week set apart, thereon to rest from manual works, 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 feigns him to say, to wit, that So the change seemed to be only of the day; but in plain terms, that this were no other than to change the day, and that in contumely of the jews; siquidem manet nobis etiamnum par mysterii in diebus significatio, quae apud judaeos locum habebat, if so be there yet remains with us a mysterious signification equally in the days, such as had place amongst the jews. Now this caution nothing concerns any of our protestant Divines, who maintain the observation of one day in seven as necessary, in resting from manual works, only as they are impediments to the service of God. Nay that one day in seven was observed by the Jews for any mysterious signification contained therein, or by the Patriarches either, or by Adam himself, in whose days 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 be understood of one day in seven indefinitely considered. For as for the rest of the seventh precisely that is acknowledged to have been mysterious. Sect. 32.  to this day, I never heard or read. This latter clause in Calvin, which contains 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 calvin's 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 containing some mysterious signification, were to exceed the jews in a gross and carnal superstition of a Sabbatisme. As touching the observation of some time set a part for God's holy worship, and service, Calvin professeth that the same necessity lieth upon us Christians, for relief whereof the Lord appointed the Sabbath to the jews, and that it pleased our most provident and tender Father to provide for our necessity, no less then for the necessity of the jews.  
Now it is apparent that God commanded the Jews 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 week for his service? And Calvin concludes that Section thus, Why then do 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 fellows in the reformation, with whom he never contended in this argument, but against certain Papists & schoolmen, 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 ceremonial 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 Jews observed their Sabbath: by which Doctrine, way was opened to superstition in this day's observation. His words are plainly directed against such when he saith; Thus vanish the toys of false Prophets, who possessed the people in former times with a jewish opinion. And again, But that is no other thing then in contempt of the Jews to change the day, and in mind to retain the same sanctity of the day: if so be there remains unto us, (to wit by their opinion) an equal mysterious signification of days, to that which had place among the Jews. 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 days, 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 holiday are truly more holy and sacred than other days, and a certain part of Divine worship. This Prefacer is content to make use of john Barclayes report concerning Calvin, namely that he had a consultation once de transferenda solennitate dominicain feriam quintam; of translating the dominical solemnity unto the Thursday. Had it been unto Friday, which is the Turks festival, than it would have wondrously well served Raynolds his turn in his Calvinoturcismus. For it concerned that author to inquire diligently of all Calvin's courses, that stood any way in conformity with the courses of the Turks: neither do I think there could be devised any more remarkable than this. How true this is this Prefacer cannot say, but whether he doth not lick 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 week, and consequently even to Friday; and I do not doubt but pretence of reason might be devised for it by politic heads, as namely, to hold the Turks in better correspondency unto Christianity. Now if Calvin had at any time a consultation hereabouts (which cannot be understood of calvin's single and proper consultation with himself; for then how could the relator be privy to it without revelation; and we commonly say, that three may keep counsel 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 testify so much either by word or writing? As for Barcley, he hath his name ab ursae ungula, from the claw of a Bear; give we him leave to be 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 book Contra monarch machos; and thereby he endeared himself to King james, being also a Scotchman. But King james might think better of him then there was cause, all things considered. For he maintains, that in two cases Kings may cease to be Kings, and to this acknowledgement he finds himself mastered in part by a rule of the civil 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 itself, 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 tail after it. And it may seem strange, that none have taken any pains either to refute it, or clear it, I mean in public. Yet I speak it only in reference to the compass of mine own reading. In private it may be some have dealt upon it, and myself 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 public; but I have always resisted the motion, they being but homely Sermons, accommodated to a Country auditory, neither do I find myself that way fitted for a better audience; I can take some pains in writing controversies, but I cannot take pains in making a Sermon, and when I have taken most, I find I have less edified my people, though perhaps better pleased myself. Yet having not long since understood of a Court distinction of Puritans; namely that some of them are good men, only they cannot conform to the ceremonies of the Church; but other there are, who though they do conform, yet are antimonarchical Puritans: This consideration hath taken a deep impression in me, and brought me to debate with myself, whether it were not fit to publish those poor 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 public view, Our Country f●ith concerning Monarchies. For if we be reputed antimonarchical, no marvel if some course be taken sooner or later to root us out. And this I might make a Prodromus to a greater work, in answer to a book entitled Deus & Rex, a pestilent piece of work, and as it is thought written by one barefoot a Jesuit, containing a refutation of a certain book of one of our divines inscribed God and the King written by Doctor Mockest, a book so well pleasing to King James, that as we have heard, his Majesty thought fit that children should be catechised in it. This being afterwards translated into Latin by Doctor Harris, now Warden of the College by Winchester, hath been now many years ago, answered by a Papist who conceals his name, and that in a very unhappy manner. And a wonder of wonders it may seem, that so vile a piece hath passed so long unanswered; especially considering that heretofore great Bishops chaplains were wont to be employed in answering Papists, and this was the ordinary way of their preferment. I confess there are certain mysteries therein, which perhaps are as scarecrows to deter men from taking Pen in hand to refute it. For the author of this, would bear the World in hand, that he who wrote the book entitled God and the King, and was a Puritan; and that none but Puritans do stand for the absoluteness of Kings in such sort as it is there maintained. And that it is merely a plot to ruinated monarches, by advancing their absoluteness so high; dealing with them herein, as Hercules did with Antaeus; for observing that as often as he threw him to the ground, he risen up with greater strength, for the earth being his mother, as often as he fell into her bosom 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 Air, there he held him between his arms, until he had crushed his breath out of his body, and so made an end of him. In like sort, it is there said, that Puritans find it their only means to ruin monarches, by advancing their absoluteness in so unreasonable a manner: that when the people shall understand it aright, they will be so provoked hereby, that they will strain the uttermost of their power to root out all Monarchies. Nevertheless all this is but a squib, making a great noise 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 rejoice 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 work to labour in this argument: and after I had dispatched my first work of pleading for the supreme absoluteness of God in Heaven; in the next place to try my strength what I could say for the secondary absoluteness of Kings and Monarches here on Earth; I am suddenly driven to intermit all other businesses formerly in hand, and to travail in a new argument, and to strengthen myself against the lightnings and thunders, that may break over our heads we know not how soon; for we see examples before our eyes of sufferings in this kind, and how soon our own turn may come to suffer in the same kind it is uncertain unto us. Therefore to return to john Barcley: we have heard that his father before his death commended him to the Patronage of King james, who accordingly had him attending in his Court somewhile with intent to prefer him: until on a sudden his mind was changed, having received intelligence, that this Gentleman played false with him, living in his Court but as an espy and intelligencer, to discover what he could of his Majesty's affairs unto Queen mother of France; which moved King james ever after, and that most justly, to abominate him. Now such a one, if he could not prove true and loyal unto his natural Prince, can it be expected, he being of a popish spirit, should carry himself truly and honestly towards john Calvin? But sure it is (in this Prefacers' judgement) that Calvin took the Lord's Day to be an Ecclesiastical and humane constitution, only appointed by our Ancestors to supply the place of the jewish 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 proof hereof this Prefacer allegeth 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 follows in Calvin; as a reason of the former thus; For whereas in the Lord's Resurrection is found the end, and accomplishment of the true rest, which the ancient Sabbath shadowed, by the very day which set an end to shadows, Christians are admonished not to stick unto the shadowing ceremony. 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 we best knew what that was, which did set an end to shadows; and accordingly to give notice of the pregnant signification of the Day of the Lords Resurrection? and therefore, 1 Cor. 16.2 He doth entirely refer this to the Apostles, as whom he confesseth, constrained by the jewish superstition to have abrogated the Sabbath, and in the place thereof ordained the Lords Day. Secondly observe that the accomplishment of that which was signified by the Jewish Sabbath he ascribes to the Resurrection. And Doctor Andrew's Bishop of Winchester in his speech delivered in the Star Chamber in the case of Traske professeth that, It hath ever been the Church's 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 Christ's Resurrection brought with it a new Creation, and a new Creation requires a new Sabbath. And he allegeth Austin Ep. 119. saying, The Lord's Day was declared to Christians by Christ his Resurrection, and from thence began to have its festivity. But that at this time Calvin should think it alterable by the Church, no colour of proof is brought; and most unreasonable it is, for any to conceive the Sabbath to be as alterable now, as in the Apostles days it was, when from the Saturday they translated it unto the Sunday. For that alteration depended upon a second Creation, as both Bishop Andrew's 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 seen doth manifest. So that unless this Prefacer can devise a third Creation, and maintain withal the rest on the Lord's Day to be as ceremonial, as the Jews rest on the seventh Day was, there is no colour, why the Christian Sabbath on the Lord's Day, should be as alterable now, as the day of the Jewish Sabbath was. As for the 3. conclusions which he saith Calvin resolves upon; the first whereof he saith to be this, that one day in seven is not the moral part of the fourth Commandment, I say, Calvin avoucheth no such thing; and Wallaeus shows, that generally the friends of Calvin maintained the contrary; between whom nevertheless and Calvin it was never known that there was any contention herabouts. And already I have showed how unshamefastly this Prefacer abuseth Calvin in alleging one half of his sentence, and leaving the other part quite out, so making Calvin to deliver that absolutely, which he affirms only conditionally. The second resolution which he obtrudes upon Calvin, is, that the day was changed from the last day of the week to the first, by the authority of the Church, and not by any divine ordinance. It is true, Calvin saith not, that the day was changed by divine ordinance, 
Comment in't. ep. ad cor. cap. 16.  neither doth he say that it was changed by the authority of the Church; but in plain terms 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 Christ's 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 less authority, than authority Divine; especially considering that Christ's 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 works of Creation; so the day of Christ's Resurrection, was the day of his rest from the work 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 Creator's rest, that ceasing as being ceremonial, as before hath been showed out of Doctor Andrew's; 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 appears that even than were made the more frequent assemblies by Christians, like as the jews came together in their Synagogues on the Sabbath Day; whereby it may appear that the fourth precept of sanctifying the seventh day, as touching the day of the Sabbath and legal rites, was ceremonial; but as touching the worship of God is of the moral 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 Christ's Resurrection, which being as it were another Creation of another spiritual World (as the Prophets speak) 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 resolution which he pin's upon calvin's 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 said to be made by the church, but expressly by the apostles; & they admonished hereof by the day of Christ's resurrection; and Beza professeth that our Christian assembles on the Lord's Day are of Apostolical and Divine tradition. And observe I pray how Bishop Andrew's pleads for Episcopal 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 interpreter, Divino. Nec enim aliquid ab apostolis factum, non dictante hoe iis spiritu Sancto & Divino. Is there any fact of the Apostles, by right not apostolical? But by apostolical, 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 choke us with the authority of Calvin? shall we be urged to yield to the authority of Calvin, who are reproached 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 joannem 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 smoke without some fire. No longer ago 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 Heretics, by him that preached the act Sermon on the Lord's Day in the afternoon; and is it fit, that we should be pregravated by the opinion of Calvin, a man whose memory seems to be hated by men of this Prefacers' spirit, so as few men more?   

The fourth Section.  

Preface.  NEither was he the only one, that hath so determined. For, for the first, that to keep holy one day of seven, is not the moral part of the fourth Commandment, our Doctor hath delivered in the third section, that not Tostatus only, but even Aquinas, and with him all the schoolmen have decreed upon it. Nor was there any that opposed it in the schools of Rome, that I have met with, till Catarinus took up Arms against Tostatus: affirming, but with ill success, that the Commandment of the Sabbath was imposed on Adam in the first cradle of the World, there where the Lord is said to bless the seventh Day, and to sanctify it.  
2 As for the Protestant schools, besides what is affirmed by Calvin, and seconded by the Doctor in this following discourse, this seems to be the judgement of the Divines in the low Countries. Franciscus Gomarus, one known sufficiently for his undertake against Arminians published, An. 1628. a little treatise about the original 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 Commandment, always to set a part one day in seven to God's holy worship? both which he determines negatively.  
And Doctor Rivet one of the four professors in Leyden, although he differs in the first, yet in the second, which doth most concern us Christians, they agree together: affirming also jointly that the appointing of the Lords Day for God's public service, was neither done by God himself, 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 defence 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 add one thing only, which is briefly this. The Hollanders when they discovered Fretum le Morire An. 1615. though they observed a most exact account of their time at Sea; yet at their coming home they found, comparing their account with theirs in Holland, that they had lost a day; that which was Sunday to the one being Monday to the other. Which of necessity must happen as it is calculated by Geographers, to those that compass the World from West to East, as contrary, they had got a day, had they sailed it Eastward. And what should these people do when they were returned? if they must sanctify precisely one day in seven, they must have sanctified a day a part from their to her Countrymen, and had a Sabbath by themselves; or to comply with with others must have broken the moral 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 proved, but shamefully dismembered him, thereby to make him to deliver something absolutely which he delivers only conditionally, and that in opposition unto Papists, who will have the Lords Day to be kept not only 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 moral precept. But for as much as in this precept is determined a special time in sign of the Creation of the World, so it is a precept ceremonial. Where I do observe first, that this ceremoniality is apparently ascribed to the seventh day, and that considered as a sign of the Creation, and not to one day in seven. And this indeed may well be the concurrent opinion of School Divines. As for Abulensis, of what authority is he to preponderate any one of our Divines? nay, I appeal to every humane conscience, whether no more be moral in this precept, then to set some time apart for God's service. For what? is it nothing material, whether we set apart for divine Service, one day in a week, or one day in a month, or one day in a year, or one day in twenty years, or one day throughout the whole course of a man's life? what conscience can be found so cauteriate as to justify this? If so, then let him proceed and say, it is nothing material whether we consecrate unto God one hour in a day, or one hour in a week, or one hour in a month, or one hour in a year, or but one hour throughout the whole course of a man's life. So that I presume every sober man by the very light of nature, will be driven to confess that not only some time ought to be set apart for God's worship (as the Schoolmen commonly teach) but that a convenient proportion of time ought to be destinated unto this. Now let reason itself 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 do oppose the morality of one day in seven, 
Inistitut. part. 2. l. 1. cap. 2.  which is more than I find) a Papist to confront a Papist; who plainly affirmeth, Rationi maximè consentaneum esse, that it is most agreeable to reason, that after six work days one day should be 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 God's Service. Secondly, for the maintenance of uniformity herein amongst his people; who being left unto themselves might, and in all likelihood would have run different ways. And that God hath from the beginning manifested as much, Wallaeus hath showed out of chrysostom 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 week, one entire day is to be segregated and set apart for spiritual operation, and to the same purpose are Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Theodoret, and Augustine alleged by him. Catarinus is in this place brought in quite against the hair; seeing it is not herein, that he is so much as pretended to oppose Tostatus, but rather as touching the original institution of the Sabbath. Yet why he should say that Catarinus hath herein had ill success, I know no reason (neither doth this author once offer to give any) especially considering that the very Romists do acknowledge, that the Sabbath was instituted immediately from the Creation. Their words are these; 
In Apoc. 1.10.  The Apostles and faithful abrogated the Sabbath which was the seventh day and made holiday: for it the next day following being the eighth day in count from the Creation— not only otherwise then was by the Law observed but plainly otherwise then was prescribed by God himself in the 
* They mean the third, but indeed it is the fourth.  second Commandment, yea and otherwise then he ordained in the first Creation, when he sanctified precisely the Sabbath Day, and not the day following. Rivetus citys divers Popish authors affirming the same with Catarinus, contrary to the opinion of Tostatus, and notwithstanding Pererius his concurrence with Tostatus; no less than six Papists of note, Steuchus Eugubinus in Cosmopaea ad cap. 2. Gen. Gilbert Genebrard in his chronology at the first year of the World. Jacobus Salianus in his Annals of the old Testament at the first year 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 Hebrews cap. 5. Num. 8. So that it seems Catarinus did on this point oppose Tostatus with very good success. Neither doth the Doctor on whom this Prefacer relies, show any sufficient cause of rejecting Catarinus, or bring aught 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 do I find any exception taken against his answer, either by the Prefacer or by Doctor Prideaux himself. And therefore I might content myself, 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.   

THE FIRST DIGRESSION, WHEREIN.  
I. Answer is made to Tostatus his arguments proposed by Pererius, to prove that the observation of the Sabbath was ordained by God immediately from the Creation.  
II. Herewithal 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 known, and confirmed by the consent of many, and those noble and illustrious authors, that Adam fell the first day wherein he was created. This saith he, seems to have been the opinion of Irenaeus; and Cyrillus and Epiphanius are cited as approovers of it. He adds, that Moses Barcephas in his book of Paradise both proves 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 Christ's Passion. To whom may be added, saith Pererius, Diodorus the Bishop of Tharsis, as he is cited in the chain of interpreters upon Genesis, upon those words of the third chapter, we do eat of every tree in Paradise. Tostatus himself as this author writes, was sometimes of the same opinion, though afterwards he changed his mind; and conceived 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 Jews, as David Kimchi writes upon that Psalm, whose title is, A psalm for the Sabbath; and that so by sinning he profaned the Sabbath. This opinion of Tostatus and the Jews, Pererius doth not approve: but the reason he gives for his dissenting from them, in my judgement is very weak. For that it runs, because the Lord blessed that Sabbath Day and sanctified it, resting from all his works 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 weak. For we commonly say, the better day, the better deed; and undoubtedly the Lord is holy, as in all his works, so in the execution of condign vengeance. 
jer. 9.2 4.  In this he delights, as in the execution of mercy. And it is usually the Lords course, even on the Lord's Day, to recompense the ways of the wicked upon their own heads, in the profanation of his Sabbaths. Secondly, it may seem strange, that Pererius should serve himself with this reason, namely, of the Lords blessing the seventh day and sanctifying it, seeing he professeth himself 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 thinks no way probable. Others devised a continuance of Adam in Paradise for the space of forty days, answering to our Saviour's fasting forty days; but this he saith hath no show of probability. His own conjecture is, that Adam fell, and was turned out of Paradise that day seven-night 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 day's space was sufficient to have experience of the happiness of that state. For why not as well some day's more or some days less? nay rather, by continuance in the same state, we grow less and less sensible of the happiness thereof. And the happiness 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 conceits between Adam and Christ, as who is thought of many to have been conceived in the Virgin's womb on the sixth day of the week, and on the same day of the week was indeed crucified upon the cross; who seethe not that this conveniency had been found as well on that day fortnight, or on that day three weeks, and so in Infinitum, as on that day seven-night? As ridiculous appears to be his pretence of complying thus with the ancients, whose opinion was, that Adam fell the same day wherein he was created, which he would apply to that day seven-night after. For why not as well to that day three weeks after, or that day a month after, and so in Infinitum? But let us consider Pererius reasons whereby he undertakes to show the unlikelihood of Adam's falling the first day. The first is drawn from the form of Adam's temptation, thus, why do you not eat 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 eat 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 eat not; what is the meaning of we eat, but this, we are wont to eat, quoth Pererius. Yet forthwith he himself enervates this interpretation, confessing that the meaning may be this, It is lawful for us to eat. And I willingly confess, that no argument appears to me so plausible as this, namely that they had formerly tasted of every fruit of the Garden besides this: for it seems very likely, that not till then they were well prepared for satins temptation. And it seems unlikely they would offer to taste of the fruit forbidden until they had tasted of all the rest; then indeed and not till then, the commendation of that as of a 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 Devil's words being not such as these, why do ye not eat of every tree of paradise? but running thus; Yea? hath God said ye shall not eat 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 eat of the fruit of every tree in the Garden, so giving a reason to prove what he objected, namely that God envied their happiness. 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 kind with the benefit of others, and only in degree of excellency above them, than were it no way likely they should begin with this. But seeing it was pretended to be of a fare different kind by Satan's suggestion, not so much for satisfying the appetite of sense, as for satisfying the spiritual desire of the soul in knowing good and evil, which the very denomination of the Tree given by God himself did fairly intimate; and this being cunningly improved 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 fruits 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 goodness of God, in that state of holiness and integrity, that it would have exceedingly confirmed them in their obedience to God, and made the motion of the Serpent at first hearing distasteful, 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 soon, can hardly be justified from Luxury or waist: therefore I rest in my first answer. Pererius his next reason carrieth a great deal of show, but in substance less forcible. Certainly the making of the beasts of the Earth, and of man, might be done in as short a time as it pleased God to have it; especially considering the opinion of some ancients, that all things were made together, and that in a short space; so man's placing in Paradise, and the beasts brought unto him by God, might be soon dispatched: and surely adam's 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 noon, and space enough allowed for the Devil's conference with Eve, and his seducing her, and her seducing Adam. The making of them aprons to hid their nakedness carrieth the greatest show 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 alleged by him for his opinion; I do not find that any of them is express, or by consequent direct for that, whereunto they are alleged; but the inferences made from their words are merely conjectural. For when he writes, that joseph in the first book of his antiquities; and Basil in his Homily of Paradise; and Damascen in his second book of orthodox faith and 10. Chapter. seem to be of this opinion; his ground is only this, because as he saith, they writ that the Serpent in paradise did often come to our first parents and converse with them very gently and familiarly, and that thereupon the Devil took hint to inveigle the Woman. Now this is but a conjecture of theirs; neither do they say that he was wont to confer with them; yet all that they speak of may very well be fulfilled in a few hours. That which to this purpose he allegeth out of Austin de civet. dei lib. 11: c. 21. is only 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 seems Pererius would infer, that before the Devil's temptation they had tasted of them all; but Augustine's 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 show how hereby they were made more pliable to yield to Satan's 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 that which God had forbidden them; and the tasting of all without hurt was no tolerable reason to persuade that in like manner they might taste of the forbidden fruit without hurt; the Lord having professed unto them, that In the day they did eat thereof, they should die the death. Pererius adds that Austin in his twentieth Book 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 than one day. But I find no such thing in the place quoted by him. But I guess the passage he aims at, is that wherein he discourseth of those words of the Prophet Malachy Mal. 3. And the sacrifice of judah and jerusalem shall please the Lord as in the days of old, and in former years; and he inquires, what time that is, which is signified by this phrase, as in the days of old, and in the former years. And first he saith, that perhaps thereby may be signified, the time wherein our first parents were in Paradise. And to this he refers that of Esay Es. 65. According to the days of the Tree of life, shall be the life of my people. And who saith he, knows 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 days of the Tree of life to be the days of the Church of Christ which are now current, and that Christ himself is prophetically called the Tree of life— and that these first men lived not any years in paradise, from whence they were so soon ejected, that they begat no son there, and that therefore that time cannot be understood by this phrase of Malachy (as in the days of old and former years)— I pass by this question: to wit, of the meaning of the Prophet Malachy. Now had Austin simply said that our first Parents continued not many years in Paradise, there had been some colour, as if he thought, Adam had continued some few years, or one year at least, in Paradise. But neither doth Austin deliver this as his own opinion, but as the discourse of others; and that to prove that the words mentioned in Malachy, cannot denote the time of Adam's being in Paradise; for as much as they speak of many years; but Adam continued not years in Paradise, which is proved by this, that he was driven from thence before he had begotten any son; which if it be referred to the conception of a child, as in reason it seems to be, who seethe 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 allegeth out of Gregory is only this, that Man in paradise was accustomed to the words of God, and conversed with the spirit of the blessed Angels; suppose it were so, and with God himself, 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 himself, partly by Doctor Willet upon Genesis. Who on the third Chapter of that book proposeth them in this order. First, the Angels that fell, presently after their Creation sinned, as our Saviour saith, that the Devil did not stand or continue in the truth joh. 8.44. Hereunto Austin consenteth, Factus continuò se à luce veritatis avertit, as soon 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, seems to proceed from that which is less likely to that which is more likely. If the angels of themselves fell so soon, how much more likely is it, that both Satan would set himself with the first, to tempt them, and being tempted less strange it is that they should fall. But concerning the angel's defection, it doth not follow, either by our Saviour's phrase, or Augustine's phrase that either of them believed they fell so soon. But whensoever that was proposed unto them, which was the trial of their obedience; had they approved of it and submitted unto God's Will, that had been or thereupon undoubtedly had followed their confirmation, as it was u not them that stood; and their not approving it, their not submitting unto it was their sin in part, though according to their spiritual 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 zeal and humility. Aquinas professeth it to be more profitable, 
Sum. Pt. 1. q. ●3. art. 6. in. corper●.  and more agreeable to the say of the Saints; that the Devil sinned anon after the first instant of his Creation. Secondly, Doctor willet's second argument is this; 
joh. 8.44.  Our Saviour saith that the Devil was a murderer from the beginning, not of the World, but of man's 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 subtlety of the Devil 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 confess there are two particulars of very momentous consideration. First, the Devil's subtlety 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 confirm them, and make them more steadfast 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 loss, and attempted to return. This reason my palate doth not relish so well; the more Adam should be tormented with the loss of paradise, the better it should be for him in my judgement, rather than worse. And as for attempting to return, I cannot conceive how he should be so vain as to presume to evacuate God's judgements, and then again of any such paradise after Adam's banishment therence, we read nothing. Fiftly, And it is clear (saith Doctor Willet) by the Serpent's first on set, hath God said ye shall not eat 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 been served with any other. But first I do not find, that the Text mentioned hath any such importment; Secondly, this supposeth, that the taste of other fruits would have been apt to hinder the course of Satan's temptations; but how? in respect of giving so good content and satisfaction, yea but this satisfaction was no other than to the sensual appetite; but the Tree forbidden in the very name of it (whence Satan took advantage to promote his temptation) seemed to promise satisfaction in a far different kind, namely to the spiritual appetite of the mind. 6. Adam (saith he) had not yet eaten of the Tree of life, as it 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 increase 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 sin so much as in thought, or circumstance of act, (the want whereof makes even acts natural in this condition of ours, shameful unto us) why should they defer the propagation of mankind; especially considering that the child conceived in the state of innocency should have been without sin. 8. The eighth reason is in effect the same with that of broughton's; If Adam had not sinned the first day, the Lion had eaten Grass; this in my judgement is a most insipid reason. First, because God had ordained, that all beasts at the first should live by Grass Gen. 1.30. Secondly, In the ark of Noah, Lions must have eaten Grass or Hay, or else have starved, they had no power to prey upon their fellow passengers. Thirdly, if Lions and Bears at first had lived by prey, even after Adam's fall, what had become of the rest of God's Creatures, Imbelles damae quid nisi praedae sumus? Lastly it is well known that in these days, in new England, Bears do live by Grass, and their flesh for man's meat is accounted better than Venison 9 Never any man on Earth, Christ only excepted, kept the Sabbath without sin: the Apostle saith, he that is entered 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 Christ's rest: therefore he kept no rest there without sin, he fell then before the Sabbath. This argument I confess seems to be very ponderous and savoury, as built upon the Apostles discourse Heb. 4. But the proposition is not sufficiently proved. For to cease from a man's own works (as they are taken from sins) 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 denied, but that Adam continued in innocency and without sin until his fall. And so long rested from sin, though not in Christ, save that to rest from sin supposeth the precedency of sin. 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 Jews Darash, mentioned by Rabbi David Kimchi on the 92. Psalm. 10. That place lastly makes to this purpose, Psalm 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 divers of the Rabbins do 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 mankind, and placed in Paradise; and the verb properly signifies pernoctare, to continue a night. Only it is of the future tense, which yet to bear the signification of the time past is nothing strange in the Hebrew, though it hath not always Vaughan conversivum, the sign 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 return to that from whence we have digressed. Be it so that Adam continued in his integrity until the end of the seventh day; do we not read expressly, Gen. 2.5. that God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden, that he might dress it and keep it; therefore God had work for him to do, even in things of this World as well as he hath for us. And Martin Luther professeth as much; 
Tom 6. in Gen. c. 2. v. 3.  It follows 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 taught his children, and children's children, what was the will of God and wherein his worship did consist, he should have praised God, given thanks and offered. On other days he should have tilled the ground, looked to his Cattles. And Selncecerus treads in Luther's steps, treating upon the Commandment of the Sabbath. Why then should it be thought superfluous to ordain some days 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 Devil assaulted her? was she not too near the forbidden Fruit? it was within her sight, and the Fruit within her reach. 2. They urge that Vacation from servile works was then in vain, seeing nothing could then be laborious and troublesome unto him. I answer; though it were no pain to him to keep the Garden and dress it; yet this must needs take up his thoughts while he was about it, and many a Gentleman in these days finds less employment than Adam had; will it therefore follow that the observation of the Sabbath is superfluous?  
3. The third reason is, that if this Commandment were then given, it should oblige all men; but it is plain that the Gentiles never observed it, neither do we read the Patriarches did. I answer, there is no soundness 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 only by tradition, might easily be obliterated. The Scriptures Divine are the most ancient Records in the World; but it follows not, that because the Scriptures do not Record how the patriarchs 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 patriarchs did observe it. And the truth is, until the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, we read not of the Church of God any where but in single Families. Neither do we read of the patriarchs before the Flood or a long time after that they kept any Day consecrate to GOD'S Service; will it therefore follow, that those holy Patriarches did set no time at all apart for God's 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 showed out of Manasses Ben Israel, that whereas the Lord enjoining to the Israelites the observation of the Sabbath, bids them remember that they were servants in Egypt; this the ancient wise men among the Jews do aply in this manner, Cogita in Egypto ubi serviebas, etiam ipsu Sabbato per vim te coactum ad labores; think with thyself, how that in Egypt where thou servedst, that by force thou wast constrained to work, even on the Sabbath. So that the observation of the Sabbath was a duty even in those days. Observe farther that in the fourth Commandment, the Jews are charged to look unto it, not only that their children and their servants did observe the Sabbath, but also, the stranger that was within their gates. Now these kind of strangers commonly called Strangers of the gate, and thereby distinguished from Strangers of the Covenant; were such as were not circumcised, though accounted Proselytes in the first dege e. And on them was usually imposed not other burden, besides the observation of the seven precepts of Noah, as Schindler observes upon the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which seven precepts of Noah are also reckoned up by the same Schindler in the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and albeit the observation of the Sabbath were none of them express; yet in as much as the Lord gives express charge that the strangers within their Gates should observe the Sabbath, it seems it was comprehended under one of them; And therefore some think 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 seen 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 sign between me and you, that I Jehovah am your God, because in six days 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 comprehended under the seven precepts of Noah, undoubtedly it was in force, and practise amongst the Patriarches, 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 weeks, 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 pass unansweared in this point. It is true, as Rivetus observes, that Causabon writing upon Suetonius l. 3. 52. and upon these words, Diogenes the Grammarian was wont to dispute at Rhodes on the Sabbath, professeth his opinion, that the observation of weeks now a days generally received; was not commonly received before the days 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 Latins. joannes 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 do agree in this, that there are seven days only, which by revolution in themselves do complete whole time, whereof what reason can we give, but that which Moses gave? to wit, that in six days 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 divers passages to the same purse, as Rivetus hath showed 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 weeks was before the computation of times by months and years was found out by Astrologers; and that the ancient fathers distinguished the spaces of times only by weeks: and that the Caldean Astrologers having observed the course of the Sun, Moon, and other planets were the first that bestowed on the seven days of the week the names of the planets; and that by the testimony of an ancient author Manuscript. Zoroastres and Hystaspis were the authors of these demonstrations. But that this circuit of seven days was in use before Zoroastres and the first authors of Astrology. But the Jews kept themselves as to the distinction of times by weeks, so to call the days by their order, the first, the second; and that the Pythagoreans did the like— and called the first day of the week 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like as the Hellenists called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the year, 1627. There was set forth a book at Venice (as the same Doctor Rivet writes) entitled Thesaurus praeceptorum Isaaci Atiae judaei; in the first part whereof and 157. precept touching the Sabbath, he writes to this effect, that the holiness 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 highness to whom none can approach, built this wonderful frame, he rested on the seventh day. 2. And thus ere I am ware, I am fallen upon the holiness of the day, acknowledged generally by the Heathens themselves as this Jewish writer conceived. Theophilus Antiochenus an ancient Father in his second book 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 God's 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 Jews did; confirmed by the learned observation of jacobus Godefridus, notwithstanding some exceptions made against it. And that this was the practice of the Romans he proves farther out of Tibullus and Ovid, namely that they did feriari rest on the Saturday as the Jews 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 the Friday, which they call Algama, have taken from the Sabbath its name: doubtless God so providing, that the eternity thereof should be imprinted in the minds of all men; Belike as a testimony of God's rest from his works in the Creation, therewithal to maintain an acknowledgement of God the Creator. More than this, Salmasius acquainted Rivetus with some collections made by the forementioned Georgius Symellus out of certain apocryphal books, one whereof is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the little 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 conceived the author of that book to have been a Jew, translated by some Hellenist, who makes mention of the Lords Day: And Doctor Willet allegeth Philo calling the seventh day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a festival of all Nations. So little need have we to stick upon that in Hesiod, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the seventh is an holy day; which some observe to have been spoken, not of the seventh day of the week, but of the seventh day of the month rather, wherein Apollo was borne (which yet is alleged by Clement and Eusebius as for the seventh day of the week) what is wanting herein, being so plentifully supplied other ways.) And whereas Gomarus being convicted of the evidence of this truth, betakes himself to a new course, as to say that this practice of Heathens was taken from the Jews, and not from the ancient Patriarches; Doctor Rivetus brings a manifest place out of josephus to refute that conceit of his; As who professeth that this custom of the Gentiles had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 long ago. And how unlikely is it, that either the Egyptians, or the Nations bordering upon the Jews should take this from the Jews, 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 distasteful the things of God are unto natural men, even foolishness 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.  
If the patriarchs 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 practice of their ancestors. The Chaldee paraphrase upon the Psal. 92. supposeth Adam to have been the author of the Psalm that is entitled for the Sabbath. 2. If for God's 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 natural some time is to be set apart for this?  
The Fathers profess that no other positive precept was given to Adam then to abstain from the Fruit of a certain Tree. I answer, chrysostom professeth expressly, that from the beginning God hath showed that one day in the circle of the week is to be set apart for spiritual operation; Likewise the testimonies of Athanasius and Epiphanius are express for the acknowledgement of the institution of the Sabbath immediately from the Creation, as before hath been showed. Indeed both as touching the setting apart of some time in general for God's service, and the proportion of one day in seven in special, is more than positive.  
Divines teach that before Christ's coming the Gentiles might obtain salvation by observing the moral Law, and the Law of nature, with some light of Divine faith, and supernatural assistance of God. I answer. 1. of what reputation those Divines he speaks of, deserve to be with us, let every Protestant judge. 2. yet we know that the Gentiles might have evidence enough of the holiness of the seventh day; and that God left not himself without witness 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 only for the particularity of the day, but for the proportion of time; we do not hold these to be moral so absolutely, and in such a degree, as to say that failing in this alone in such a case should prejudice any man's salvation; though we say with chrysostom that God by the story of the Creation hath sufficiently manifested that one day in the week ought to be set apart for God's Service; and with Azorius the Jesuit, that it is most agreeable to reason, that after six work days one day entire and whole should be consecrated to divine worship.  
2. From Papists this Prefacer proceeds to Protestants, and tells us that this seems to be the judgement of the Divines in the Low-Countries; for proof whereof he produceth none but Gomarus and Rivetus; both which are well known to be opposite in the point of the original 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 Countryman too. As for Calvin, I have already shown how he makes nothing for this Prefacer; and that they catch advantage from him most unreasonably by dismembering him. Wallaeus shows the same to be the judgement of Martin Luther, namely, that one day in the week at least ought to be consecrated to Divine Service; and out of Melancthon, that all the ceremoniality in the fourth Commandment is restrained to the observation of a certain day, that which remains besides therein commanded continuing moral. 
* In Apoc. 1.10.  Beza likewise affirms that the sanctifying of every seventh day as touching the Service of God, is of moral obligation and unremovable. The like Wallaeus shows to have been the judgement of Bucer, Peter Martyr, Zanchy, junius, Viretus calvin's Colleague, Danaeus, Antonius Fayns, Mathias Martinius, and in a manner all that have written upon their Belgic Catechism. By this, the Reader may consider the modesty of this Prefacer, when he professeth that it seems to be the judgement of the Divines in the Low-Countries, that one day in seven to be set apart for God's solemn worship is not of the morality of the fourth Commandment. But Wallaeus proceeds and shows the same to have been the judgement of Vrsinus, 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 be consecrated to Divine Service. And in the close professeth, he could add the testimonies of many English and Scottish Divines, who ever have been accounted Orthodox, concurring in judgement with the former on this point.  

●●vestig. Sab. cap. 5. sect. 4.  Last of all consider, what is Gomarus his own opinion; to wit, that we are not so precisely bound to this proportion of time, but that we may allow a better. The condition of Divine worship (saith he) commanded in the fourth Commandment requires that not only certain days (for order and for God's better service sake) be observed, but also that sufficient days be observed; it cannot be inferred from this that God hath not defined a certain day to us, that it is indifferent whether we make choice of one in fifty, or in an hundred, or one in a thousand. 
Sect. 5.  Then proceeding to define what are sufficient, he acknowledgeth that the days set apart for this must be either as frequent or more frequent, than 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 burden of jewish ceremonies, the days consecrated to Divine Service may be more, they may not be fewer. And adds of his own, that we cannot in charity require of our servants the labour of so many days (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 only in the point of the original institution of the Sabbath; but this is his juggling course to mendicate some show of authority to serve his turn where substance falleth him.  
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 asks hereupon, what should those people do when they were returned; I will not answer by advising them to travail the World over again Eastward, that they may find the day which they had lost, by travailing round the World Westward; much less that they should renew their travails the same way till they had lost six days more, that so their Sabbath might concur with the Sabbath of their Countrymen at home: but according to the particulars proposed by him; namely to concur now with their Countrymen a day before their time, that so they might make amends for that time which they had lost, if any need of amends, and not rather for uniformities sake. For when in the days of Joshuah the Sun standing still one day was as long as two days, yet this was nothing material to the altering of their Sabbath, much less when the Sun went bacl 10. degrees in the dial of Ahaz, while King Hezechiah reigned. No sober man I think will say, the moral Law was broken by this, though one week in Josuahs' days contained more time by 12. hours, than any former week, and another week in King Hezechiahs' days was found to be many hours longer than his fellows.   

THE SECOND DIGRESSION CONSISTING OF TWO PARTS.  
I. In making good Doctor Wallaeus his arguments for the morality of one day in seven, against the answer of Doctor Rivetus.  
II. In answering of Doctor Rivetus his arguments directed against the morality of one day in seven.  
NOW whereas Doctor Rivetus about the observation of one day in seven as necessary, differeth in opinion from his two Colleagues Doctor Thysius, and Doctor Walaeus, and not so only, but directs himself (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 think it fit, not to omit the discussion of that answer of his; and that in such sort that I may carry myself correspondently to his ingenuous behaviour herein.  
The first argument of Walaeus is this, if by the force and analogy (of the fourth Commandment) it be not rightly collected that one day of seven is to be consecrated to Divine worship, than no certain number or circle of days can be limited (to the foresaid purpose) by any Divine precept, seeing in no other precept is found mention of any other number; and therefore it shall be lawful 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 between 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 householder expects that his servant should be profitable unto him, and accordingly he expects a certain proportion of service to be performed by him; as namely a good days work for every day; a good weeks work for every week. And in every trade it is well known by them that are seen therein, wherein consists a good days work, whereof whosoever fails, he is accounted but an idle and unprofitable servant; but so the work of the day be done, whether he laboureth more in one hour, then in another, he regardeth not. Such in like manner is every one's consideration of a week's work. So likewise as touching the service of God, it is nothing material as touching the substance of God's service what day of the week is set apart for that. For whether we consider the advantageous 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 supreme efficient being ever of duty the supreme end; or whether we consider the profitable nature of it to our own souls in coming acquainted with him, both touching his nature touching his counsel concerning us, and touching his will. For when we despise him, we despise him against ourselves; and when we provoke him, we provoke him to the confusion of our own faces; himself being nothing profited by our service, but our own souls rather, though he be pleased to account himself glorified thereby: it being his glory to do us good. This advancement of his glory and our good is no more promoted by setting one day in a week apart for this then another. But between the proportion of one day in a week, or one day in a month, or one day in a year, there is a vast and momentous difference. For we come to the knowledge of God, and of the mysteries of godliness by small degrees; and in the ways of holiness we clamber as it were up an high and steep hill; and our life is a way far, our condition is the condition of travellours; nay our life is a warfare, and the Devil and his angels of darkness go about continually like so many roaring Lions and hungry Bears, seeking whom they may devour; So that we travel to Heaven as it were by dens of Lions, and over mountains of Leopard's. And will any wise man say that it matters not much in this case, whether we acquaint ourselves with the Armour of God one day in a week, or one day in a month, or one day in a year to arm ourselves against such ghostly and watchful enemies? Secondly, considering that it was never known 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 thinks fit, wherewith to satisfy 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 he makes unto it proceeds not in his own name, but in the name of another, to wit, in the name of Gomarus, and such as concur with him.  
To this they answer (saith he) that it is no inconvenience that there is no certain number or circle of days defined for God's service by any precept. It is enough that the nature of public worship, in general comprehended in the fourth Commandment, doth require that not only certain days be observed, but that the number of them be sufficient also, nor fewer than the right institution of the Church, the salvation of men, and glory of God do require, and that God by not defining it, hath not left unto us a wild licentiousness but a prudent liberty. And therefore that it cannot be differred to one day in twenty, or thirty, much less to one of a thousand.  
2. Over and above they note (saith he) that from the moral reason of precept it is gathered what number of days is sufficient for Divine Service; namely that seeing we are eased of the burden of ceremonies, whereof the jews 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 week, whereas it should be to any proportion of time, otherwise it is nothing to the present purpose.  
3. Doctor Rivetus adds this of his own, that Whereas this also is moral that some rest be granted to servants and labourers, in charity the labour for so many days 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 God's public service, and that by the very light of nature; for that I conceive to be his meaning, and not with reference to the precise Commandment commanding it but with reference unto it as it is moral, and so acknowledged by light of nature. For it is apparent that the Commandment in requiring a seventh doth therein require one day in seven, and not leave it at random, what proportion of time, but defines it. 2. I appeal to every man's conscience, and that as guided by the very light of nature so fare as it may be justly thought to be incorrupt, whether it be not more fit the Lord himself should set down what proportion of time he thinks 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 concur in judgement, and if they do not, who seethe 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 holidays. 2. If it be left to man, it is very likely that little enough will be thought sufficient, so burdensome unto flesh and blood is God's 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 are chosen. 3. upon this he concludes it may not be differred to the twentieth day; yet it is well known that Brentius hath professed it may be differred to the fourteenth upon Leviticus. 25.8. as Doctor bound allegeth him. Now if so great a writer hath been of opinion that from the seventh it may be put off to the 14th. why may not another rise up and maintain that from the fourteenth it may be 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 counsels of our own hearts. In the light of my conscience it seems most absurd, that it should be left to the servant to cut out what proportion of service he thinks good unto his master.  
2. It is well that both he and Gomarus think we are bound to cut out a better proportion of God's Service then was prescribed to the Jews rather than a worse: yet Brentius as great a writer as any of these, thinks otherwise, as we have heard. 3. doth only our freedom from the yoke of ceremonies requires this? and not much more. 1. the love of God revealed unto us in Christ in the days of the Gospel. 2. the encumbrance of God's Truth with errors, and heresies, and those very dangerous ones. 3. and in a word the strong opposition that in these days of the Gospel is made, and will be made more and more as the end of all things doth approach, both unto faith and holiness. It is noted to be the sin of Christendom not to receive the love of the truth. 2 Thess. 2. And of these latter times Paul hath prophesied, that men should be lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. 3. as for this opinion of Gomarus and Rivetus; I am glad they are so fare convicted of truth in this argument as to profess, that we ought to keep holy rather more days than fewer; But why then do not the states of Holland under whom they live (if they be of the same opinion) make it good by practice? And the French-Churches also; But they want example in antiquity for this. Who seethe not that this is delivered only to serve turn, and help 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 so many days (to wit after six, for no other number was specified) rest must be granted to servants on the seventh; doth not this evidently convince that that day must be our Christian Sabbath? For what? shall the masters keep 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 works of their proper callings? observe I pray how at every turn the light of God's direction doth meet with us, to keep us in the good ways 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 find by experience, that hardly are men able to maintain a poor living by labouring hardly six whole days in the week. I come to the second which Rivetus recapitulates in brief thus.  
2. It is drawn from the number of six days allowed for work, which number cannot consist, unless it be terminated in rest, and in cessation on the seventh. To this Rivetus answereth, that the six days of labour are in reference to the seventh of rest; the determination of which seventh day being now taken away a man may work 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 days shall be left for work. 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 Jews one day in seven; neither was it ever known to be 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 think any man set his wits on work 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 Gospel? did Calvin any where teach this? may not masters exact as many days work of their servants under the Gospel as under the Law? hath not Christ deserved at the hands of servants to be as serviceable to their masters as ever? Lastly are these days of the World such as wherein a labouring man may maintain himself, by the labour of five days in a week 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 cheap than men's labours; a notable evidence how unprofitable servants we have been unto God, and therefore he makes the labour of our hands and sweat of our brows to afford very unprofitable service unto us. Can these Divines make the World more favourable to craftsmen, and bring their commodities in better request than 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 four, or five; their masters will be the more easily brought to entreat their consciences to condescend. Or if Kings had power to make the commodities of their own Country more worth, and the commodities of other Countries less worth (which upon due consideration will be found as needful equally) than place might be made for this. Till then let us be content with calvin's morality of the fourth Commandment in reference to servants rest, namely one day after six; and therewithal consider whether our Christian Sabbath must not be confined to that day as the only day of rest for servants; and I hope we shall not think it fit to allow one Sabbath for the masters, and another for the servents.  
3. The third is drawn from the examples of the Apostles and the apostolical Church, who in place of the (jews) Sabbath, observed the first day of the week without variation: therefore by force of the precept, one day in seven is to be observed still. Never any hath been found to change this; therefore that which hath been kept from the beginning of the World, and shall continue to the end, is to be taken for such as by the Analogy of God's Commandment binds all men.  
To this Rivetus answereth, that the consequence is not firm; for as much as Christians observed the Lord's Day not of necessity by reason of any binding precept, but of free choice. Yet was it wisely done of them, lest by a greater change they might offend the jews. And that it might be a free monument of their maintaining the weekly remembrance of Christ's Resurrection.  
He sayeth they did it freely; 
Resp.  but of things freely done without any conscience of duty obliging, it was never known that so universal a concurrence was found as the observation of the Lords Day. Nay Philosophers observe that things freely done as often come to pass to the contrary. Again than it was free for them to observe one day in fourteen 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 universal and perpetual practice might be 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 Gospel was and still is one Day in seven. And both himself and Gomarus are driven to profess, that we may not allow a less proportion than one in seven to Divine worship. And I appeal to every conscience, to judge by the very light of nature; whether the Lord requiring of the Jews one day in seven to be consecrated unto him it doth not manifestly follow that we Christians can allow no less than one in seven; and whether it be not fi● that the Lords Day should be our holy Day; and as for the allowance of more in a week than one, let them persuade, their own Churches thereunto first, and then it will be time enough for us to hearken unto them. And what should move them to illustrate the memory of Christ's Resurrection weekly? whereas they contented themselves with a yearly memorial (if at all they observed any such) of his Nativity, Passion and Ascension, and sending down of the Holy Ghost. Why doth he not consider that the day of the week only whereon Christ risen is called the Lords Day in Scripture, whereon john 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 Commandment be changeable; then as ceremonial, or as political: not as ceremonial; for then the Church ought not to observe it. Nor as political; for in the moral Law precepts political are not given. And to this Rivetus answereth, that the observation of the seventh day is ceremonial: and that the Primitive Church kept it not, neither did the Primitive Church keep it, nor do we keep it as ceremonial; but another seventh day, for Ecclesiastical policy sake, not civil.  

Respon.  When he saith we keep another seventh day; he implieth that by the seventh formerly mentioned he meant that particular day of the week which the jews kept; and that we indeed acknowledge to be ceremonial; but in this interpretation of Wallaeus, he manifestly corrupts his adversaries argument, which is plainly directed against the ceremoniality of one day in seven indefinitely considered, and not against the ceremoniality of the jews seventh. Yet when he saith the Primitive Church did, and we do keep a seventh, but not as ceremonial; he speaks to the point; but his words following have no coherence herewith: so that he may seem to shuffle miserably in this, affecting to decline that which he is not able to answer. But take we him at the best, he must say that the observation of one day in seven was ceremonial, if he speaks to the purpose. Now let him show us if he can, the ceremoniality of one day in seven, and how Christ was the body of it; nothing more common then to affirm that the jews Sabbath was ceremonial hand over head, without any distinction of the sanctification of the day, and the rest; much less distinguishing between the rest of one day in seven, and the rest of the seventh. At length I found a fair 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 think) any man set his wits on work to devise that. Lastly, after such a ceremoniality is devised, we will confer whether in reason such a thing ought to be still observed as was ceremonial unto the jews; and why may we 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 Gospel 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 Commandment a seventh day is to be kept, 
Rivet. 1.  than that day is to be kept which the Commandment hath defined, which is the Sabbath of the jews. 
Respon.   
To this I answer by denying the consequence, and not contenting myself with a bare denial, I prove it to be inconsequent. For whereas God in commanding the seventh hath therewithal commanded one in seven, and withal specified which of the seven shall be rested on and sanctified unto his service: If it may be made appear 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 appear herewithal, that this consequence of Doctor Rivetus is unsound. Now this we prove to be most true; forasmuch as the Jews rest on the seventh day was ceremonial prefiguring Christ's rest on that day in his grave; as both the fathers of old and modern Divines both Papists, and Protestants, both Lutherans, 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 general for God's holy worship and service.  
2. Now this puts me in mind of another way clearly to demonstrate the inconsequence of Rivetus his argument thus. If it will follow that in case we are bound to such a proportion of time by virtue of this Commandment, therefore we are bound also to keep the seventh day: Then it will follow as well, that because we are bound to set apart some time for the service of God by virtue of this Commandment (as all confess) therefore we are bound also to keep 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 special, but by commanding the observation of the seventh day; in like sort neither doth God Command a time in general to be set apart for his service, but by commanding of such a proportion of time in special, and such a Day in particular.  

Rivet. 2.  2. His second argument runs thus: if the observation of every seventh day be moral it must be known by light of nature, but so it is not. Therefore it is not moral; and seeing it is not political, it must be ceremonial; and therefore doth not oblige by force of Law moral. To this I answer first.  

Resp. 1.  Let but Doctor Rivetus stretch his wits to describe unto us what ceremoniality can possibly be devised in the obsertion of one day in seven; and when he hath devised it, I dare appeal to his own judgement and conscience for the appobation of it. For I do not think 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 indefinitely as we do, the body whereof can be found in Christ; for of such ceremonies we speak, that as shadows are to flee away when the body comes in place.  
2. Neither doth it follow that because it is not moral nor political, therefore it is ceremonial; for some will say that it is positive as touching the defining of some particular necessarily required to the performance of a moral duty. As for example, not to go further than the matter in hand for instance; it is generally confessed, to be a moral duty by natural instinct, that some time is to be set apart for God's service; but of ourselves we are to seek of the proportion of time; it is fit for none so much as for God himself 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 moral, as belonging to the execution of a moral duty. Yet indeed not so much a circumstance thereof in proper speech as the specification of the general concerning the circumstance of time.  
3. Yet to draw nearer to the morality of it; what? 
3.  shall nothing be moral that is not known to be 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 only of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persuasion? Nay how is it known by the light of nature, that some time is to be set apart to the worship of God that made us; but upon presupposition that God is known to be our Creator? and is this known by the light of nature? How came Aristotle then the greatest Philosopher that ever was, and his whole school, how I say came they to be ignorant of it? but upon presupposition of the History of the Creation known unto us, Doctor Feild spares not to profess as Master Broad reports him, that by light of nature it is known that one day in seven ought to be consecrated to Divine Service? Yet I am not forward to say so much, but rather with chrysostom, that now from the Creation God hath manifested that one day in a week is to be apportioned for his service; and with Azorius that it is most agreeable to reason, 
Institut. par. 2. l. 1. f. c. 2.  after six days of work, to set apart one to his service. And seeing God did require such a portion of time to be consecrated unto him under the Law. Undoubtedly and by the very light of nature it is clear and evident, that no less proportion of time can we in conscience allow unto him under the Gospel.  
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 meat and drink, or in the part of a day, or of Sabbaths, which are shadows of things to come. Which they explicate by a similitude. As nature requires meats and drink, but Christian liberty is not tied to choice of meats according to Moses his Laws: so reason dictates that some time is to be set apart for God's public worship, but the Gospel freeth us from the necessity of the jewish Sabbath.  
To this I answer.  

Respon.  1. By granting the conclusion; for the jewish Sabbath Christians observe not. 2. but one day in seven they always have observed, a manifest evidence that they never conceived this to be any impeachment to their Christian liberty. And no marvel; 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 careful to perform no less under the Gospel? And indeed rest on the seventh day did pregnantly represent before hand Christ's rest that day, and that day alone full and whole in the grave. But as for any ceremoniality to be found in the special proportion of time, to wit, as one day in seven, never any man devised any ceremoniality therein more than in the time in general, which all confess by the very light of nature is to be consecrated unto God. So that we have no need of Doctor Rivetus, his answer to help us in the solution of this his argument. And whereas he conceives our Christian liberty to be impeached if any proportion of time be observed of necessity by force of precept, and of free choice. 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 perform unto him, and not rather have him leave it to the servant to cut out unto him as little, or as much as he thinks 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 less under the Gospel, than he required under the Law; and then he required from the beginning of the World. 2. I marvel that Doctor Rivetus doth not observe how herein he contradicts himself; for hath he not formerly rested in this answer of Gomarus, that by virtue of the fourth Commandment, we must allow unto him days sufficient for his service; and that these days must be rather Frequentiores then Rari●res, more rather then fewer; and if it be no prejudice to our Christian liberty to be tied, and that by virtue of the fourth Commandment, to allow unto him a better proportion of time, for his service, then that of one day in seven, how can it be prejudicial to our Christian liberty to allow unto him this, and that by virtue of the fourth Commandment.  
Now whether Doctor Rivetus his answers to the arguments of Wallaeus, 
Rivet explicat. dec. p. 186. col. 2.  or his own arguments to the contrary be of any force to hold him to that opinion which he conceives to be Calvins in opposition to the Doctrine delivered by Wallaeus, I am con enter the indifferent may judge; as also whether the two causes mentioned by him for the observation of the Sabbath contained in the Commandment, 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 God's Service; now this general is not commanded there but as contained in the special, to wit, the proportion of one day in seven. Both of them being equally contained in the particularity of the seventh day in that Commandment expressed. And as for the morality of rest to be allowed to servants after six days of labour; this doth clearly draw with it the confinement of the time appointed for God's Service to the proportion of one day in seven; unless the day of rest for servants shall 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 help this anomaly is in plain terms to profess 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 than in the setting apart of some time in general for God's Service, all confessing this to be a duty known by the very light of nature. But I do not find that Calvin hath any other meaning then that we are not so tied to one day in seven, but that more time than 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 appear by his 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 week doth still remain as moral; but that so maintained it as in reference to some mysterious signification; a Doctor Wallaeus hath manifested, and the words immediately following in Calvin do evince, which are these; but this is no other thing then in contumely of the Jews to change the day, and in heart to retain the same holiness 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 only conditionally, as appears by the other half of the sentence thus. If so be there remain yet unto us a signification in the days equally mysterious, to that which had place among the jews. And though I marvel not at others who dealing in this argument dismember calvin's sentence, so to make him to deliver that absolutely which he delivers only conditionally; yet I cannot sufficiently marvel that Rivetus of rough improvidence should do so too, especially considering the good pains that Doctor Walaeus hath taken to clear Calvin's 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 speak of the multitude of outlandish Divines whom Doctor Walaeus mustereth up, concurring in the same opinion, and whereas he saith as Doctor Rivetus reports him, that some great men, who vehemently contend, that the perpetual sanctity of manners doth require, that one day in seven should be celebrated, have more authority than reason; I may be bold to say that they who with him have hitherto opposed the Doctrine we maintain, 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 bear them out in this. And whereas I doubt not but Rivetus hath brought on the Stage the best reasons he could pick both out of master Robert Low, and out of Gomarus; let every indifferent person judge of them as they deserve; though I verily think that nothing but his affection to Calvin, to hold up his credit, and reputation hath carried him all along; and yet either myself, and Walaeus mistake 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 public service under the Law; how much more doth he require as good a proportion of time under the Gospel? Nay from the beginning of the World he hath required it, and to this day both jews, and Christian Gentiles have observed the same proportion. Again God in his moral Law hath required this, and that not as ceremonial, never any man hitherunto having set his wits on work to devise any ceremoniality herein; neither was it ever known that God abrogated this proportion of time to be allowed unto him for his service; therefore it continueth still as a moral Law to bind us, and shall continue until God himself 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, he sensibly complains of his want of authority. It seems Pope Alexander the third was a man of more authority than reason. For he maintains in Cap. licet. de feriis, as Doctor Rivetus relates it, that both the old and new Testament have in special manner appointed the seventh day for man to rest thereon, and he takes it out of Suarez. de relig. l. 2. c. 2. but Rivetus cannot assent unto him, if he delivers this of any moral institution; yet that it was so appointed by the fourth Commandment unto the jews it cannot be denied; and that not as ceremonial; for we have seen how oddly Rivetus hath carried himself in coming to speak of the ceremoniality. For to make this good he flies to the particularity of the seventh day; and if the ceremoniality thereof, be enough to infer the ceremoniality of such a special proportion of time as of one day in seven; it may suffice as well to constitute a ceremoniality in the general, namely in this that some time is to be set apart for God's Service, which yet all account to be moral 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 pertain to us but only so fare forth as it agrees with the Law of nature; then by instancing in the Sabbath, which the Gentiles were not bound to sanctify: it stands Rivetus upon to oppose him as much as any, who maintains that the Law concerning the sanctifying of the Sabbath was given to Adam, and who brings divers authorities to prove the observation of it generally by the Gentiles; This I speak 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 moral Law shall be sufficient to bind us Christians if no other way, yet by this argument of proportion. If God required of the jews under the Law that one day in seven should be 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 Gospel? This I say shall suffice until Rivetus answereth 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 than a worse. And as for Doctor Prideaux, I nothing doubt but he will clear 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 Commandment, we would not stick to yield unto it. And whereas Rivetus adds that the argument which he annexeth seems to him of great weight, namely that he who sticks to the Commandment must exactly observe it: And that therefore into the place of the seventh from the Creation, no day is to be substituted. But this argument I have answered before, all for the most part grant some ceremoniality in that Commandment; now if rest on the seventh be found to be ceremonial, 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 accomplished in Christ; and that the proportion of time is still to continue, as indeed by experience we find it verified in each. For the observation of the seventh is ceased as prefiguring Christ's 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 only an humane and Ecclesiastical constitution, the Doctor showeth in the first Section, the general consent of all sorts of Papists, Jesuits, Canonists, and Schoolmen; of some great Lutherans by names, and generally of the remonstrant or Arminian Divines in their confession, whose tendries in this point, we may conceive with reason, not to be different from the Doctrine of the Belgic Churches, in that four professors of Leyden, in their examination or review of that confession, have passed them over without note or opposition. To these besides are added divers of our own, Et è nostris non pauci, as he speaks it in the general, that is, as I conceive 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 remembered. And first he brings in Bullenger, who in his comment on the first of the Revelation, calls it Ecclesiae consuetudinem, an Ecclesiastical Ordinance, and after adds, Sponte Ecclesiae receperunt illum diem. The Church did of its own accord agree upon that day; for we read not any any where that it was commanded. Next Vrsinus telling us, that God had abrogated the jewish Sabbath, adds presently, that he left it free unto the Church, Alios dies eligere, to make choice of any other day to be selected for his service: and that the Church made choice of this in honour of our Saviour's Resurrection. Zanchius affirms the same; Nullibi legimus Apostolos, etc. We read not any any where, saith he that the Apostles did command this day to be observed in the Church of God; only we find what the Apostles, and others of the faithful used to do 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, and Bucerus, which are all there alleged, might be here produced, were not these sufficient. Add hereunto the general consent of our English Prelates, the Architects of our reformation in the time of King Edward the sixth, who in the Act of Parliament about keeping holy days have determined thus, together with the rest of that grand assembly, viz. Neither is it to be thought, that there is any certain time or definite number of days prescribed in holy Scriptures, but that the appointment both of the time, and also of the number of the days is left by the authority of God's Word, to the authority of Christ's Church, to be 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 God's glory, and edification of God's People. Which preamble is not to be understood of holy days or of Saints days only, (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 appear.  

Exam.  In this Section, the Prefacer makes a greater bluster by fare 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 days of the Gospel, is so unreasonable a course, and that not only in the judgement of a Christian conscience, but even in the judgement of a natural man, that I cannot easily devise any thing more unreasonable. For whereas all confess that by the very light of nature some time ought to be set apart for the service of God; and not so only, but that a fit, and competent proportion of time is to be consecrated to holy uses, as Gomarus acknowledgeth, though one of the most eager opposers of the morality of the Sabbath, that hitherto have been known. Albeit this convenient proportion of time cannot be so convincingly concluded upon by the light of nature, as to draw all to an unanimous consent thereunto; yet after God himself 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 Commandment; henceforth as chrysostom observeth, 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 proportion of time which is to be sanctified to God's holy worship and service, and that God hath now manifested as much ever since the Creation. And (herupon as I imagine) Azorius the Jesuit 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 sequestered from profan use to Divine, at the hands of the jews; can it enter into the heart of a sober man, that God should require less of us Christians under the Gospel, than he did require of the Jews 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 less, to be spent in God's worship? If we consider the service of the day, as whereby God is honoured, undoubtedly God hath deserved more service at our hands under the Gospel, than he did at the hands of the Jews under the Law; for as much as the love of God to mankind was never so revealed in former times, as in these latter times; So God loved the World that he gave his only begottet Son, etc. And hereupon undoubtedly it is that our Saviour professeth, that from the time of john the Baptist, the Kingdom 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 Son inflamed his true servants; according to that of john, We love him because he loved us first. Again if we consider the service of that day, as such whereby our souls are profited and promoted in faith and holiness, never was there more need then in these days of sanctifying a better proportion of time unto God Service, rather than a worse; and that in each respect. For the truth of God was never so encumbered with oppositions before the coming of our Saviour in the flesh as it hath been since. No heretics (to speak of) were known to trouble the peace of the Church, in those former times in comparison to the multitude of heresies that have been broached since, and began to be set on foot in the very days of the Apostles; Saint Paul professing that even than the mystery of iniquity did work. And whereas Saint Peter tells us that false teachers should come privily bringing in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them; Saint jude tells them to whom he writes, that such were already crept in turning the grace of God into wantonness, and denying God the only Lord, and our Lord Jesus Christ. And Saint john after the same manner, little children (saith he) it is the last time, and as you have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists. And no marvel; for as much as the mysteries of godliness concerning the Trinity of persons and incarnation of the Son of God (whereat carnal 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 we in these days two Sabbaths in a week instead of one, all were little enough to instruct our people, and strengthen them against the oppositions made by men of carnal minds, and thereby to keep them in the right way of Gods saving truth. And no less necessity is there for the keeping of them in the ways of holiness, such is the degenerate condition of the World; Long ago it is that the severe judgement of God, had its course in giving men over to illusions to believe lies, and all for not receiving the love of the truth, as much as to say for the profaneness of the Christian World, in not making it their care to walk worthy of their calling, worthy of the Gospel; 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 days of the Gospel. Especially considering the rage, and fury of Satan in opposing the Kingdom of Christ more now than ever, because he knoweth he 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 week, that I confess willingly seems not at first sight to have the like evidence. But whereas this Prefacer contends for the alteration of the day, as only by an humane and Ecclesiastical 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 we have divers of the ancients bearing witness to the Divine institution of the Lords day, to come in place of the seventh. As first Athanasius Homil. de Sement. 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 Lord's Day, Austin 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 Lord's Day as the eighth eternal which was sacred by Christ's Resurrection, prefiguring an eternal rest, not of the spirit only, but of the body also; and in his Ep. 119. ad januarium, The Lord's Day is declared not to the jews, but to Christians by the Lord's Resurrection, and from thence began to have its festivity; and de verbis Apostoli Sermo. 15. The Lord's Resurrection promised unto us an eternal day, and hath consecrated to us the Lords Day, which is called the Lords, because the Lord risen on that day, and de Temp. Serm. 251. The Apostles and Apostolical men, have therefore ordained the Lords day to be kept with a religious solemnity, because on that day our redeemer risen from the dead. Cyril. in Joan. lib. 12. cap. 58. From Christ presenting himself unto his Apostles on the eighth day, which he interpreteth of the first day of the week, 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 refers to Christ himself 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 week, they should celebrate the Dominical festivity. 
Athan. on that of Mat. 11.27. All things are given to me of my Father.  Add to this that of Gregory mentioned Section the 1. Nay Athanasius goes further, and shows the equity of it in proportion to the new Creation compared with the old; The end of the first Creation was the Sabbath; but the beginning of the second Creature is the Lords Day, wherein he renewed and repaired the old man. Like as therefore in former times he would have the Sabbath day to be kept, so we keep holy the Lord's 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 he) continued from the Creation of the World to the Lords resurrection, which seeing it is as it were an other Creation of another spiritual World (as the Prophets speak) 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 corporal or corruptible light, in the first day of the first World was created: but that heavenly and eternal light did spring unto us. In all which Beza doth exactly tread in the steps of that ancient Father Athanasius, and concludes that the assemblies of the Lords Day (which Justine expressly makes mention of in his second Apologetium) are of tradition apostolical and truly Divine. And after him Doctor Andrew's late Bishop of Winchester, whom Doctor Hall now Bishop of Exeter some where calls the Oracle of these times upon the same ground, maintains the equity of bringing our Lord's Day into the place of the Jewish Sabbath.  

In his speech in the Star Chamber, against Traske.  The Sabbath (saith he) 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 again, It hath ever been the Church's 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 januarium: The Lord's Day by Christ's Resurrection hath been declared unto Christians, and from that time began to have its festivity. 
These Theses of his were written as it seems in opposition to Broad.  Doctor Lakes Bishop of Wells maintains the same Doctrine after the same manner in his Theses de Sabbato, thes. 27. Man having sinned, and so by sin 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 speaks of Christ's 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 work, made a day of rest, and sanctified it. 32. Not altering the proportion of time which is eternal, 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 do observe that the Apostles, and the faithful abrogated the Sabbath which was the seventh day, and made holy day for it, the next day following, being the eighth day in count from the Creation, and that without all Scriptures, and Commandments 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 himself in the second Commandment, 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 truths, 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 work-day, why may not the same Church prescribe and appoint the other feasts of Easter, Whitsuntide, 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 himself by his death, as he did all other ceremonies of the Law, that were figures and shadows 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 public exercise of the Religion of God; Although the ceremonial rest, and prescript 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 express commandment of Christ before his ascension when he gave them precepts concerning the Kingdom of God, and the order and government of the Church, Acts 1.2. or else the certain 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 showed. 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 between the Lord's Day and other Festivals, saying: Although the Church in days or times which are indifferent, may take order for some other days or times to be solemnised for the exercises of Religion; or the remembrance of Christ's nativity, resurrection, ascension, or the coming 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 special memory of those things are indifferent of their nature, either to be kept on certain days, or left to the discretion of the Governors of the Church. But to change the Lords Day, or to keep it on Monday, Tuesday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himself, delivered to us by his Apostles. And again, in the next place: The cause of this change, it was not our estimation, that either we have, or aught 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 week: so now also he sanctifieth the day of the restitution of the world for his glory of the accomplishment of our redemption. Thus we have not only authority Humane, but authority Divine for the alteration of the Day, and that by the testimony of more Bishops ancient and late, than this Prefacer makes show of amongst fare meaner names. Yet he doth immodestly abuse Doctor Prideaux in putting it upon him, that in the fifth Section, he maintains the alteration of the day to be only an humane and Ecclesiastical institution. For, in that Section, he only 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 he confesseth, do 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 instis ution of the Lords Day in the new Testament expressly, to show 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; only the death of Christ setting an end to ceremonies. Then he demands whether the Apostles did not keep the Jewish Sabbath? now, I do not find they did, although they took 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 design 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 adays Saturday is counted half holy day; and that the Jews had a preparation for the Sabbath, in such sort, that on their behalf, Augustus made a rescript, that not Jews 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 days, or after three a clock of the day going before. Hereupon (which is yet a very weak ground in my judgement) he saith, that Papists infer, that the Lords Day is not of Divine institution; he doth not make any such inference himself. 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 own advantage) have stoutly set themselves against these lukewarm 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 adds, 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 Paul's fact, Acts 20.7. and disputes therehence for a custom to celebrate on the first day of the week their public meetings; and confesseth, that the Fathers, and all Interpreters almost, do so conceive it: though withal he professeth he sees not how from a casual fact (so he calleth it, upon what ground I know not) a solemn institution may be justly grounded; yet that which went before, in some opposition whereunto this is delivered, pleaded not for a solemn institution, but for a custom only; although upon due consideration, it may be found, that such a custom (if that be granted) could not otherwise proceed originally than from a solemn institution: It is enough if they ordained that on that day the Churches should be assembled for public worship; which Austin expressly professeth, as formerly I have showed, neither doth it appear in reason how it could be otherwise, such assemblies being universal and so continuing to this day: Is it credible such universal agreement should come to pass casually? if it did, yet their continuance of it without dislike, doth manifest their joint Apostolical approbation, who we know were guided by the Spirit of God: and even in their time was the first day of the week, called the Lords Day. So that in all this I find no incoherence, much less notable. Indeed, in the first of the Corinth. chap. 16.2. he doth not order that the first day should be set apart for God's service, but rather supposeth it, and that not only at Corinth, but in the Churches of Galatia: how improbable is it that this uniformity should be among them, unless it proceeded from some authority superior to the Churches themselves: then coming to consider the denomination of the Lords Day, and concluding it to be the first day of the week, and therewithal concluding that sixth Section: the seventh Section he gins thus; what then? Shall we affirm that the Lords Day is founded in Divine authority? and answers the question thus: For my part (without prejudice to any man's 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 justify it. He opposeth, I grant, express institution; but if by just consequence it may be deduced, it serveth our turn, both in the general 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 he owed him a spite, and to pay that he owed him, he came to this translation. But herein the Doctor's honour is easily preserved in the despite of this Prefacer; yet see a greater degree of impudence in this Prefacer. For he puts upon the Doctor, as if he had showed the alteration of the day to be only an humane and Ecclesiastical institution, by the general consent of all sorts of Papists, Jesuits, 
Azorius institut. Part. 2. l. 1. c. 2.  Canonists and Schoolmen of some great Lutherans by name, whereas it is plain, that he mentioneth more Papists maintaining the Lords Day to be of Divine institution, then opposing it. And amongst them that maintain 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 speak with a full mouth, they are but one, and that Brentius, who is said to affirm it to be a civil ordinance, and not a commandment of the Gospel; a very strange phrase (in my opinion) to call it a civil ordinance; the ordinance being in force many hundred years before the Church of God had any civil government of their own, and being in the Apostles days how could it be less than Apostolical? undoubtedly not so much civil as Ecclesiastical. We grant willingly we have no express precept for it, yet Austin is bold to say (as we 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 authority than Brentius, professeth, as Walaeus reports him, that consentaneum est Apostolos hanc ipsam ob causam mutasse diem, in plain terms 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 near a kin to the Socinians, who utterly profess against all observation of the Lords Day. But the four professors of Leiden, have passed over this of theirs without note or opposition. And was not Walaeus one of the four? yet what his opinion is himself hath manifested to the world; yea, and his colleague, Thysius also, yet no cause had they to oppose in this, when the other professed it to be a laudable and good custom, according to the pattern 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 he affirms this, or rather that it was instituted by Christ himself. So little cause had these professors to quarrel 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 precept. 4. Thes. 29. yet Thes. 24. he professed it to be not only observed by the Apostles, but that it may seem also to be instituted by Christ himself: Bullenger saith, sponte receperunt, to wit, in opposition to an express Precept, as appears by that which immediately followeth; Non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam, we do not read it any where commanded. Vrsine alleged in the next place clearly professeth in the very place quoted by Gomarus, that God it is who hath abrogated the observation of the seventh day, but he adds, that he left it free to the Church to choose other days, which (Church) upon a probable cause, chose the first day, which was the day of Christ's resurrection. Now what Church was it but Apostolica Ecclesia, as Paraeus upon Vrsinus Catechism 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, instead of the seventh day chose the first day of the week, by reason of a probable cause, to wit, because on that day Christ risen, by whose resurrection, 
Rom. 1.4.  the spiritual and eternal 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 Christ's resurrection: so Calvin acknowledgeth in reference whereunto this day had some prerogative above the rest, to wit in the way of fitness, for holy use, because of the work of God on that day. Whence it is evidently concluded, that the Apostles did not think it indifferent, therefore though it were left to their liberty, in as much as no Commandment was given to them thereabout for aught we read, yet by the spirit of God, they were directed to make choice of this day, and that in reference to such a work on that day, as the like on no other. Not that the sanctifying of a rest on this day would make us more holy, than the sanctifying of a rest on any other day: but only in reference to some special work of God on that day: upon which consideration the ancient Fathers do generally insist; and Bishop Andrew's, and Bishop Lake after them do jointly rely, and not Beza only. Secondly, That both Vrsine and Paraeus call this a probable reason only: now give me leave to insist upon this, and try whether I cannot show that this reason is more than probable. And that first à Posteriori. For let us soberly consider how came it to pass that not only the day whereon Christ risen, but answerably hereunto the Day of the week, to wit, the first Day of the week was accounted by the Apostles, and so commonly called the Lords Day; and generally known to Christians by that name: otherwise S. john had not been so well understood in his Revelation chap. 1. vers. 10. Is it not apparent that Christ's rising did ever after give the denomination of the Lords Day, to the first day of the week? Again the day of Christ's Passion upon the Cross, 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 Son of God by the spirit of sanctification in his Resurrection from the dead. 
Rom. 1.4.  Hereby then was he manifested to be the Son of God, the very Lord of Glory; and is not this reason more than probable, why it should be called the Lords day? Secondly consider, that day of the month or that day of the year whereon the Lord risen, we no no where find that it was usually called the Lords Day, but only that day of the week; not the day of the week wherein he ascended into Heaven, but the day of the week wherein he risen. Now the Jews Sabbath was called the Lords Sabbath, the Lords holy Day. Es. 58.13. If thou shalt turn away thy foot from my Sabbath from doing thy will on my holy Day. Hath the Lord a Day under the Gospel, but no Sabbath, no holy Day? what an unreasonable conceit were this? that he should have an holy Day one in every week under the Law; and none under the Gospel? Now if the Lord hath a day that is peculiarly called his under the Gospel, and that day is in the Scripture styled the Lords Day; I appeal to every Christian conscience, whether the sanctifying of this day as holy to the Lord, ought not by more than 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 days of old. Otherwise we should have two different days in the week, the one called the Lords Day, the other the Lords holy Day; or no holy day at all though we have the Lords Day. Lastly consider the very definition of a thing probable, which Aristotle makes to be such as seems so in the judgement of most, or in the judgement of most of the wisest, or of some few provided they are wiser than the rest; but the sanctifying of the first day of the week to the Lord, that is, the Lords Day to the Lord, hath seemed fit not to some of the wisest only in the Church of God, but to all, even to all the Apostles, yea and Evangelists and Pastors, and teachers in their days and to the whole Church, for 1600. years since; and shall we call the reason moving them hereunto only probable? 2. yet all 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 wisdom 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 we 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 showing what Christ hath deserved at our hands, in as much as he died for us, and risen again, vers. 15. the end whereof was this, that he might be Lord both of quick 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 confess 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 Christ's resurrection, is to us the beginning of a new creature. And Christ's 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 Andrew's and Bishop Lake do work 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 think it fit, that the first day of creation should be our Sabbath, but the seventh from the creation, as whereon himself 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, he should not rest at all in this world. And the six days being the days of God's work; the seventh was the first of man's work, which God would have to be an holy work most convenient whereby to take livery and season of the world. For, albeit God commanded Adam to dress the garden and keep it, when he placed him in it; yet it is nothing probable it had need of dressing so soon as it was made; and no mention of rest commanded at the first; only 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 between rest and rest in each creation. For, as God rested the seventh day from the work of creation; so Christ rested the first day of the week from his work of Redemption, which was the meritorious cause of the new creation. For Christ's dying, and continuing under the power of death, for a certain time, I may justly reckon as one work of Redemption; in which time he suffered ignominy, not only from the reproach of the world, but from the weakness of his servants faith, 
Acts 24.  whose voice was, we thought it had been he, who should have redeemed Israel.  
As for Zanchy, in the place cited by Gomarus; he confesseth, hunc diem ex traditione Apostolica esse, & optimo jure ab Ecclesia retentum. That the Lords Day is (to be observed) by Apostolical tradition, and by the best right retained by the Church— this the Prefacer in his wisdom omitted; indeed he saith, we no no where read 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 itself ought to be sanctified, unless charity require otherwise. I conceive his meaning is, and the meaning of all that use this language, that we are to keep it by no other obligation (not of special commandment) than the reason of the day doth minister unto us, it being the day that the Lord hath made, joyful to God's Church by the resurrection of Christ from the dead; and in this sense they say it doth not bind men's 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 week, should not make choice of the Lords Day for that, without any express commandment. Aretius saith no more than that Christians changed the Sabbath unto the Lord's Day; and can any man doubt, but that the Apostles 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 practice of the Apostles was a leading cause unto all others? Simler hath no more but this, that he calls it the custom 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 Apostolical Church, and expressly saith, that the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to meet together the first day of the week, and make their collections. I wonder the Prefacer omits Cuchlinus, was it because that which others call consuetudinem Ecclesiae, he 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 forbear to set down what I find in his book De Regno Christi, lib. 1. cap. 11. For having formerly described what are the true works of holy rests, added upon the back 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 ancient Churches observed most religiously. Then he shows the cause why they changed the day: 1. The first reason given is, to testify that Christians are not obliged to the pedagogy of Moses law: 2. The second is, to celebrate the memory of Christ's resurrection, which was performed on the first day of the week. So that not one of the Authors mentioned by him makes any thing for him. And if the passages of the six mentioned by him, and related by Gomarus did make any thing for him; we have no less of the ancient Fathers to the contrary, as namely, Athanasius, Cyril, Eusebius, Austin lately mentioned, to whom add Sedulius operis Paschalis, lib. 5. cap. 21. The glory of the eternal King illustrating (the first day of the week) with the trophy of his resurrection, primatum cum religione concessum di●rum censuit retinere cunctorum; thought good it should have the primacy of all days granted unto it with religion: that is, with an holy celebration thereof. Add unto him Gregory, mentioned in the first Section, affirming that Antichrist affecting to imitate Christ, shall command the Lords Day to be kept holy. Add to these the universal consent of Christendom in ancient 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 me 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 week is destinated to the public assemblies of the Church, by the constitution of the Apostles. See how plainly he refers the celebration of this day to Apostolical constitution: and pag. 148. he showeth the analogy between the Jews Sabbath and our Christian Sabbath, consisting in two or three particulars: 1. As on the seventh day God rested from the six day's work of creation, in remembrance of which benefit, the Sabbath was instituted in the old Testament: so in the first day of the week, after Christ-by his death and passion had accomplished the mystery of our Redemption, he returned gloriously as a conqueror from the dead, in remembrance of which benefit, the first day of the week is celebrated in the new Testament. 2. As in the old Testament the Sabbath was instituted, that it might be a memorial of their deliverance out of Egypt, Deut. 5.15. So in the new Testament, the Lords Day is a memorial of our spiritual deliverance out of the kingdom 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 Christ's death and resurrection, were abrogated levitical ceremonies and legal shadows, amongst which the Sabbath is reckoned, Col. 2.17. Therefore the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's Day, is a public testimony that Christians are freed from legal shadows, and that difference of days, which in ancient time was ordained. Add 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 the ceremonial Laws of Mosaical policy. As for our Popish Divines for which he refers us to Doctor Prideaux, it is apparent that more of them are alleged for the jus divinum, of the celebration of the Lords Day, then for the contrary; & one of them, Silvester by name professeth expressly that his opinion, was the common opinion which was for the Divine institution of it. And Azorius the Jesuit, as he professeth it a thing most agreeable to reason that after six work days one entire day should be consecrated to Divine worship; so withal saith that it is most agreeable to reason that the Lords Day should be that Day.  
Add unto these Sixtus Senensis, 
Biblioth. lib. 7. p. 603. Col. 1.  but that which they object (saith he) 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 believe the solemnity of the Lords Day was appointed by the Apostles themselves in memory of the Lords Resurrection: concerning the institution whereof by the Apostles Austin Ser. 25. the temp. testifieth in these words: therefore the Apostles themselves, & Apostolical men, appointed that the Lords Day should for that reason be religiously solemnised, because on it our Redeemer risen from the dead. In the last place come we to our Divines. Now Bucer I have already shown to stand for us rather than for him. 2. And Calvin expressly acknowledgeth that the Apostles did change the day. 3. Beza upon Re. 1. v. 10. hath an excellent passage to the same purpose. For he considers Christ's resurrection to be as it were a second creation of a World spiritual, and thereupon doubts not but that the spirit of God did suggest unto them the change of the seventh day into the Lord's day, as to be consecrated to Divine Service. 4. junius 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 himself, and his institution. 5. Piscator on Exod. 20.10. It is to be observed that the circumstance of the seventh day, in celebrating the Sabbath is abolished by Christ; as who for that day ordained the first day of the week, which we 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 Christ's coming 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 risen from the dead, and shown himself 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 ceremonial 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 shows how first he appeared to them gathered together on that very day whereon he risen. And again eight days after. Now that in these days he spoke unto them of the Kingdom of God Luke shows, Acts 1.3. Whence it was undoubtedly that the Apostles observed that day by the Lord's ordinance, to keep their Ecclesiastical assemblies thereon— as it appears they did Acts 20.7. & 1 Cor. 16.2. And hence it was without doubt, on the Lord's day John was in the spirit and received the Revelation. To the same purpose is that which Doctor Walaeus allegeth out of Piscator's  
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 express Commandment 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 risen from the dead (therefore called the Lordsday) he shown himself alive to his Disciples, and spoke to them of the Kingdom of God. And Paul on that day in an assembly of the faithful met together to celebrate the Lords Supper, preached to them on that day, Acts 20.7. and that the Christians at Corinth were wont to meet on that day for public prayer, appears 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 Commandment of Christ, Math. 28. the last, Teach them (to wit, as many as receive the Gospel) to keep all those things which I have commanded unto you. On the Lord's 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 either the express Commandment 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 certain 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 he 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 Andrew's in like manner Bishop of Winchester in his Star Chamber speech in the case of Traske; he not only 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 allegeth Austin Ep. 119. ad januarium. But also for the confirmation of it saith it is deduced plainly by practice; adding that these two only the day (of the week whereon Christ risen) and the Supper, are called the Lords, to show that the word Dominicum is taken alike in both. Nay he goes farther, as namely to allege not only practise but precept also for it; from the first of the Epistle to the Corin. cap. 16.2. For albeit the Apostle there doth expressly constitute only an order for collections for the poor on the day of their meeting, yet as Piscator observes, it cannot be 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 alleged by Gomarus, doth take that place of 1 Cor. 16.2. to notify, 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 Christ's not only example, but spirit also, observed the same; witness in the Acts, S. Paul, S. John in the Revelation. 38. And from the Apostles the Catholic Church uniformly received it, witness all Ecclesiastical writers. 39 And the Church hath received 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 World's 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 Apostolical institution. 9 Walaeus dissert. de Sab. p. 172. we conclude (saith he) this first day of the week, 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 faithful, not only for the delivering of certain 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 week was to be kept, by virtue and Analogy of the fourth Commandment, lest dissension thereabouts and (consequently) confusion might arise in the Church of God: and to this purpose he allegeth Beza before mentioned; and Gallesius, calvin's Colleague 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 he) 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 he, adds, For although we are not tied to the observation of days yet this necessary order must be observed, least confusion should be bred in the Church. 10. Fayus calvin's successor alleged also by Walaeus disput. 47. in q. precept. justly 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 week 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. Add unto these Master Perkins maintaining the same. That which he delivers of the Parliament in the days of King Edward the sixth, in that preamble of theirs concerning holy days, as left by the authority of God's Word to the authority of Christ's Church, by the discretion of the Rulers, and Ministers thereof, as they shall judge most expedient to the true setting forth of God's Glory, and edification of the people; I say that this should be understood not of holy days only, but of the Lords Day also, is a thing most incredible; neither doth he offer to cite any parcel thereof to justify this so bold an affirmation; only he saith, that by the body of the act it doth appear; but what that is in the body of that act whereby this doth appear, he very judiciously conceals. How improbable is it, that Bishop Andrew's would have opposed this Doctrine in the Start Chamber, if a Parliament of Prelates, and that in the days of King Edward the sixth, had maintained it. For he professeth, that these two only, the Lords Day, and the Lords Supper are called the Lords, to show that Dominicum is alike to be taken in both— and takes upon him to show that in the very Scripture, there is found a precept for observation of the Lords Day; And Bishop Lake 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 days of Queen Elizabeth, and dedicated to her Majesty, therein on Re. 1. v. 16. hath he delivered, that to change the Lords Day, and to keep it on Monday, Tuesday or any other day, the Church hath none authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himself delivered to us by his Apostles. Was he ever questioned for this? or was it ever known 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 himself in his holiness.   

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 me so well, and the spirit which it breathes throughout; that I do not affect to differ from him; but rather hearty desire there may be little or no difference between us, and I hope in the end there will be found little or no difference of importance between us, especially in this point of the institution of the Lord Day whether it be divine or humane, and as for the original institution of the Sabbath, namely as from the beginning of the World, and as touching the morality of one day in seven; therein I concur with him really and affectionately. And as touching the quality of the institution; I approve his learned pains 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 week, commonly called the Lords Day, even in those primitive and Apostolical days of the Christian Church. And I join 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 pains, 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 Jews Sabbath, in the very days of the Apostles, doth even convince their consciences, that it can savour of nothing less than Apostolical institution; which, because they do impugn, therefore they desire to impugn the use thereof as nothing so ancient as to be received of the Apostles themselves. For consider, I pray, how should the converted Jews 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 jointly concur herein without any dependence 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 fare beyond Almighty Gods resting on the seventh day from his work of creation? What could be devised to infer greater morality by the very light of nature than this, which should be so forcible to move all to concur 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 no where read of any difference hereabouts among the Apostles, counting Paul amongst them, who received from the Lord after his ascension into heaven what he delivered unto others. How then came it to pass, that they all so throughly, and at the first, agreed herein? If, as having received it from the Lord, than the case is clear, that it is of most Divine institution: But if only as drawn hereunto by the consideration of Christ's resurrection on that day, being guided by the Spirit of God infallibly to order as other things, so the time of Divine service, to prevent the danger of division and confusion upon just ground; even this is enough to manifest the strength of evidence which the Lord's resurrection carrieth with it, as to convince them, so to appoint, and to convince others of the reasonableness thereof, seeing all Churches did so universally and so early yield thereunto, and since that time so constantly persevered therein. The resurrection therefore of Christ, is nothing inferior 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 Commandment for the sanctifying of the seventh, especially that very commandment by just analogy 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 reform 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 been 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 week 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 faithful in giving Precepts (mark this well) not only touching faith and manners, but also the Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & recto ordino, for the well ordering of the Church, and that in this particular, what day of the week is to be observed by force and analogy of the fourth Commandment, to prevent dissension and confusion among the Churches. And I am verily persuaded, 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 Christ's institution, writes thus of it, Serm. de temp. 251. Dominicum ergo diem Apostoli & Apostolici viri ideo religiosa solennitate habendum sanxerunt, quia in eadem Redempter noster à mortuis resurrexit: this being premised, let us come to the consideration of that which he delivers about the justification hereof, from pag. 152. where he acknowledgeth that among the ancient Writers and Doctors of the reformed Church, there have been some who have referred the celebrity of this day to the fact and institution of Christ. At the first, by Christ's 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 Austin and Cyril, I think rather that by Christ's fact he means Christ resurrection, or perhaps, btoh the one and the other. For the sentence taken out of Austin 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, refers unto both; this first day Christ sanctified not only by his resurrection, but by sundry apparitions before his ascension, 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 holiness upon the first day of the week, it was Christ's 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 work done on the day. Now, neither Austin nor Cyril speak of any institution made by Christ. Eusebius, I confess, doth intimate such an institution, and Gregory the great, and so doth Athanasius seem to express as much, and Sedulius after him; but I am apt to conceive that they meant no other thing hereby, than that the consideration of Christ's resurrection by the suggestion of Christ's Spirit, should move the Apostles to ordain and establish the celebration of this day unto the Christian world. Junius, in my judgement, seems to have no other meaning, when he professeth the cause of the change of the day to be the resurrection of Christ, and the benefit of instauration of the Church in Christ; it is true, he saith afterwards that the Lords Day succeeded the seventh, (Christi observatione atque instituto, by Christ observation and ordinance; but I understand thereby no other ordinance than is bespoken by Christ's resurrection on the day and observation of the day. For anon he tells us, that the Lords Day was observed, Christi facto, exemplo, instituque Apostolorum, & veteris Ecclesiae observatione constantissimâ; by Christ's fact, example, and by the ordinance of the Apostles; unless instituto there, be to be referred to that which goes before, and aught to be distinguished from Apostolorum which comes after by a comma, though it be not. But let this be the opinion of junius and Piscator, which, perhaps, we may meet with some more evidence for than hitherto: Neither do I see any necessity of expressing concerning every thing they taught, that they received it of the Lord; Neither do I think fit to conclude, that whatsoever they ordered, they ordered by God's Commandment. But consider, there is a great difference between things ordered by them; some were concerning particulars, others for the Church universal. Some ordered by them for a certain time, other things to continue to the world's 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 world's end.  
The ingenuity of Master Perkins is to be commended, confessing ingenuously, that he proposeth his arguments not as necessary, but as probable, only to infer the institution of the first day of the week to be observed by Christians in place of the seventh, I would those that oppose him would carry themselves with the like ingenuity: nothing inferior is the ingenuity of Doctor Walaeus, pag. 156. professing that this opinion touching Christ's 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 do not propose it as necessary, but as probable, nor inveigh against such as are of another opinion or condemn them. Now, let us see upon what grounds he prefers the second opinion, making the institution of the Lords Day to depend upon Apostolical authority before it. Therefore, first he urgeth, that the Apostles have given no express commandment as being charged thereto by Christ, nor Christ himself. In brief, thus neither Christ hath any any where in Scripture commanded it, nor do the Apostles any any where signify that he did: I answer, the Apostles do not use to signify that what they deliver in particular was given them in charge by Christ; sometimes they do, but this extends not to the hundreth part of that they do deliver. And it may be by S. john's calling it the Lords Day, compared with that which our Saviour delivers in the Gospel, pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor upon the Sabbath day; and with the denomination of the Jews Sabbath called in the Old Testament the Lords holy day, we shall find sufficient intimation of Christ's institution. Especially considering that the question is but of the circumstance of a particular day, not of the proportion of time; and withal the analogy of the day of Christ's Resurrection to the day of the Lords rest from Creation. And whereas the Doctor further saith, that it seems not likely that Christ should not command it, if he meant to bind us to the observation of any day, as a part of his worship and service: Now I wonder what the worthy Doctor means to thrust in the circumstance, as a part of God's Worship. If the Apostles might command it as he thinks they did, yet not as a part of God's worship; why might not Christ command the observation of that day, yet not as a part of his worship? I am not persuaded, that when God at the first sanctified the seventh day, he made the observation of that day a part of his worship. And it is strange that the circumstance of time should be an homogeneal part of God's worship.  
First, it is true, the rest on that day commanded afterwards might be, and was as a ceremony preaching something unto them. All that is to be considered in time pertaining to God's Worship is the proportion of it; as whether one day in a week be most fit, or one day in a month be sufficient; and this is of momentous consideration, whether we consider the advancing GOD'S Glory thereby, or our own good, in a greater or lesser proportion; But the particularity of the day in seven whether first or last or middlemost, this consideration in my judgement is of no moment. Only for the avoiding of dissension, & confusion we have need 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 fair evidence under the Gospel for our Sabbath, as the Jews had for theirs; we are by God's goodness as much freed from dissension and confusion as they, and nothing the more engaged 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 days can hardly be reconciled with this opinion, or if Christ himself not by example only, but by an ordinance commanded unto his Disciples the observation of this day, it cannot be imagined as it seems, that any liberty should now remain in the observation of this day; for that which Christ hath determined is not left under Christian liberty any more than the observation of the seventh day from the Creation was left free to the Jews; when God not only by his example, but also by precept separated it from all other days to his service. To this I answer, 1. I find no liberty at all left to the Church to change the day, by the Doctors own grounds, for he holds it to be invariable p. 168.  
Secondly, He professeth the change of the day cannot be attempted without the greatest scandal of the Church, p. 169. Now what sober Christian would affect liberty to be scandalous? 3. others who acknowledge the observation of the day by Apostolical institution, and withal to be changeable and left to the liberty of the Church, do withal maintain that the Apostles did not command it as extraordinary Ministers of Christ: but Doctor Waleus p. 172. acknowledgeth the institution of it made by the Apostles as Ministers extraordinary. 4. the Doctor professeth that the Apostles were entrusted by the Holy Ghost to give precepts concerning the good government of the Church, and that in this particular case, to make known to all Christians every where what day in the week ought to be kept holy, and that by virtue and analogy of the fourth Commandment, and withal to prevent dissension and confusion amongst the Churches thereabouts. 5. and lastly he joins the precepts concerning this with precepts concerning faith, and manners; and this he 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 week is it to be sanctified to God's Service. As for the places Rom. 14. Gal. 2. & Coloss. 2. I answer, that if we made the observation of the day as it denotes a circumstance of time, any part of God's Service, or for some mysterious signification contained therein, then indeed we should carry ourselves in contradiction to the places mentioned: but seeing we observe times only 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 mankind in such sort as in these latter days; and of ourselves we are to seek, 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 own judgements, a way would be opened to miserable dissension and confusion; what cause have we to bless 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 seven-night after; as also by his Apostles to commend it, and establish it in such sort, that for 1600. years the observation thereof hath continued unto this day? which order of the Apostles doth carry pregnant presumption that it proceeded originally from the institution of Christ. The necessity of the Church Christian requiring the specification of the day for the preventing of dissension, and confusion as much as ever the necessity of the Jewish Church required the like; and over and above by reason of the fourth Commandment we have now better evidence to conclude therehence the observation of the Lords Day, by the congruity that Christ's Resurrection hath to the Lords rest from Creation; better means I say to conclude ours, than they without a Commandment to infer the observation of their seventh: forstill the day of the Lords rest is made the day of our rest.  
Thirdly, that which is alleged in the third place, that both ancient and late writers do maintain that we celebrate the Lords Day, not as any part of Divine worship, nor as absolutely necessary. For the first of these we willingly grant; for as much as we conceive the observation of the 7th. by the Jews was not 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 known that no Christians observe it in any such Notion. But the observation thereof we hold to be absolutely necessary, and so doth Doctor Walaeus in holding it to be invariable, and that it cannot be altered without the greatest scandal. And Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath, and Wells professeth it to be not, liberae observationis, but necessariae. And if it were free, than not to use this freedom 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 God's worship and service, yet as touching a circumstance thereof, such as is the circumstance of time. As for express precept, if he means a precept expressly written, no man (I trow) ever stood for that, but if he means a precept given by Christ's express charge to his Apostles, no man that I have met with, saith more hereupon, then Doctor Walaeus seems to affirm himself; in saying that they were entrusted by the Holy Ghost as extraordinary Ministers, that they should be faithful ad tradenda praecepta, to give precepts 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 week was to be set apart for God's service; both by virtue and analogy of the fourth Commandment, and to prevent dissension, and confusion among the Churches; Neither do we acknowledge any other celebrity of the day than this; and therefore do no more affront Hierome then Doctor Walaeus himself. As for festival days in Socrates, and Nicephorus, I see no cause why as touching that they speak thereof, the Lords Day should be comprehended under them: and as for apostolical precept, concerning this Doctor Walaeus is as express as any. And it is not credible to me, that the Apostles should make such an invariable ordinance to the Church, and not be verily persuaded that it was the Will of God the Father, and of God the Son it should be so: whether manifested by Christ's particular charge unto them; or by comparing Christ's Resurrection with the Lords rest from the works of Creation. Otherwise in my judgement they had never called that day the Lords Day.  
Fourthly, he excepts against the argument drawn from Christ's Resurrection; denying that therehence it follows that that day was to be consecrated to God. But herein he opposeth all the ancients; neither do I think he can allege any one that doth not hereon build the observation of the Lords Day; which nuiversall concurrence doth manifestly argue to be more than probable: Austin as Waleus allegeth 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 Commandment; (and analogy Doctor Walaeus grants, and I wonder he takes no notice of it here) by comparing the second Creation with the first Creation; and so Doctor Andrew's Bishop of Winchester professeth that the new Creation requires a new Sabbath, especially seeing the old must be abrogated as ceremonial. But the analogy I confess may be differently shaped; Athanasius shapes it thus, that the Jews 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 Christ's resurrection; in reference whereunto the Apostle saith, Old things are passed, behold, all things are become new. And I conceive reason to justify 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: Again, Adam and Eve were made but the immediate day before the seventh, and the seventh he was to spend in rejoicing in God's works; so Christ's death was the world's redemption; and immediately after, to wit, with Christ's rising, it was as fit we should Sabbatise with God for joy of our Redemption. Otherwise the analogy (which Doctor Walaeus grants, but doth not explicate) may be conceived thus. The seventh day of the week was the Lord's rest from the work of creation, the first day of the week was the Lord's rest from the work of redemption, in the morning thereof rising from his grave; and in respect of Christ's resurrection on this day, what colour hath any other day of the week comparable hereunto, to make it fit to stand in competition with this. Yes, saith D. Walaeus, the Thursday may, and that in consideration of Christ's ascension on that day; yet Doctor Walaeus well knows, 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. Again, consider Christ's resurrection and ascension are to be computed but as one complete 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 until they were endued with power from on high to carry the glad tidings of salvation all the world over. So Christ's dying and continuing under the power of death, is but one work of Redemption. He confesseth, that Christ's resurrection afforded an argument to the Church Apostolical, to prefer this day before all others (very well, even before the day of his ascension) for religious assemblies, as all the ancients testify. 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 known facts do not institute otherwise than as therefrom may be concluded that such a day is to be kept; and in this sense he doth as good as confess, that Christ by his fact, did institute; for the Apostolical Church did hereupon prefer this day, as he confesseth all the ancients do testify. And did they not infer 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 unless God had proposed this rest of his as an example, and confirmed it by precept, never had the Church of the old Testament been 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 command this proportion to the Jews, without any new commandment, we can infer 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 commandment, may better infer that Christ's resting day from the work 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 known how many days God was creating the world, so to know what day he rested, that they might conform unto him in their rest; unless God had revealed it unto them; but supposing God had revealed it, and withal had called it his holy day, and it were known unto them that one day in the week must be set apart as God's 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, aught 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 risen, having finished the work of man's Redemption; we know the Jews Sabbath is abrogated; we know the proportion of one day in seven remains still to be consecrated as an holy day to the Lord; we know the Lord prescribed to the Jews 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 week being the day of our Saviour's resurrection, is called by Saint john the Lord's Day; as for Easter and Pentecost, the case is nothing like; those festivals being not of single days, but of whole weeks, once in a year, yet this proportion we find between them and the weekly Sabbath. There are in a year seven times seven weeks, and a fraction less than half a seven; so that the memory of the creation was seven times in a year 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 fare surmounting the other, yet their Easter began the day of the year whereon they came out of Egypt. And Doctor Lake, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Thes. 41. the Sabbat. professeth, that God sets out the day by the work he doth on the day, the work I say done, doth difference a day from a day: and Thes. 43. Now then, when God doth any remarkable work, thou will he be honoured with a commemoration day for that work. If the work concern the whole, by the whole Church; and by a part, if it concern 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 work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekly, monthly, or yearly, 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 original of the observation of the Friday, as a festival day amongst mahumetans? 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 year and of their week. So then the Will of God, in the judgement of this reverend Divine, is manifested not only by Precept, but by his Worke. And yet I know none speaks more of Precept in this particular, than Doctor Walaeus, as I have often alleged him, pag. 172.  
Fifthly, I grant junius went too fare, in affirming that Christ did observe the same every week between his resurrection and ascension; but neither doth the contrary appear by Scripture; undoubtedly the two first he did, and it is not manifest that the three following he did not; and though Cyril infers here-hence the reasonableness of our Christian assemblies on this day, yet we do not; but as Doctor Walaeus concludes that which he 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 Christ's appearing on other days, as joh. 21.24. once, which was at a fish meeting. And as little material is it, that at such other times of his meetings he spoke of the kingdom 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 only in a conjunct consideration with Christ's resurrection on that day: And like as after his death he arose on that day manifesting himself mightily thereby to be the Son of God, so after his ascension into heaven, he came down by his Spirit on that day, the seventh, first day of the week after his resurrection, manifesting thereby as Peter signifieth that he had obtained the dispensation of the Spirit. We do not say the Spirit was on the day of Pentecost sent down, because it was the Lord's day; But being sent down on that day, as the Law is confessed to have been 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 enabled to preach the Gospel. And that day of the week which is set apart for Divine service as our Christian Sabbath; as that day whereon the Holy Ghost doth ordinarily come down upon his servants in the ministry of his Word, and celebration of the Sacraments, and putting up of our joint prayers unto him for the sanctifying and edifying Christ body which is the Church: and even in this respect that day hath a fare better congruity 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 corporal, but on the day of Pentecost he came down upon them as touching his presence spiritual; and so he doth still in our Sabbath exercises on the Lord's day, though not in so extraordinary a manner, yet no less effectually to that edification and sanctification of our souls.  
Seventhly, And whereas some urged that it Christ himself had not instituted this day after his resurrection, the most Primitive Church should have been left destitute of a certain day of God's worship, to wit, from the time of Christ's resurrection to the first consecrating of the Lords Day, which they take to be absurd, and I confess, it seems unlikely that the Apostles took upon them to order aught until 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 strengthening the former reason, it is added; That the Jews Sabbath was now abolished by Christ's death and resurrection. This I do 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 days between Christ's ascension and the coming down of the Holy Ghost upon them, were spent in continual meetings of the Apostles and other Disciples. But from the day of Pentecost, the Lords day thenceforth observed. This answer reacheth not unto the days interceding between Christ's resurrection and his ascension. And when I consider Bishop Lake his discourse, grounded, as he professeth, upon universal observation (and which I find no reason to resist) namely, that the work of the day commends the day: If ever any day deserved to be festival to any, surely the day of our Saviour's resurrection deserved to be festival unto them, to rejoice 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 rejoice therein; the ancient Fathers accommodating the place thereunto. The two verses immediately preceding, carrying in the forehead of them a manifest relation unto Christ as the proprietary of their meaning. 22. The stone which the bvilders 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 bvilders refused became the head of the corner, but by Christ's Resurrection from the dead, being thereby mightily declared to be the Son of God. Rom. 14. and was there ever work more marvellous in the eyes of God's Servants, than the Resurrection of Christ, especially considering the disconfolate condition of his Disciples? Luke 24, 21. We trusted it had been he, that should have delivered Israel. The women departed from the Sepulchre though with fear, by reason of the consternation received from Angelical presence, their countenance being like lightning, yet with great joy by reason of the news they heard from them of Christ's Resurrection; upon the noise whereof (for they were commanded to carry word of it to his Disciples,) the Apostles as it seems were gathered together; and in the evening after he had showed himself to his Disciplcs going to Emaus, Christ presented himself in the midst of them. Eight days 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 doors 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 week might well add somewhat to the confirmation of them in the festivity of this day; and howsoever between his ascension, and the day of Pentecost they had their meetings, yet how improbable is it they should put no difference; between such a festival and other days of the week. A second answer Walaeus gives, namely that others say, that from the day of Pentecost it was not necessary that the Lords Day should be observed: but that at the first the Apostles together with the Jews observed their Sabbath not as a ceremony of the Old Testament, but as a free circumstance of divine worship, as for a while they retained Circumcision and difference of meats; which they gave over, after the Jews were found obstinately to refuse the Gospel. So that in these men's judgements the Lords Day was no festival to the Apostles, till by occasion of the Jews obstinateness, a proper occasion for the institution of a new festival. And give me leave to differ from them in yoking Circumcision and difference of meats with the Jews Sabbath, neither of them prefiguring Christ as to come, like as the Jews 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 been more congruous. I see no reason to withhold me from concurring with Austin, and in him with all the ancients, for aught 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 bvilders 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 rejoice and be glad in it. Neither is it credible to me that the Apostles were ignorant of it or of its application, the day of Christ's Resurrection, from the very day thereof. Heresbachius upon these words, Haec dies quam fecit dominus. They are (saith he) the words of the people exulting in the Kingdom of David, most of all of the glorious Resurrection of Christ, which of all others was most glorious to mankind: as whereon Christ redeemed us in a triumphant manner, from the Tyarnny of Satan, and from everlasting death, and restored unto us everlasting righteousness. Arnobius interprets it of the Lords Day.  
Eightly, the last argument, and which he acknowledgeth of greatest moment is that, which is taken out of Apoc. 1.10. Where the first day of the week is called the Lords Day, whence they conclude, that it is of the Lords institution. And indeed Doctor Andrew's Bishop of Winchester in his Star Camber speech professeth, that this denomination is given only to the first day of the week, as called in Scripture the Lord's day, and to the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, as called the Lords Supper, and that to show that the word Dominicum (the Lords) is to be taken alike in both. In the same sense we call the Prayer which our Savious taught his Disciples the Lords Prayer. But let us hear Walaeus his answer, that we may consider it. This consequence (saith he) is not necessary, for it may be called the Lords, not only 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 speak, as the altar of the Lord, and feast of the Lord are often so called. And that in this sense it was taken of the ancients it appears by this, that the ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin, called Temples by the name of Dominica, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That which we 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 do the fathers (in my observation) call the first day of the week the Lords day otherwise then in reference to Christ's Resurrection, as the cause of the festival nature thereof. Temples indeed they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as consecrated to the Lord; but the denomination is not to distinguish it from other Temples; as the Lord's Day hath its denomination to distinguish it from other days. But the day of Christ's Resurrection being called the Lords Day not as such a day in the year, but as such a day in the week, this to my understanding doth manifestly infer the succession of it into the place of the Lords day of the week amongst the Jews. Both ancient and modern Divines do hold it lawful to consecrate other days to the service of of God, such as we usually call holy days. But never any man (I think) was found that durst call any of them Diem dominicum the Lords Day. Add to this, wherefore doth our Saviour say, that the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, but plainly to conclude herence, that he can dispense with it, he can abrogate it, and bring another into the place of it? and none hath power for this but he 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 confess the religious observation of the Sabbath; and did they understand any other religion of the Sabbath but as from Divine institution? Now the time concerning which our Saviour delivers this, now about the destruction of the Temple by Titus, 
Sect. 6.  after that no other Sabbath but of the Lords Day, was generally established in the Churches.  
Last of all, for the third, and last conclusion, 
Pref.  that still the Church hath power to change the day our Doctor in the 7. Section, bringeth in Bullinger, Bucer, Brentius, Vrsinus, and Chemnitius, aliisque nostris with divers others not named particularly, as they are which think not otherwise thereof then Calvin did, and shows by what distinction Suarez, though otherwise no friend unto the men, doth defend their Doctrine.  
Now as the doctrine was, such also is the practice of those men and Churches, devoid of any the least superstitious rigour, esteeming it to be a day left arbitrary, and therefore open to all honest exercises and lawful recreations; by which the mind may be refreshed, and the spirits quickened. Even in Geneva itself according as it is related in the enlargement of Boterus by Robert Johnson, all honest exercises, shooting in pieces, long Bows, crossbows, etc. are used on the Sabbath Day, and that both in the morning, before and after Sermon; neither do the Ministers find fault therewithal, so that they hinder not from hearing of the word at the time appointed.  
Dancing indeed they do not suffer; But this is not in relation to the Sunday, but the sport itself, which is held unlawful, and generally forbidden in the French Churches: which strictness as some note, considering how the French do delight in dancing, hath been a great hindrance to the growth of the reformed religion in that Kingdom.  
The Doctor indeed saith, that Calvin, Bullenger, Bucerus, 
Exam.  Brentius, Chemnitius, Vrsine and others of the reformed Churches affirm, that still the Church hath power to change the Lords Day to some other; but he neither citys their words, nor quotes any place out of their writings. And as for Calvin, whom this Prefacer proposeth as chief, and the rest as thinking not otherwise thereof, than he did; I make no doubt but the passage in Calvin is instit. 2. cap. 8. sect. 34. where thus he writeth, Neque sic tamen septenarium numerum moror, ut ejus servituti Ecclesiam astringerem, I do not so regard the number of seven; as to tie the Church to the servitude thereof; which considered in itself, might intimate that in his opinion, it is indifferent whether we keep holy one day in seven, or one day in fourteen; but the words immediately following do manifest his meaning to be fare otherwise, as namely, that we are not so tied to a seventh, but that we may solemnize other days also, by our holy assemblies. For thus it follows, Neque enim damnavero qui alios conventibus suis solennes dies habeant. I condemn not them that keep other days holy: will any man suppose that some there were, well known to Calvin, who kept other days solemn, and not the Lords Day; and that these men Calvin would not condemn? And Gomarus, who is most opposite to us in this argument, professeth, that seeing not only 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 seek that which the Doctor aims at. As for Bucer, I have showed before out of him, that the Lords Day was by the Apostles themselves consecrated to Divine actions; which ordinance the ancient Churches observed most religiously, and that one of the chief causes hereof was, that they might celebrate the memory of Christ's resurrection, which fell out on the first day of the week; 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 Christ's Kingdom, aught to labour, that the religion of the Lords Day may be sound called back and be of force. Yet (saith he) it is agreeable to our piety to sanctify other festivals also, to the commemoration of the Lords chief works, whereby he perfected our redemption as the day of his incarnation, nativity, the Epiphany, the passion, the resurrection, ascension and Pentecost. And the place which Doctor Rivet explic. decal. pag. 189. col. 2. allegeth out of Bucer in Mat. 10. to prove that he maintained the day to be alterable, is nothing to the purpose, and as little do they make for it which he allegeth out of Musculus, To find out what Chemnitius saith hereupon, I turn to his Examen of the counsel of Trent, concerning festivals; There pag. 154. col. 2. he saith, that Christ, to show that he kept the Jews Sabbath freely, and not of necessity; against the opinion of necessity, touching the abrogation of the Mosaical Sabbath, he taught both by word and deed. By word, in saying, that the Son 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 ears of corn. 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 martyrdom divers years before, by whose writings it doth appear that the Lords Day was kept in place of the Jews 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 column 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 he that is Lord of the Sabbath, which is Christ himself, 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 shows how the Apostles at the first tolerated their weak faith, who without superstition observed days Mosaical, Rom. 14. and that such as were stronger in faith, after the abrogation of the old Testament, judged all days to be equal in themselves, and none more holy than another. We willingly grant as much, and add the reason hereof; to wit, because the holiness of the day preferred before his fellows consisted in some mysterious signification which had reference unto Christ as to come; all which kind of shadows, the body being come, are now vanished away. He 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 public or common exercises of piety. So the Sabbath day, and other festival days they taught. All this we willingly grant, but here-hence it followeth not, that one day of the week was not of more necessary observation for the exercises of piety than another. Farther (saith he) that they might manifest that the exercises of Ecclesiastical assemblies were not tied to certain days: 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 week, as namely, to the Lords Day, as that we may not have our holy assemblies more often than once, but only so, that we may not keep them less often, nor omit the celebration of the Lords Day: like as the Jews might not omit the celebration of their weekly Sabbath, though sometimes many days 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, we keep on the Lord's 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 Mosaical Sabbath, and other feasts, as by law, and with opinion of necessity, as to condemn their consciences who observed them not. Paul forbade the observation of them. All which we willingly acknowledge, but that hereupon they began first to ordain another day in the week for their Ecclesiastical 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 Augustine's, who professeth, as Chemnitius well knew, that the Lords Day was declared unto Christians by the Lord's resurrection, and from thence began to have its festivity alleged by Chemnitius himself, p. 156. especially considering the reason moving them 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 been observed in regard of some great work done on such a day for the good of man; whether ever any day brought forth a more wonderful or more comfortable work to mankind than the first day of the week, which was the day of our Saviour's resurrection from the dead, let the Christian world judge. This day Chemnitius saith, seems to be called by Saint john the Lord's Day, which appellation all antiquity did afterwards retain and use: yet notwithstanding (saith he) we do not read that the Apostles did impose upon men's 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 adays we observe no day for any mysterious signification sake, but only for order sake. And thus under the Gospel we are freed from observation of days for mysteries sake, not free from observation of one certain day in the week for order sake. At for his phrase of imposing the observation of the Lords day upon men's consciences; this phrase is most improper and unseasonable, in this case; it is only proper and seasonable in case the thing imposed be of a burdensome nature, like unto that Saint Peter speaks of, Acts 15.10. saying, Now therefore, why tempt ye God to lay a yoke on the Disciples necks which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear? Such indeed was the yoke of circumcision; which provoked Zippora (according to common opinion) driven to circumcise her son to save her husband's life, to throw the foreskin at her husband's feet calling him a bloody husband for urging her thereunto. But what burden is it (save unto the flesh) to rejoice in the Lord, to sabbatise with him, to walk with him in holy meditation? Was it no burden to the godly Jews to consecrate one day in seven to the exercises of Piety under the Law; and shall it be a burden to us in the time of the Gospel? Or can it be conceived to be a greater burden unto us to keep our Christian Sabbath on the Lord's Day, then on any other day of the week? was there ever any day of the week marked out unto us with a more honourable or more wonderful work to draw us to rejoice in the Lord thereon, than the first day of the week whereon our Saviour risen, by his Resurrection to bring life and immortality to light? yet we confess we read of no Law nor Precept for this in the new Testament, but, we read that ever under the Gospel we must have a Sabbath to observe, Math. 24.20. And we know, and Chemnitius knew full well, that it belongs to the Lord of the Sabbath to change it, and consequently to ordain it, and that it was changed, and the Lords Day observed generally in the Apostles days, none that I know makes question of; and how could thi● be, 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 week (and not that day of the year) be called the Lords Day, if not for the same use under the Gospel that the Lords Day, was of under the Law, especially that day under the Law (which was the Jews Sabbath) being now abrogated? and lastly we find it manifestly spoken of the day of Christ's Resurrection, Psal. 118.24. This is the day that the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it: yet lastly whereas Chemnitius will have it free, and he hath already manifested that he speaks of it in this sense, as not to be so tied to this day, but that we may observe other days; we willingly grant that in this sense it is free. Now let us consider his reason following. For saith he, if we are freed from the Elements, which by God himself in the old Testament were ordained, and commanded, how should we be tied by the decrees of men? But alas this reason of his hath no proportion: the Elements he speaks of were but shadows the body whereof is Christ, and now Christ is revealed, they were wont to be called not only Mortua but mortifera. Yet the observation of one day in seven still continues to be the Commandment of God delivered not to Moses, as ceremonies were, but by word of mouth proclaimed on mount Sina; and natural reason suggests unto us that we must allow unto God's service as good a proportion of time under the Gospel, as he required of the Jews under the Law. Now if one day in seven must be set apart in common reason, what day is to be preferred for this before the Lord's Day, the day of Christ's rest from the work of redemption in suffering the sorrows of death; as the day of the Lords rest from the Creation was appointed to the Jews for their Sabbath; And this Resurrection of Christ bringing with it a new Creation; Shall we prefer the Saturday the Jews festival before it, shall we prefer the Friday the day of the Turks festival before it? shall we affect power and liberty to make any other day in the week the Lords holy day, rather than that the Word of God commends unto us for the Lords Day in the time of the Gospel?  
This I suppose may suffice for answering the rest also, whensoever their suffrages shall be brought to light, for I presume none of them hath said more than Chemnitius hath done. Azorius the Jesuit professeth of two things in this argument, that they are most agreeable to reason. First, that after six work days one entire day should be consecrated to God, 2. that the Lords Day should be it. Doctor Fulke in answer to the Remish Testament professeth that to change the Lords Day and keep it on Monday, Tuesday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himself delivered to us by his Apostles. This was printed in the days of Queen Elizabeth and dedicated unto her Majesty; what Bishop as governor in this Church of England hath ever been known to take exception against this? Doctor Andrew's (Bishop of Winchester) in his star Chamber speech in the Case of Traske professeth that the Sabbath (to wit of the jews) had reference to the old Creation, but in Christ we are now Creatures, (As the Apostle S. Paul speaks) a new Creation, and so to have a new Sabbath. And this he saith is deduced plainly. 1. by practice, 2. by precept, that these two only, the first day of the week, and the Sacrament of the Supper are called the Lords, to show 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 shows also, it was an usual 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 work 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 Lord's 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 world's 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, 46. The work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekly, monthly or yearly, 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. Add unto these junius and Piscator, who maintain the subrogation of the Lords Day into the place of the Jewish Sabbath, to have been 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 junius, referring the institution of the Lords Day to Christ's 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 wonderful glory of that thing be darkened, and the infinite power of it weakened, I mean, the glorious and mighty work of our redemption which by the sanctification of this Sabbath is commended unto us, and we by keeping that holy still, do 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 again, and it is worthily commended to be kept as the Lord's Day, that we might give thanks 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 greatness, and, as it were, by the brightness 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 only not be changed any more, but it must not so much as enter in men's thoughts to go about to change it. And therefore I do so much the more marvel 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 public 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 commandment of the Gospel, but rather for a civil ordination. And that the Church might have appointed but one day in ten, or fourteen for the public rest and God's service. Lastly, Master Perkins maintains 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 think good in this place to take them into consideration.   

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

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 work of the new creation, rested on this day from the work of Redemption. Secondly, as Christ did substitute the last supper in room of the , so he substituted the first day of the week in room of the Jews Sabbath to be a day set apart to his own worship. To this Doctor Rivet answereth after this manner. 
Rivet. Answ.  First, he 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 Christ's 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 Ecclesiastical and so mutable. For men may choose days 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 consent of all. To this I reply that Doctor Rivetus corrupts Master Perkins his answer in the proposing of it; 
Repl.  for he saith not the same is the reason of the Lords Supper, and of the day which we 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 Lord's Supper is so called because he instituted it; so the first day of the week is called the Lords Day, because he instituted the observation of it. And this Doctor Thysius colleague to Doctor Rivetus maintains as well as Master Perkins, and Doctor Andrew's Bishop of Winchester in his speech against Traske; saying that both these, to wit the first day of the week, and Christ last Supper are called the Lords, to show that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to be taken in both. For what reason can be given why the day of Christ's Resurrection, not according to the day of the year wherein he arose, but according to the day of the week wherein he arose, should be called the Lords Day, but to signify. 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, only that it should be consecrate to his service. For consider, we have many other days consecrated by the Church unto Divine service, which yet were never called the Lords Days; And the Lords Day and the Lords feasts in the Old Testament, and in the language of the Holy Ghost are no other than such that are of the Lords institution. Secondly, Doctor Rivetus omits the main 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 work of the new Creation rested on this day from his work of redemption. Athanasius of old considers a first and a second Creation; and so accordingly a first and a second Sabbath: our Saviour himself speaks of a Christian Sabbath, Math. 24.20. and w●●t should that be but the Lord's Day under the Gospel? And Beza and junius and Bishop Andrew's work upon the same. And I wonder that men should think the Sabbath should be altered, and another brought into the place of it by any other authority then of him who is Lord of the Sabbath. And as Bishop Lake observes in all feasts both Divine and humane that we read of in Scripture, the work of the day was the ground of hallowing the day. And never was known to the World a more wonderful work in the way of grace, and mercy, than Christ's 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 shows that upon the same ground he takes upon him power to dispense or change the Sabbath, as he is Lord of the Sabbath. But what is his ground to deny the parity of reason here? merely his own prejudicated 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 avoid. But who and how many are those all? what one of the ancients can he produce to have thought as he thinks? He may as well say according to the current of his private opinion, that we under the Gospel are not as much bound to the observation of one day in seven as the Jews were under the Law. It is true, that rigorous rest enjoined to the Jews we utterly disclaim as well as he; again the circumstance of the day we make no part of God's worship nor to have any mysterious signification, as the Sabbath had to the Jews. We acknowledge no other use of this day then for order and policy sake; in which case we judge it fare better the Lord should prescribe it, than we unto ourselves, least if there were twenty days in the week, there would be twenty differences amongst Christians about the setting apart of one day in the week for Divine Service.  

Perkins.  2. Master Perkins his second argument is this, The Church of Corinth every first day of the week made a collection for the poor, 1 Cor. 16.2. and this collection for the poor in the primitive Church followed the preaching of the Word, Prayer and the Sacraments as a fruit thereof, Acts 2.42. and Paul commands the Corinth's to due this as he had ordained in the Churches of Galatia: whereby he makes it to be an Apostolical, and therefore a Divine Ordinance. Yea that very Text doth in some part manifest thus much, that it is an ordinance and institution of Christ that the first day of the week should be the Lords Day. For Paul commands nothing but what he received from Christ.  
To this Doctor Rivetus allegeth the answer of Doctor Prideaux, 
Rivets Ans. Reply.  demanding how that we contend for his inferred herehence? we answer, the general practice of the Church in the Apostles days argues it manifestly, that this order was established by the joint consent of the Apostles; otherwise it is incredible it should have been so universally received, and persevered in as it hath been to this day. Secondly, whereas the Jews Sabbath was by divine authority, the abrogation thereof and substituting another day in the place thereof could be done by no less authority then Divine; which also we conceive to be fairly represented by the denomination of our Christian Sabbath, S. john calling it the Lords Day. Secondly, he showeth what Gomarus answereth hereunto; but this answer himself 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 week in the Apostles days set apart to Divine Service; he saith it follows not herehence that it is called the Lords Day, as destinated to God's Service, much less that so it was by Divine ordination. Yet Walaeus thinks it his safest course to say 'tis called the Lords Day as destinated to God's Service, as before we have heard, so to avoid (as he thinks) the implication of Divine Ordination. But to him I have answered before. And Doctor Rivetus in my opinion doth not well consider that not the day of the year, but the day of the week, whereon Christ risen, is called the Lords Day by S. john. Like as the Sabbath in the Old Testament is called the Lords Day: which which if he had, and withal considered how strange it were for us to set any day in the week apart for the exercises of Piety rather than the Lords Day; I am persuaded he would not have contented himself with this answer. For certainly many other holy days have been and are set apart for Divine Service, yet never were called any one of them the Lords day.  
He talks of a bare custom of the Church, for it; a thing incredible that both Jews and Gentiles throughout all Nations should so universally concur 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 poor judgement, that if it were, it should become us by earnest and hearty prayer to seek unto God to take that liberty from us and be pleased himself to guide us by some manifest ordinance, to prevent dissension and confusion; yet well far Doctor Rivetus; he will not have this liberty extend any further than provided that some reason and necessity should urge the changing of the day; for in the next column he professeth that a sufficient cause of the change and abrogation of the day cannot be given.— The observation of other days 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 Lord's Day was prefigured in the eighth day, wherein the children of the jews 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 week. But Master Perkins his argument hath another part fare more principal drawn from Psal. 118.22.23.24. Which Doctor Rivetus relates after this menner.  

Perk.  The day of the Resurrection was prefigured by that day, wherein the Stone which the bvilders refused was made the head of the Corner. But that day was the Sabbath Day, therefore by the Sabbath was prefigured the Lords Day.  
To this he answers, by denying that the Sabbath day was the day wherein the bvilders refused that stone; For the Scribes, 
Rivet. Answ.  Pharises and rulers of the people did always reject Christ, and not the Sabbath day only. And if Austin and Cyprian before him apprehended any such figure, that was by way of accommodation only, 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 week whereon Christ risen; For this was the day wherein the stone which the bvilders refused, was made the head of the corner; and of this day the Prophet speaks, when he saith, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoice in it. That like as the Jews had cause to make that day festival and to rejoice therein, wherein God advanced David to the kingdom, who was as a stone, refused before by the bvilders: in like sort, Christians had as great cause, nay, fare greater, to keep that day festival, and to rejoice 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 son of God, who was before as a stone despised and refused of the bvilders, but as on this day was made the head of the corner. And not Cyprian and Austin only, but Ambrose upon the Psalms so understands it, and Arnobius also upon the Psalms, as Hereshbachius observeth. And Doctor Rivetus is too blame in construing Perkins in such manner, as if he should confine the bvilder's 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 bvilders, was made hhead the of corner, was the day of Christ's resurrection, and of this day it is said by the Psalmist, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoice 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 rational Divine hath observed, that always the work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, and for proof hereof, he appeals to the due consideration of all festivals 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 mistranslation of them) The day of Christ's resurrection was prefigured by that day wherein the stone which the bvilders 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 do so construe the place by way of accommodation, that hath place only when the Text itself doth not so accommodate it. But the Text itself in this place doth manifestly evince, that this is spoken in reference to the day of Christ's 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. Again, Christ is called the Lord of the Sabbath. And Antiochus Epiphanes is condemned by the Holy Ghost, because he took 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, than 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 general or particular, belongs not to the Church, but is reserved to him. The Church than 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 Kingdoms and Monarchies, as appears 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 carrieth himself most modestly towards him. But I hope without any breach of modesty, I may profess, that I find no accurateness in each of his allegations, save one, namely, that wherein 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 apparent, that God himself took upon him the ordering of the time for the Sabbath, and accordingly Christ calls himself The Lord of the Sabbath; as he constituted it, so none but he can abrogate it, and ordain another in the place of it. Now, whereas D. Rivetus saith, that he 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 Jews had before: we find that in the Apostles days, the first day of the week was set apart for this; which could not be, but by the joint consent of the Apostles, we find that the day of the week (not the day of the year) wherein Christ risen, by Saint john himself called the Lords Day, an evident argument, that in his time it was so generally received. We find that never any work of God did give better cause to profess, that The day thereof was the day that the Lord had made, let us be glad and rejoice therein; then the day wherein Christ risen from the dead, and thereby was declared to be the Son of God, even that stone which the bvilders refused to be made the head of the corner. And how strange is it, that the Church for 1500. year's space should not where offer to alter it; if in no other respect, yet in this, to manifest that the Church is endued 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 lawful liberty? But infinite inconvenience would follow hereupon: for seeing this liberty is equally communicated to each particular Church, it will follow, that it is lawful for our English Church to institute the Monday, 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 scandal were this amongst Christians? Thus our liberty opens way to revive the Jews Sabbath, or to concur with the Turks, who make Friday their holy day, nay, what scandal also to all the Heathens throughout the world? For, suppose that as the Jews keep the Saturday, and the Turks their Friday; so other heathenish nations according to their several religions should divide the other days of the week 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 scandal 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 dissension and confusion; and not rather rejoice in this, that to prevent such miserable inconveniences, God himself hath marked out unto us the first day of the week 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 Son of God, and fulfilling that prophecy of old concerning the stone which the bvilders 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 Prophet's language to profess 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 rejoice in it; this undoubtedly is our Christian festival; this day of the week, and not this day of the year, (which is remarkable) being called by Saint john, The Lord's Day, the day wherein Christ appeared unto him, and gave unto him the book of Revelation concerning the secrets of his providence to be fulfilled upon the world for the time to come, even till his second coming to destroy the world with fire, and to bless us with new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness; the metropolis of which new world, shall be new Jerusalem. And albeit Doctor Rivetus according to his pious ingenuity which crownes his learning and cathedral sufficiencies, professeth, that what hitherto hath been spoken by him of the choice and possible change of that day; he hath not to any such end ventilated, as to favour their profaneness who on holy days and chiefly on that day, which by so universal a consent even from the beginning of Christianity hath been consecrated to such use, neglecting God's Service, not only refuse to omit one day in prosecuting works tending to the use of life temporal: but also by unnecessary actions, as by pleasant sports, stage plays, by intemperance also and riot profane the day, not without reason dedicated to the Lord. Yet what just occasion hereby may be in all places and like enough is taken in most places by this doctrine of his who seethe not? For albeit public authority in some places hath by laws countenanced the solemnisation of the Lords Day; for which we of this land have cause to bless God so as I think no Nation more; in consideration of many Laws one after another and by degrees made to restrain abuses on that day, as tending to the manifest profanation thereof; and by none more than 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 been proved) that all sports and pastimes are profanations of our Christian Sabbath observed on that day, and that in the judgement of the whole Parliament consisting of the King's Majesty the head thereof, with his Lords spiritual (all the Bishops of the Kingdom) and temporal, together with the House of Commons; yet if once it shall be received 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 think fit for Divine Service, and what day they think fit, who perceives not that they may if they will, order it in such a manner, as that twice a day they shall come to Church, and the rest of the day spend as they think good, either in the works of their calling, or upon their pleasures: And whence all this zeal (so opposite to holiness in the issue) proceeds, I know not, save only to uphold the credit of Calvin; who professeth that he doth not so regard the number of seven, as that he would tie any to the servitude thereof; and yet I have endeavoured to show that neither this nor other passages taken out of his institutions, makes any thing for them. And withal 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 demeanours to be performed on this day, we may easily perceive how little worth they are and how easily they vanish into smoke, after that he hath in the doctrinal part of the Sabbath laid so unhappy a foundation, and that by so poor reasons and mean carriage of himself, that as I verily think, throughout all his writings there is not to be found the like.  
For consider whether he had any hope to set so much as a face and outward show of probability upon his discourse, unless first he had manifestly corrupted the adversaries tenet, as appears 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 maintain the Sabbath day not so much to be taken away as to be translated unto the Lord's Day, and so changed, and do indeed think it more holy (than another day) and that not only in regard of ordination, and use, but in respect of signification and effect do cross some without Christian liberty, which is most certain of the Papists.  
And indeed Walaeus makes it appear that Calvin writes herein against the superstitious Papists. And did Rivetus oppose them only it were well; but it is apparent that he disputes not so much against Papists in this argument as against Protestants, even such as himself. But can he show of any of them, that they account the Lords Day more holy than 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 week only for order and policy sake Ecclesiastical: mysterious significations in days were peculiar only to the Jews. Only we think it fit, that to prevent dissension and confusion, God should mark out that day unto us to be observed, and not leave it unto us, and so he hath; the Scripture calling the first day of the week the Lords Day; and that upon such a ground as a greater was never known to ground a festivity thereupon consecrated to the exercises of piety, even the day wherein the stone that was refused by the bvilders 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 rejoice and be glad in it. So that all the passages in the Apostles writings against difference of days are no more against us then against Doctor Rivetus himself. Now it is time to return to our Prefacer. I do not find that Suarez undertakes to defend the Doctrine of Calvin and Chemnitius (such as here is pretended to be their Doctrine) but rather opposeth it. If such were their doctrine as this Prefacer would feign obtrude upon us, from the authority of the D. discourse which he 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 universal use and sense of the Church, and is commended unto us in the very Scripture of the New Testament; I have endeavoured to justify it out of the Old Testament also; and in express terms, that it is to be unchangeable Practicè & moraliter, practically and morally; as Doctor Prideaux acknowledgeth, and withal expoundeth after his understanding of it; and Doctor Rivetus also affirming this kind of unchangeableness 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 do well to deal plainly, and to profess 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 he proceeds to their practice, professing it to be devoid of any the least superstitious rigour; esteeming it to be a day left arbitrary, and therefore open to all lawful and honest recreations by which the mind may be refreshed, and the spirit quickened; as in Geneva all honest exercises, shooting in pieces, long Bows, cross Bows are used in the Sabbath day, and that both in the morning before and after the Sermon; And truly I do not find myself prone to censure them for any superstition in this. But this author takes liberty to censure them for superstitious, who think these courses unlawful on the Sabbath Day. I make bold to call the Lords Day our Sabbath; because our Saviour plainly gives us to understand that we Christians should have one day in the week for our Sabbath, Ma. 24.20. as well as the Jews had; and secondly because the book 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 Parliament, 1. Caroli forbids any man to come out of his Parish on the Lord's 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 man's parish on that day about any sports or pastimes is to profane the Sabbath: and seeing as before I have showed, that to come out of a man's parish on that day about such a work as doth not profane the Sabbath, is not to profane the Sabbath, as to hear a sermon, or to fetch a surgeon or Physician to a sick person in ease of necessity; but only to come out of a man's own Parish about such a work as doth profane the Sabbath, such a coming out of a man's 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 Kingdom, and of the whole Parliament.  
Now let every sober Reader judge whether myself 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 practice of Geneva by the relation of Robert johnson, to censure us that do mislike them herein (if this be their practice) for superstitious observers of the Sabbath; especially considering that he cannot fasten this censure upon such as myself, but withal he must pass the same, upon all Prelates of the Kingdom, together with the Lords temporal, and the whole house of Commons. And as for the exercises here mentioned. I find them to fall wondrously short, of that which the author avoucheth, as namely, that they esteem the Sabbath to lie open to all honest exercises and lawful recreations; for I make no question but in this Praefacer his opinion there are fare more exercises, and lawful 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 find no thing answerable hereunto in the practice of our Church. Neither do I find that the exercises here mentioned are so much accommodated to the refreshing of the mind and quickening 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 received information, that at Geneva, after evening prayer, only 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 four a Clock on the Morning both Service and a Sermon for their servants, and 2. more in every Church; the one in the Forenoon, the other in the Afternoon, beside Catechising the youth on the Sabbath Day: And Bishop Lake wished that such a course were general, as is in his Majesty's Court, to have a Sermon in the Morning for the servants on the Sabbath day. And I see no cause to descent 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) than any of these, and the King's 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, Calvin's Doctrine concerning the Sabbath, that albeit under the Gospel we are not bound to so rigorous a rest as the Jews were, yet that still we are obliged to abstain from all other works, as they are Avocamenta à sacris studiis & meditationibus, Avocations from holy studies and Meditations; and their Ministers, I should think do not well if they fail to mind them hereof, unless both they and the people are fallen from calvin's Doctrine in this point, in which case I see no just cause why any should choke us therewith, but give us as much liberty to descent from him in the Doctrine of the Sabbath as they of Geneva take unto themselves. Again Beza is well known 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 Ecclesiastical, and political have committed any revolt or apostasy thereto from Beza in this point. It is well he acknowledgeth some recreation not suffered there, as namely dancing; but this he saith they hold unlawful, which simply delivered as by this author it is, is incredible unto me, neither hath this author's word any sufficient authority to deliver me from this incredulity: yet some manner of dancing may perhaps be generally forbidden in the French Protestant Churches. This strictness (the Prefacer saith) is noted by some to have been 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 hindered; but he quotes no author for that. As for the author he quotes, I have not hitherto found that he hath arrived to any great authority or credit in the World for the truth of his relations. Neither hath the wisdom of our Church or state taken any contrary course hitherto either by Statute or Canon to promote reformation amongst us; what they may do hereafter I know not; when such spirits as this Prefacer may be so fortunate as to sit near the stern. Whether the French Churches have found it so as this Geographer is said to report I know not; but for their judgement herein I must expect until I hear more thereof.   

Sect. 7.  

Pref.  Which being so, the judgement and practice of so many men, and of such several persuasions 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 ourselves from all that are called Christian; yet so it is, 
Sect. 7.  I skill not how it comes to pass, but so it is, that some among us have revived again the Jewish Sabbath, though not the day itself, yet the name and thing. Teaching that the commandment of sanctifying every seventh day, as in the Mosaical Decalogue, is natural, moral and perpetual; that whereas all things else in the Jewish Church were so changed, that they were clean 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 Christ's coming. 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 lawful authority of the Church allowed to be public, is most clear and manifest; which doctrinals, 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 half 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 premises have been delivered from some pulpits in this kingdom, as viz. That to do any servile work or business on the Lord's Day, is as great a sin as to kill a man, or to commit adultery; that to throw a bowl, to make a feast, or dress a wedding dinner on the Lord's Day, is as great a sin, as for a man to take a knife and cut his child's throat; that to ring more bells than one on the Lords Day, is as great a sin, as to commit murder. 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 temporal 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 town of mine acquaintance, the Preachers there had brought the people to that pass, that neither baked nor roast meat was to be found in all the parish for a Sundays dinner throughout the year. These are the ordinary fruits of such dangerous doctrines; and against these, and such as these, our Author in this following Treatise doth address himself, accusing them that entertain the formal doctrinals every where, of no less than Judaisme, and pressing them with that of Austin, that they who literally understand the fourth Commandment, do not yet savour the Spirit: Section the third.  

Exam.  Austin somewhere saith, that he who looks for miracles in these days for confirmation of the truth, Magnum ipse prodigium est, himself may go for a monster; he doth not say; It is a miracle that men so should do. 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 talks of unanimous concurrence of men of several persuasions otherwise in the controverted points of Christian faith, and that both in judgement and practice with him in his way; he loves to speak 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 deal of cry, but a little wool. And let the indifferent judge whether the wool be answerable to the noise this Prefacer makes. Now, the men of several persuasions whom he avoucheth are Papists, and Protestants, and amongst the Protestants, both Lutherans and Calvinists. And hitherto he hath spoken of four particulars; I desire the reader would take notice of the modesty of this author in each of them compared with the noise here he makes concerning them; as if he were as much cracked in his brain, as he who standing upon the key at Athens, with a note book in his hands, set down every ship that entered into the road as his, when he was not owner of any one of them. So I shall make it appear, 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 original institution of the Sabbath; as whether God commanded it immediately upon the creation. This author denies the institution of it before the promulgation of the law upon mount 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 himself are but Doctor Prideaux and Gomarus, and by his assistance, Vatablus and Musculus; on the contrary are alleged by Walaeus: 1. Luther himself: 2. Zuinglius: 3. Calvin: 4. Beza: 5. Peter Martyr: 6. Bullinger: 7. Zanchius: 8. Vrsinus: 9 Gualterus: 10. Aretius: 11. Bertramus: 12. Mercerus: 13. Antonius Fayus: 14. junius: 15. Zepperus: 16. Martinius: 17. Alstedius. The same is justified by Rivetus, who voucheth no less than thirty Writers of note to concur in this; Now let the indifferent judge on whose side is the miracle this Prefacer speaks of, in his rhetorical 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. Only this Prefacer, after his bold fashion, saith, that Catarinus took up arms against Tostatus with ill success, it hath been manifest that for aught doth appear, Catarinus hath had better success than Tostatus; For Pererius takes Tostatus his part, yet all the Rhemists on Apoc. 1.10. do manifest themselves to take part with Catarinus, and Gomarus acknowledged as much of Marius. And Rivetus also allegeth Augustinus Steuchus, Genebrard, jacobus Solianus, Cornelius de Lapide, Emmanuel Sa, and Ribera, all concurring against Tostatus and all Papists, yea, many of them Jesuits. 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 speaks of, of several persuasions otherwise, are by fare, 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 less, not one of them building hereupon; and as for evidences, they bring none, save that the Scripture doth not particulate, that the patriarchs of old observed the Sabbath. Yet it was not to be held a general rule, that Argumentum non valet ab authoritate negatiuè; the argument drawee from authority doth not hold negatively in matter of fact. Secondly, not only our Divines, as Hospinian and Walaeus, that the meaning of the Fathers is only this, that the patriarchs did not observe it after a Jewish manner, but jacobus Salianus a Papist affirms the same particularly of Tertullian; as Rivetus voucheth him in his answer to Gomarus, pag. 21. And it may be made apparent from Tertullian himself, otherwise he 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 expressly for us, and against them; and that grounding themselves upon express Scripture, Gen. 2.3. therefore The Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, which our adversaries have no other means 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 years after. And lastly, the dividing of times into weeks, proved to be the most ancient division of times in the world, received by all nations, and made a festival day thereupon; as many have most learnedly proved it, do justify the sanctification of the Sabbath to have had its beginning and course from the very creation. So that in this particular we have on our side both Scripture and reason, and Fathers, and the opinion of men of several professions, as this author presseth it, both Papists and Protestants, both Lutherans 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, only Papists in the first place, and not a Father throughout, (and as chrysostom to the contrary hath professed, that God from the beginning hath manifested, that on that day in the circle of the week must be consecrated unto his service) much less Scripture. And it is apparent that God commanded that the proportion of one day in seven should be allotted to his service; and it was never to be abrogated, nor ever did any man devise any ceremoniality therein. And to this day it hath continued in the Church of God. To Tostatus we have opposed Azorius the Jesuit; professing that it is most agreeable to reason after six work days to consecrate one to God's service. Add to him Stella upon Luke, Jacobus de Valentia, & Dominicus Bannes.— As for Aquiaas, that which he accounts ceremonial in the fourth Commandment was expressed by him to be not one day in seven, but the particulating of the seaventh day: But whereas he goes no farther in illustrating the morality of this Commandment then in saying that some time must be set apart for God's service, I appeal to every man's conscience, whether the very light of nature doth not suggest that not only some time but a convenient proportion of time ought to be consecrated unto God; and when God hath manifested this to be one day in seven under the Law; doth not the very light of nature suggest, that we should sin against God if we should not allow unto him as good a proportion of time under the Gospel? 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 himself allegeth 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, he allegeth none but Gomarius and Rivet; it may seem by his carriage, that Vatablus and Musculus also are for him in this, but that is untrue, they are alleged by Gomarus on the first point only as touching the original institution of the Sabbath. Now Rivet is opposed herein by his two Colleagues, Walaeus and Thysius; and whereas he takes upon him to answer Walaeus his reasons to the contrary, and represent his own reasons for his opinion herein; I have taken into consideration both the one and the other; and I trust have represented the weakness of his discourse throughout, though otherwise a very learned and worthy Divine. Now Waleus hath not only alleged amongst the Father's chrysostom, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Augustine, Theodoret, but a multitude of Protestant writers, maintaining the morality of one day in seven, as Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Zanchius, Junius, Viretus, Danaeus, Fayus, Martinius, Vrsinus. Alstedius, Lorasegius, Festus Hommius, besides English and Scottish writers, whom he might have produced more than enough: yea of Bishops in this Kingdom; as Bishop Babington, Bishop Andrew's, Bishop Lake, yea and Master Hooker in his Ecclesiastical 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.  
The third particular is touching the celebration of the Lords Day, as whether it be by authority humane or divine rather: we say it is of divine; he will have it to be left arbitrary: yet was it never known, that any earthly Master did leave the proportion of service, to be performed unto him, to the pleasure of his servant; neither did God leave it thus from the beginning of the World until Christ, as hath been proved. Yet this Prefacer will have it thus left unto us in these latter days; of which the Apostle hath prophesied, 
1 Tim. 3.4.  that Men should be lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. For this, he boasts of all sorts of Papists, this he gins withal; which was not wont to be the course of English Divines; yet he belies Doctor Prideaux in this; who allegeth more Papists standing for the divine right hereof, then for the contrary; and one of them (as formerly I said) professeth that it is the common opinion. And Azorius the Jesuit professeth that it is most agreeable to reason, that as after six days work one should be 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 jews Sabbath was abrogated, I have showed how little all this makes for him, answering to every passage punctually, as they are alleged by him. For it is confessed that the Church they spoke of was the apostolical 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 proved it to be more than probable. I have showed withal how the ancient fathers have acknowledged it, some expressly divine, some equivalently, and expressly apostolical constitution or sanction, as Athanasius (whose reason drawn from the congruity between the first creation and the second Creation by virtue of Christ's death is remarkable, 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 Andrew's 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 be 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 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, only names are produced both by the Prefacer and Doctor Prideaux. Yet I have endeavoured to find out Chemnitius his discourse thereon, and enter upon a discussion thereof. Bucer I am sure, alleged by Rivet, is nothing for this purpose. Doctor Fulke directly opposeth it, Doctor Andrew's, 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 showed in reason the unreasonableness both of changing the day, and the intolerable scandal that would follow upon it, and the unreasonableness of not changing it, if it be not of divine institution; considering how prone we are through the continual observation thereof to conceive that to be a necessary duty, and so to be plunged into superstition, ere we are ware, if it prove to be no necessary duty.  
In the next place he tells us how that some amongst us have revived again the jewish Sabbath, though not the day itself, yet the name and thing. Teaching that the Commandment of sanctifying every seaventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is natural, moral and perpetual; that whereas all things else in the jewish were so changed, that they were clean 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 Christ's coming. 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 lawful authority of the Church allowed to be public, is most clear and manifest. Here we have a distinction of a Jewish Sabbath brought in, yet not the day; a distinction contrived with such wisdom and perspicacity as it seems to exceed all humane discretion. For I verily think 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 materials are, first that the name Sabbath is retained; and well may it be in my judgement (though some entertain 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 jerusalem, at what time the Lords Day was come in place of the Jews Sabbath among the Christian congregations, and that by apostolical substitution. And in the very book of our Homilies it is expressly said that the Sunday is now our Sabbath. And his Majesty's briefs for collection so style it. And in the conference at Hampton Court it was so styled by Doctor Raynolds, and the motion he made thereabout generally yielded unto; so that the State hitherto seems to be censured by this bold Prefacer. The next aspersion is, that the thing also is revived. But what thing? the Jews had peculiar sacrifice both morning and evening which doubled the daily 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 Lord's Day, as that therein we must tantum Deo vacare, tantum cultibus divinis vacare, only rest to God, only 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 fare 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 between the Jewish rest and our Christian's rest; and I am exactly of his opinion for this: As for the sanctification of this rest, I trust we 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 Jews were under the Law; And at the hearing of this Commandment as well as of any other, our Church hath taught us to pray, Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law. And I find it wondrous strange, to hear, that some should not spare to profess, that this was shuffled in they know not how; At length we come to the particular charges: the first is, that some should teach, that The Commandment of sanctifying every seventh day, as in the Mosaical Decalogue, is natural, moral, and perpetual: and Master Rogers is quoted for this on the Article, Art. 7. he quotes Master Doctor bound, pag. 7. Now truly, it cannot be denied, but that when the fourth Commandment is read unto us in our Congregations, we are taught to pray unto God, to show 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 God's Word; that we are as much bound to the observation of this Commandment as of any other, and consequently to keep the Sabbath, and do no manner of work thereon that may hinder the sanctifying thereof. Now Master Doctor Bownds words, (after he had cited chrysostom speaking thus, I am hic ab initio etc. Here now even from the beginning God hath insinuated this Doctrine unto us, teaching us in circulo hebdomadis diem, unum that in the compass of a week, one whole day is to be put apart for a spiritual rest unto God, are these: Unto all which may be added, that for proof of'at this Commandment is natural, moral, and perpetual; 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 seen that there ought to be a Sabbath day, so it remaineth that we should hear upon what day this Sabbath should be kept; and here he showeth that this is not left unto the Church, but prescribed by God himself, as who prescribed one day unto the Jews, and another day unto us Christians; but still one in seven: The same was the opinion both of Bellarmine and Master Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy. Whereas both Master Rogers and the Prefacer so carry the matter, as if by Doctor Bowndes opinion we Christians were bound to keep our Sabbath on the same day whereon the Jews were bound to keep theirs, which is most untrue, though the fourth Commandment may be indifferently accommodated to our Christian Sabbath as it was unto the Jewish Sabbath, save only as touching the reason given, which hath express reference to the creation; but our Christian Sabbath stands in reference to the work of Redemption. Each is the rest on a seventh day after six days of labour, and as they were bound to sanctify their seventh, so are we bound to sanctify ours; and as that was rested on, and sanctified in remembrance of God's rest from the work of Creation, so is ours rested on in remembrance of Christ's rest from the work of Redemption, so that our day of rest is but translated from the day of the Lord our Creator's 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 fourth Commandment; Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep 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 fourteen, 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 custom of assigning every seventh day of the week for rest, which is formally to appoint a seventh day, though the same day materially be not always 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 natural, our meaning is not, neither was it D. Bowndes meaning, that this proportion of time is known 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 knows the story of the creation, it doth appear in reason, that one day in seven is to be consecrated unto God; only let us not look for reason demonstrative in matter of morality: Aristotle long ago hath professed, that not demonstration, but persuasion alone hath place in Ethics; yet we may justly call that natural, which from the original 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 moral, what shall it be? Is it judicial, or ceremonial? 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 think I should live till the coming of Christ; which the Christians in Augustine's time conceived that it would be on the Lord's day. I come to the second charge which is this, whereas all things else in the jewish Church were so changed, that they were clean taken away; this day (meaning the Sabbath) was so changed, that it still remaineth; and for this Master Rogers quotes Doct. bind, p. 20. only Master Rogers saith, not that all things were changed, as the Prefacer doth, but only that all jewish things were changed, now judge whether Master Rogers might not have opposed Doctor Andrews as well as Doctor bound. 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: Do 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 sin, 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 sins in Christ, we grant it, and therefore the day is not changed, but yet no ceremony proved. He 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 Christ's death. Now, what doth Doctor bound affirm forty years ago, which Doctor Andrew's did not in his pattern of catechetical doctrine? I come to the third and last: That the Sabbath was not any of those ceremonies which were justly abrogated at Christ's coming. This very point Doctor Andrew's maintains by divers arguments, as well as D. bound, 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. Roger's his Brentian judgement in this particular, Doctor Andrew's, who afterwards became Bishop of Winchester, might be accounted a Sabbatarian as well as D. bound. 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 doctrine of Doctor Andrew's 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 judaical ceremonies; Hence he infers, 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 affirm the Sabbath to be a ceremony? Nothing less; this M. Rogers, of his own head, lays down for a principle, namely, that the Sabbath was a ceremony, to obtrude upon us, as if himself had as much authority as a whole Convocation. And D. Andrew's takes upon him to disprove this very point (which Rogers supposeth as a principle) and that by various arguments: Belike D. Andrew's deserved not to be numbered 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 appears what skill the Prefacer hath in them, and what respect he bears unto them, by the learning he hath bewrayed in this preface. Had he found in them, how much the forbidding of dancing in their days, did hinder the growth of Christian Religion, we should have heard of it undoubtedly, as well as how it hath hindered the growth of the reformed Religion in France out of Heylins' Geography: yet their doctrinals (which I have showed to be the doctrinals of Doctor Andrew's as well as of Doctor bound, yea, and could show 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 been the man and the means that these Sabbatarian errors and impieties were brought into light and knowledge of the State; so he speaks; and that this is a comfort to his soul, and would be to his dying day. And in very deed, the particulars mentioned by him, are very foul; for he saith, It was preached in a market town in Oxfordshire, that to do any servile work or business on the Lord's Day, is as great a sin as to kill a man, or commit adultery. Secondly, It was preached in Summersetshire, that to throw a bowl on the Sabbath day, is as great a sin as to kill a man; that it was preached in Norfolk, that to make a feast or wedding-dinner on the Lord's Day, is as great a sin as for a father to take a knife and cut his child's throat. I wonder the Prefacer doth not call them miracles; Sommersetshire is a pretty large County; and there be many market towns in Oxfordshire; and I do not doubt but there are many parishes in Norfolk; But no particular is here set down, either of person or of place; and we have no better authority for the proof of these imputations than this man's word, which yet undoubtedly was not present at these Sermons: for than he would have been very careful to express that, as in the next story he 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 son refused to go for a Bonesetter, because it was the Lord's Day, and this Sermon, afterwards coming into print, the party finding himself aggrieved 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, he would leave that story out. Doctor Hoskins of our house was present at the hearing of this business, 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 near to run to help 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 bear witness thereunto in the place where he lived. Lately, it hath been brought unto me, that one hath been heard to lay to my charge behind my back, that I should say, David sinned more in dancing about the Ark, than either in deflowering Bathshebath, or killing Vriah; though it is such a comparison that never entered into my thoughts, how much less to pass so prodigious a judgement upon the comparison? In the last place, he saith, It was preached in Suffolk, (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 bells than one upon the Lord's day to call the people unto Church, is as great a sin, as to commit murder; this is more particular than the rest; and had he added one thing more, the evidence had been complete, 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 conceal it; if it were not so, of what credit is this his relation? He adds, 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 book was I could not devise, but lately have gotten into my hands D. Bowndes book of the Sabbath. I find by comparing it well, that this is the book he girds at. Now I find nothing in him to this effect, though I have gone over most of the first book, and in the Index do not find any thing that can give me probability in the second book, 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 justify his criminations (than to quote for it something that is to be seen in print) and thereby to clear himself 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 remarkable, to wit, because himself hath heard it preached in London, that the Law of Moses, whereby death temporal was appointed for the Sabbath-breaker, was yet in force; and that whoever did the works of his ordinary calling on the Sabbath day, was to die therefore. Now, I profess he seems to me a great deal more politic herein than at the first I was ware of: For, had he 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-horn 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 wild wits, and so no doubt we shall with tale-tellers too, and so much the more in all likelihood the nearer the world approacheth to an end: It hath been 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 bear his own burden. Now I have made it manifest, that the doctrines which he picks out of D. bound, and styles Sabbatarian doctrines, are the doctrines of D. Andrew's, afterwards Bishop of Winchester; I could show them to be the doctrines of many other worthy Prelates that have been of this kingdom; and it may be that if the votes of the Bishops of this kingdom were taken, the major part would concur with us, as touching the doctrine of the Sabbath, rather than against us. The same Master Rogers sacrificeth to his net, and burns incense to his yarn, and magnifies the good success of his labours. For this good, he saith, hath ensued thereupon; namely, that the said books of the Sabbath, comprehending the above mentioned, and many more such fearful and heretical assertions, have been 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 chief justice of England at Bury Saint Edmunds in Suffolk, Anno 1600. did the other. For all this we have nothing but his word; and as for the books he talks of, he had formerly mentioned, but one printed 95. at London for I. Porter and Tho. Man, of the doctrine of the Sabbath, which appears to be D. Bowndes; Now, was this ever called in? Sure I am, D. Willet upon Genesis came forth the year after this M. Roger's his Analysis of the Articles of the Church of England.  
This he dedicated to King james, and over and above hath a second dedication in Latin to Archbishop Bancroft and to the bishop of London then being; wherein he signifieth that the one of them was author, the other hortator unto him to perfect this work 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 he delivers in opposition to the Rhemists; who count the observation of the Lords Day but a tradition of the Church, and Ecclesiastical institution, and having spent a whole page in folio upon this argument in the next page thus he writeth— I do 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 continual practice of the Church, in all ages: that any professing the Gospel, specially being exercised in the Study of the Scriptures, should gainsay, and impugn these positions following as erroneous. 1. That the Commandment of sanctifying the Sabbath is natural moral and perpetual: For if it be not so then all the Commandments contained in the Decalogue are not moral, so should we have. 9 and not. 10. Commandments; and than Christ should come to destroy the Law, and not to fulfil is contrary to our Saviour's own words, Math. 5.17. 2. That all other things in the Law were so changed that they were clean taken away, as the priesthood, Sacrifices and Sacraments: this day (namely the Sabbath) was so changed, that it yet remains, 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 week: and so was observed and kept holy under the name of the Lords Day. 3. That it is not lawful 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 go out, but with the last. 5. That we are restrained upon the Sabbath from works as the Jews were, though not in such strict particular manner as they were, yet in general we are forbidden all kind of work upon the Lord's Day, as they were, which may hinder the service of God.  
Now the Author that he intimates as opposing these positions he describes by the title, of his book in the margin, which is this. The Catholic doctrine of the Church of England printed at Cambridge p. 37. And the author of his book I have heard to be Master Rogers, and it seems likely enough, especially by the 2. first positions. Doctor Willet concludes in this manner, after he had made use of divers allegations for the confirmation of his doctrine in opposition to the  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 trial of the Word of God, and stand warranted thereby, when other humane fantasies shall vanish: howsoever some in their heat and intemperance are not afraid to call them Sabbatariorum errores, yea heretical assertions, a new jubilee; S. Sabbath, more than either jewish or popish institution; God grant it be not laid to their charge that so speak or write, and God give them a better mind. About two years before this, were set forth Master Perkins his cases of conscience: wherein he manifesteth his concurrence with Doctor bound in the doctrine of the Sabbath. Neither doth Doctor Andrew's, in any material thing differ from Doctor bound, 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 Town of his acquaintance the preachers there had brought the people to that pass, that neither baked nor roast meat was to be found in all the Parish for a sunday dinner throughout the year, and he concludes it with such an Epiphonema. These are the fruits of such dangerous doctrines; as if the fortunes of the Church or state were hazarded for want of baked meat or roast meat on the sundays.  
And to confess a truth, though I never was; nor never am like to be so precise; yet considering my mean condition, I have divers times thought thus with myself: why should my provision hinder any of my servants from Sermons on the Sabbath day; so little did I fear any dangerous consequence of this practice: but since I am better informed by the suggestions of this judicious Prefacer; I will take heed how I cherish such thoughts in my breast henceforth; and if he come at any time to take pains amongst us, seeing I find he respects baked meat and roast meat so well; it shall go hard but we will have a tith Pig for his entertainment. And so much the rather, that I may clear myself from Judaisme, for jack of Newberry my Countryman being a great Clothier in his days; and then strangers came from fare to buy Cloth at his House, and amongst the rest a company of Jews were sometime entertained by him being a very hospitallous man and an excellent housekeeper, his house being accounted the best Inn in the Town, to make himself merry, caused the table to be furnished with all variety of Hogs flesh; which they perceaving took it for a flout; but after they had grumbled a while upon it, he made show as if but then he had remembered himself of his error, and not till then considered that they were Jews; and forthwith he 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 return, it is an easy matter now a days to accuse of any thing, as Doctor Prideaux he saith, accuseth us of Judaisme, but si accusare sufficiat, quis innocens erit; when he or Doctor Prideaux shall prove their accusations, then let us be condemned; and if we be not condemned, till than we care not. Yet it is untrue which he pin's upon Doctor Prideaux his sleeve; as if he should allege Austin saying, that they who literally understand the fourth Commandment, do not yet savour of the spirit, neither S. Austin speaks this of the fourth Commandment, nor is he so alleged 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 keeps, favoureth carnally. Neither 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 only of one day in seven; which day must also be prescribed by God as the seventh day of the week was to the Jews, which is the next thing imputed unto us, but the Lords Day is the first day of the week 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 judgements of all kind of writers and how unsafe to be admitted; I thought I could not go about a better work then to exhibit to the view of my dear Countrymen this following Treatise delivered first, and afterwards published by the Author in another language. The rather since of late the clamour is increased, and that there is not any thing now more frequent in some Zelotes mouths (to use the Doctor's words) then that the Lords Day is with us licentiously yea sacrilegiously profaned, Section first. To satisfy whose scruples and give content unto their minds, 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 any where from the sense, and as little as I could from the phrase and letter. Gratum opus agricolis: a work as I conceive it, not unsuitable unto the present times, wherein besides these peccant fancies before remembered, some have so fare 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 detain the reader from the benefit he shall reap thereby. Only I will crave leave for his greater benefit, to repeat the sum thereof which is briefly this: First that the Sabbath was not instituted in the first Creation of the World, nor ever kept by any of the ancient patriarches who lived before the Law of Moses: therefore no moral and perpetual precept as the other are, Sect. 2. Secondly that the sanctifying of one day in seven is ceremonial only and obliged the Jews, not moral to oblige us Christians to the like observance▪ Sect. 3. and 4. Thirdly, that the Lords Day is founded only on the authority of the Church, guided therein by the practice of the Apostles; not on the fourth Commandment (which he calls a scandalous doctrine, Sect. 7.) nor any other express 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 Jews, but that we may lawfully dress meat proportionable to every man's estate, and do such other things as are no hindrance to the public service appointed for the day, Sect. 8. Sixthly, that on the Lord's Day all recreations whatsoever are to be allowed, which honestly may refresh the spirits, and increase mutual love and neighbourhood amongst us, and that the names whereby the Jews were wont to call their festivals (whereof the Sabbath was the chief) 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 neighbourhood, 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 appertains to the Christian Magistrate, to order and appoint what pastimes are to be permitted, and what are not (obedience unto whose commands is better fare than sacrifice to the Idols of our own inventions) not unto every private person (or as the Doctors own words are) not unto every man's rash zeal, who, out of a schismatical, Stoicism (debarring men from lawful pastimes) doth incline to Judaisme, Sect. 8. Add for the close of all, how doubtingly our Author speaks of the name of Sabbath, which now is grown so rife amongst us, Sect. 8. Concerning which, take here that notable dilemma of john Barkley, the better to encounter those who still retain the name, and impose the rigour. 
Paren. l. 1. c. ult.  Cur porrò illum diem plerique 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 on the day, and then they ought to keep that day whereon God rested, and not the first, as now they do, whereon the Lord began his labours. If they observe it as the day of our Saviour's resurrection, why do 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 sum of all; and this is all that I have to say unto thee (good Christian reader) in this present business. God give thee a right understanding in all things, and a good will to do thereafter.  

Exam.  This Prefacer accounts the opinions opposite to his, to be fancies; D. Willet on the contrary, as we 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 we are, every plant that our heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted out. This Prefacer professeth, those whom he opposeth be opposite to the tendries of our Church; and indeed, the Author whom D. Willet intimateth, entitled his book audaciously enough, The Catholic doctrine of the Church of England; but D. Willet on the other side, wondered, that any professing the Gospel, should gainsay and impugn the positions maintained by D. bound. And sure I am, Bishop Babington, Bishop Andrew's, Bishop Lake agreed with them: And it is well known 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 kind of writers which he boasts of, I think never came a Divine to take pen in hand to vaunt so much, and perform 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 odd manner delivered, I know nothing unsafe, nothing dangerous in any Tenet of ours, who now seem to walk as upon the pinnacles 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 to the Church of God, to be bereft of so many faithful Pastors: For, certainly it shall be honourable unto them, they cannot suffer in a more honourable 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 bvilders, was made the head of the corner. For what danger is it to maintain, that from the Creation the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; and what a shameful course is it so to expound it as in reference to a time 2000 and 4. or 500 years after, and that in spite of the ancient Fathers: And manifest reason, as appears by division of time into weeks, even from the creation, and so continuing to the time of the Law delivered on the mount Sinai, as appears by the story of falling of Manna, and the Jews gathering of it on six days; 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 God's service; and hence to infer, 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 Jews Sabbath? And hath not our Saviour manifestly given us to understand, that even Christians were to have their Sabbath, as the Jews had theirs, as Bishop Andrew's accommodates the place? Matth. 24.20. And was the resurrection of Christ any thing inferior to the creation, to give a day unto us Christians; like as God's rest from creation, commended that day to the Jews: Especially considering, that a new creation requires a new Sabbath; as Athanasius delivered it of old; And D. Andrew's of late years, 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 speak dangerously, when he professeth, that thereon we must tantum Deo vacare, tantum cultibus divinis vacare; would this Prefacer be content to be found dancing about a May pole, or in a Morris-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 he not fear to rue the danger of his doctrine, when it will be too late to correct it, and all the profaneness that he hath promoted by this preface of his should rise up in judgement against him; yet now he thinks he could not go about a better work 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 avoid and shun superstition. Belike all these must be censured for Zelotes that complain that the Lords day is with us licentiously, yea, sacrilegiously profaned; yet these are the times whereof S. Paul prophesied, that men should be lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; yet Doctor Prideaux could take liberty to profess of the Jews, that by their Bacchanalian rites, they gave the world just occasion to suspect that they did consecrate their Sabbaths unto devils rather than unto God's service; yet now adays, they that oppose revels on the Sabbath day, are censured and condemned of Judaisme: Neither is D. Prideaux censured by way of scorn for a zealot in this; but unless we concur with this Prefacer, in thinking that the forbidding of dancing in the French Churches hath hindered the growth of the reformed Religion there, and that upon the bare credit of heylin's Geography, we must in scorn be termed zelotes. Belike Bishop Babington by this bold Prefacer, would be censured for a zealot, considering that on Exodus 16. pag. 122. hve writes in this manner: May not. a good soul thus reason with himself; This people of his might not gather Manna, and may I safely go to markets, dance, drink, to wakes and wantoness, to Bear-baitings and Bull-baitings, and such like wicked profanations on the Lord's Day? Is this to keep the holy day? Can I answer this to my God? that gives me six days for myself, and takes but one to himself, of which I rob him also? And Bishop Austin too deserves to be censured a zealot for that which he writes in his 3. tract. upon john. Observe the Sabbath Day, it is rather commanded unto us, because it is commanded to be observed in a spiritual manner. For the Jews observe the Sabbath day servilely unto luxury, unto drunkenness. How much better were it for their Women to spin Wool then to dance on that day in their new Moons, and in his 44. tract. The Jews rest unto toys, and whereas God commanded the Sabbath to be observed, they spend the Sabbath in such things which the Lord forbids. Our rest is from evil works, their rest is from good works. For it is better to go to blow then to dance: but albeit he be censured as a Zealot, yet surely there is no colour why he should be thought to Judaize in this. And let Bishop Nazianz●ne pass under the same censure with them; who as Dialericus upon the 17. Dominical after Trinity Sunday allegeth 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 fruit whereof we know to be wantonness, nor in strewing of Flowers in the ways, which we know to be the manner of the Gentiles; but rather in the purity of the soul, and cheerfulness of the mind, and pious Meditations, as when we use holy Hymns in stead of Tabers, and Psalms in stead of wicked songs and dance. The same Dialericus allegeth Pope Gregory out of his 91. book of his Epistles and 3. Epistle affirming, That therefore on the Lord's Day we ought to rest from all Earthly work, and by all means insist on prayer, that if aught hath been committed by us negligently on the six days on the day of the Lords Resurrection it might be cleared by prayers. And which is yet more, out of chrysostom 5. Homily on Matthew he shows, how in that Bishop's judgement we should be exercised on the Lord's Day, in our private Families, thus, When we depart from the Ecclesiastical assembly, we ought not in any case entangle ourselves in businesses of a contrary nature, but as soon as we come home, turn over the Holy Scriptures, and call thy Wife, and thy Children to confer about those things which have been delivered; and after they have been deeply rooted in our minds, then to proceed to provide for such things as are necessary for this life. So anciently is the pious exercise of repeating Sermons commended unto us by this holy Bishop, which in these days I have heard to be cried down, by profane persons, as a cause of increase of Brownism. And I willingly confess that when I first came to this place, there were no less than ten that partly had withdrawn 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 we have continued to this day. But to return, Ephrem Syrus may go for a zealot in like manner, who as he 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 shows wherein this consists in the words following, Quare non portarum frontes coronemus, let us not hang Garlands upon the frontispiece of our Gates, non choreas ducamus, let us not lead a dance, non chorum adornemus, let us not by our presence beautify any such company; non tibiis auditum effaminemus, let us not effeminate our Ears with their Music or with their fiddles— Nay as Doctor Prideaux complains of the Jews corrupting themselves to the profaning of their Sabbaths, so Polidor Virgil complains of the like corruptions among Christians on their festivals, lib. 6. cap. 8. not employing their time in prayer and in the exercise of God's Word; for which cause such festivals were instituted, but in all manner of evil courses tending to the corrupting of men's manners; and that herein they imitate Heathens, though of ancient times Tertullian (as he saith) reprehended Heathens for such courses, as in his Apologeticum, speaking of the holy solemnity of their Emperors. Therefore (saith he) Christians are counted enemies to the State, because they do not dedicate vain, lying and rash honours to their Prince. Forsooth it is a great good office, to make bonfires and dances in public, and to feast in every parish, to transform the City into the habit of a Tavern; Vino lutum cogere, which Junius saith was a fruit of their desperate Luxury, and a sign of their madness and fury: he proceeds; to strive who shall exceed one another in running about, to do injuries, to commit impudencies, to provoke unto lust. And is the public joy after such a manner expressed (to wit) by public shame? O how deservedly are we Christians to be condemned (he speaks it ironically) who by carrying ourselves soberly, chastely, honestly, do oppose the vows made and the joys expressed for the Emperors, to wit, when for their sober and chaste and virtuous carriage on such days, not concurring with others to the same excess 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 he observes to have complained of it; namely that Christians imitated the manners of the Heathen in this, yea and grew worse than they, in his book the 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 faith of the Nations better than ours towards their own sect, as who challenge 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 fear not to be accounted Heathens. O what a zealot did Tertullian show himself in this! nay what think we of Leo and Anthemius Emperors; were not they zelotes too in that decree of theirs (alleged by the former Baldwin)? Dies festos majestati Altissimi dedicatos nullis volumus voluptatibus occupari: undoubtedly they mean hereby worldly pleasures; such they would have no place on holy festivities; and why? but because they accounted those holy festivals profaned thereby. And may not King james also be censured for a zealot in making that proclamation of his for the reformation of abuses in profaning the Lords Day, at his first coming into the Land, to receive this Kingdom as his rightful inheritance? In the Conference before his Majesty at Hampton Court, I find mention made of it by D. Reynolds in this manner: To the former Doctor Reynolds did add the profanation of the Sabbath day, and contempt of his Majesty's proclamation made for the reforming of that abuse, of which he earnestly desired a straighter course for reformation thereof, and unto this he found a general and unanimous assent. All these be like were zelotes. So was his Majesty also that now is, together with all the Lords both spiritual and temporal, and the house of Commons in that Act made in the first year of King Charles to preserve the Lords Day from profanation, wherein are forbidden expressly and by name, bearebaiting, bull-baiting, interludes, common plays, and in general all other unlawful exercises and pastimes; and over and above all meetings and assemblies or concourse of people out of their own parishes for any sports or pastimes whatsoever; and consequently no man ought on the Lord's Day, go forth of his own parish to any may-game, or to see a Morris-dance, or dancing about Maypoles; and seeing the Apostle professeth that it is good to be zealous always in a good thing Gal. 4.18. and Christ hath died for us to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purge us a peculiar people unto himself, zealous of good works, Tit. 2.14. let them in the Name of God be such zealots still; this zeal being a zeal of God's Glory; and it becomes us to be zealous of his Glory, considering how zealous he is for our good, Esay 9.7. & Esay 59.17. Of the sufficiency of the following discourse, we shall by God's help consider in due time.  
But I confess it may be very suitable to these times whereof the Apostle prophesied, men should be lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, and undoubtedly it will suit well with their affections like a sweet morsel to the epicure which he rolls under his tongue, but all the praise is in parting; and I would they would but think of that of the Prophet, What will be the end thereof; when we shall give God cause to say of our Sabbath, as he said of the Jewish, I have hated your Sabbaths. And if there be any such practices of Satan on foot, as to bring in the Jewish Sabbath, let it be considered in the fear 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 seethe not that if it be left to the liberty of the Church, they may bring in the Jewish Sabbath if it pleaseth them. Though it be notoriously untrue, (as may be made to appear both by Scripture, evident reason and authority humane, both ancient and modern, 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 follows, even by the very light of nature, that it were most unreasonable we should allow him a worse proportion of time for his service under the Gospel; that consequently the observation of one day in seven is to be kept holy unto the Lord, is now become moral and perpetual unto the very end of the world; neither was it ever heard, that any man did set his wits on work in devising a ceremoniality in the proportion of one day in seven. A prefiguration of Christ in some respect hath been found in the Jewish rest on the seventh day of the week; but of any prefiguration of aught in Christ, by an indefinite proportion of one day in seven the world dreamt 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 Jews did; this appears, Matth. 24.20. Pray, that your flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day; and thus Bishop Andrew's accommodates that place in his pattern of catechetical doctrine. It is as manifest, that the day of Christ's resurrection is called in the Scripture the Lord's Day; as manifest that not the day of the year, but the day of the week, whereon Christ risen, 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 congivity in reference to the reason of the original institution is most exact. For first, Christ by his resurrection, brought with him a new creation; and this new creation, as D. Andrew's 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 work of creation, so our Saviour on the first day of the week from the work of Redemption: And lastly, the day of Christ's resurrection, was the day whereon Christ the stone formerly refused by the bvilders, 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 rejoice in it; which can have no other congruous meaning but this; this is the day which the Lord hath made festival, especially considering the doctrine of Bishop Lake, which is this; that the work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, as is to be seen in the institution of all festivals, both Humane and Divine. And I have already shown how absurd it is, that we should expect it should be left unto the Church her liberty to appoint it, considering the great danger of dissension thereabouts, and extreme confusion thereupon; And it cannot be denied, but this day was established by the Apostles, and that as of authority Divine, as appears generally by the ancients. Athanasius professing, that Dominus consecravit hunc diem; Austin, that Apostoli sanxerunt; and Gregory, that Antichrist, when he 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 concur with the Jews in keeping with them the Saturday, with the Turks, in keeping with them the Friday; yea, that they have authority to divide the days of the week, 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 works of necessity and works of charity may be done on this day, though the proper works of the day are the works of holiness. I know none that thinks it unlawful to dress meat proportionable to a man's estate on this day: some are of opinion, that this was not forbidden unto the Jews; 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 think a greater strictness was enjoined them in the wilderness 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 Ox, and five chosen Sheep; and our Saviour's entertainment by some on the Sabbath day, doth seem to them to intimate as much; howsoever in after times it came to pass that they grew superstitious this way; As Austin observes of them in his days, that judaei neque occidunt, neque coquunt. Others who think it was both enjoined to them, and practised by them with greater strictness, conceive that this was by reason of the mysterious signification, to wit, of some exact rest in Christ; this was their ceremonial rest; we acknowledge no rest but moral, which we understand in that sense which here is expressed in part, and but in part, after a halting manner; For he professeth, that on the Lord's Day we are to abstain from such works as are an hindrance to God's service, but he delivers this only of the public service; as if to spend an hour and an half in the morning, and an hour and an half in the afternoon in God's 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 own another a day's service; I say, let the world judge, whether in common equity this be to be interpreted of an hour and an half in the morning, and an hour and an half in the evening, or only 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 whereunto all the former discourse is consecrated, namely, to make way for such profane sports and pastimes, which here are glossed with the cleanly styles of recreations to refresh the spirits, and for the increase of mutual love and neighbourhood amongst us, as if he were ashamed to speak out, that all this tends to the countenance of May-games and morricing, and dancing about Maypoles on the Lord's Day. D. Andrew's, sometimes Bishop of Winchester, 
Patterne of Catech. p. 244, 245. on the Con.  spared not to profess, that vacare choreis, to be at leisure on that day, for dancing, is the Sabbath of the golden calf, and he allegeth Austin for it, though he cannot justify his quotation. Doctor Downeham, Bishop of Derry, calls such like courses profane sports and pastimes, which more distract, and more hinder our works than honest labours; and he censures also such a Sabbath, calling it, the Sabbath of the calf, Exod. 23.6.18.19. Bishop Babington, on Exod. 16. puts a Christian soul upon this meditation, Good Lord, what do I upon the Sabbath day? This people of his might not gather Manna, and may I safely gad to fairs and markets, to dance and drink, to wakes and wantoness, to Bear-baitings and Bulbaitings, with such like wicked profanations of the Lords Day? Are these works for the Sabbath? Is this to keep the holy day? Can I answer this to my God, that gives me six days for myself, and takes but one to himself, of which I rob him also? No, no, assuredly I shall not be able to endure 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 Commandments by way of question and answer, p. 44. reproves expressly Summer-games on the Lord's Day; and in his Examen of conscience annexed to the fourth Commandment, he speaks against going to Church-ales and Summer-games; nay, is it not apparent, that by the very act of Parliament, 1ᵒ Caroli, that to go out of a man's own 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, unless the sports themselves be profanations of the Sabbath, it is as evident, that to go forth of a man's parish unto such sports, is no profanation, any more, than to go out of a man's parish walking, or to confer in pious manner with a friend, or to fetch a Physician or Surgeon, if need be, or to hear a Sermon. And it is very strange, that we of the reformed Churches, shall justify such liberty on the Lord's Day, which Papists condemn on their holy days; who usually complain of dancing upon such days; as Polydore Virgil upon Luke, and Parisiensis de legibus cap. 4. And of old such courses have been forbidden by the decrees of Leo, and Anthemius Emperors; It is condemned also in the synod of Toledo Can. 23. as Baldwin the Lutheran shows, who also writes devoutly against such courses on the Lord's 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 shown how the Sabbath was profaned by unchaste dance and any manner of wantonness; what need I here to make mention of Austin; who professeth, and that against the Jews, that it is better to go to blow then to dance; and that it were better for their Women to spin Wool, then immodestly to dance, as they did; yet now a days such as oppose the same courses, as Austin did, are censured for Judaizing; thus the World seems to be turned upside down. Is it not high time Christ should come to set an end to it?  
Dielericus the Lutherane complains of the like profanations of the Sabbath too much in course amongst them, in his Analysis of the Gospels for the Lords Day. p. 559. and let every Christian conscience be judge, whether to follow Maypoles, May-games and Morris dancing be to sanctify the Sabbath as God commands? if any man shall say, that the fourth Commandment concerned the Jews, and not us Christians, he must therewithal renounce the book of Homilies. For it professeth that this Commandment 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 careful to keep the Christian Sabbath Day, which is the Sunday, not only for that it is God's Commandment, but also to declare ourselves to be loving children in following the example of our gracious Lord and Father. Then complaining how the Sabbath is profaned; Some use all days alike— The other sort worse: For although they will not travail, nor labour on the Sunday, yet they will not rest in holiness, as God commandeth; but they rest in ungodliness and filthiness, prancing in their pride, pranking and pricking, pointing & painting themselves to be gorgeous and gay. They rest in excess & superfluity, in gluttony and drunkenness like Rats and Swim: they rest in brawling and railing, in quarrelling and fight: they rest in wantonness, in toyish talking, in filthy fleshliness; and concludes after this manner, so that it doth too evidently appear that God is more dishonoured, and the Devil better served on Sunday, then upon all the days of the week beside. And that distinction which Calvin makes of the Jewish observation of the Sabbath, and our Christian observation of a Sabbath is, for aught I know, generally received of all; and the distinction is this; that the Jews observed their Sabbath so strictly in the point of rest, for a mysterious signification; but we observe it in resting from other works so fare forth as they are Avocamenta à sacris studiis & meditationibus, avocations from holy studies, and meditations; now it is apparent 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 choke the Word, Luk. 8.14. And therefore this day is altogether appointed to this end, even to recreate ourselves in the Lord; For seeing God purposeth one day to keep an everlasting Sabbath with us, when God shall be all in all; to make us the more fit for this even the more meet partakers, of the inheritance of Saints in light, therefore he hath given us his Sabbaths to walk with him, and to inure ourselves to take delight in his company, who takes delight to speak unto us as from Heaven in his holy Word, and to give us liberty to speak unto him in our prayers, confessions, thanksgivings and supplications; on other days we care for the things of this World, on this day our care should be spiritual and heavenly in caring for the things of another World; so our pleasures should be spiritual 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 perform this duty under the Gospel as ever the Jews 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 God's 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 than this, that they shall come to Church twice a day, and afterwards give themselves to what sports soever are not forbidden them by the Laws of the Land: so that now a days we are free from the obligation to the fourth Commandment, and yet we are taught by the Church aswell at the hearing of this Commandment as at any other to say, Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keep this Law; and the book of Homilies urgeth us to the sanctifying of our Christian Sabbath (which is Sunday, saith the book expressly) and that by virtue of God's express Commandment.  
And therefore I cannot but wonder at the indiscretion of this Prefacer, who catcheth after such a superficial advantage as the denomination of a feast amongst the Jews, not considering how little suitable it is to the grounds of his Tenet; For by his Tenet, after evening Prayer the Sabbath is at end, the Church's 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 Laws of the Land. But so was not the feast of the Jews ended when they danced; this being but an expression of that joy whereunto the present solemnity called them; and they sinned no more herein than David, did when he danced before the Ark; as we see jer. 31.12. Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord for Wheat, and for Wine, and for Oil, and for the young of the flock, and of the heard, and their soul shall be as a well watered Garden, and they shall not sorrow any more at all. 13: Then shall the Virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men, and old together; for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them & make them rejoice for their sorrow. 14. And I will satiate the soul of the Priest with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness saith the Lord. And the like we read Esay 30.19. Ye shall have a song as in the Night, when an holy solemnity is kept, and gladness of heart, as when one goeth with a Pipe to come into the Mountain of the Lord to the mighty One of Israel; so that if Morricing and May-games and Dancing about Maypoles were a sanctifying of the Sabbath Day in part (as the Lord commands the day to be sanctified) then indeed these sports were as lawful on the Lord's Day, as the Jews piping and dancing were lawful on their feasts. But that any such piping and dancing were used and allowed in those ancient times among the Jews on their Sabbaths, there is not the least colour of evidence. And it is evident that such sports put them to less rest for their bodies, than the works of their calling; neither is there any better evidence that any such piping and dancing were in use amongst the Jews while they continued the people of God on every day of their solemn feasts; for two days in each of them, to wit, the first day, and the last, they are commanded to keep as Sabbaths, whereon they were to have an holy convocation; and thereon they are expressly commanded to rest from all servile works; and I should think, the following of natural pleasures are to be presumed as servile works, as the works of a man's calling.  
Lastly, all recreations are to this end, even to fit us to the works of our calling; either for the works of our particular callings, or the works of our general 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 works of our particular calling; then are they inferior to the works of our calling, the furthering whereof is their end; and the means are always inferior in dignity unto the end. Now if the more noble works are forbidden on that day, how much more such as are inferior are forbidden? But it may be said, that men's minds being burdened, and oppressed with the former service of the day, therefore some relaxation 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 we have been tired out with serving God; can this be savoury in the ears of a Christian? should not we rather complain of these corruptions, and bewail it before God, then give ourselves to such courses as are apt to strengthen it? It is true; such is our natural corruption, that nothing is more tedious unto us as we are in ourselves, then to converse with God; but should not the consideration hereof provoke us so much the 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 only, but voluptuous living also, is it that chokes the good seed of God's Word, and causeth it to become unfruitful in us? As for the refreshing of our spirits and quickening them, and thereby making us the fit for God's service; as in any modest exercise of the body in private, according to every man's particular disposition, to prevent drowsiness and dulness in attending to God's Word, in praying in singing of Psalms, 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 days 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 public prosecuting of such sports, and pastimes, is a plain 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 days carped at; and why? but because it is a sore offence unto them in their way; for if a rest from any thing (otherwise lawful in itself) be required on the Lord's Day, it seems 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 Andrew's, one of the greatest Prelates of this Kingdom, accommodates this place to the same purpose. All ceremonies (saith he) were ended in Christ; but so was not the Sabbath. For Mat. 24.20. Christ's bids them pray that their visitation be not on the Sabbath Day: so that there must needs be a Sabbath after Christ's death; and by this name he commonly calls this day we keep weekly as holy unto the Lord. The book of Homilies plainly tells us, that the Sunday is our Sabbath. In the conference at Hampton Court it is so called, without any dislike showed by any one there present. And the only reason why the ancients put a difference in this, not calling it the Sabbath day, but the Lords Day, was this, because Dies Sabbati in Latin signifieth the Saturday, which was the Jews Sabbath. But they generally call us to a rest on this day, and that most exact, as wherein we must Tantum Deo vacare, tantum cultibus divinis vacare, as Austin by name, not sparing to confess that Arare melius est quam saltare; But Barklay it seems, is of more authority with this Prefacer than Doctor Andrew's, and the Church, yea, and of our Saviour too: yet we calling it by that name, understand no other thing than our Christian Sabbath, and had rather it were generally called the Lords Day; and Doctor bound also standeth for this denomination, and urgeth it: yet is he accounted a Sabbatarian by Master Rogers, though we all concur in this, that thereon we ought to keep, and sanctify our Christian Sabbath, And jacobus 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. he saith that Christiana religio celebrat verum Sabbatum morale in die Dominica. Christian Religion keepeth a true moral Sabbath on the Lord's Day; yet I willingly confess, this is the usual course of Papists now a days, not to call the Lords Day, so much as by the name of our Sabbath. As for Barklays discourse; he is much fit to write something answerable to Don Quixot then to reason; we do observe the Lords Day, as a Sabbath, not because God rested that day from the Creation; for our Doctor Andrew's (of somewhat more credit with us, and that not only for his place, but for his sufficiency, than Barklay) hath delivered it in the Star Chamber, that It hath ever been the Church's 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 again. 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 he saith, is deduced plainly: First by practice, then by precept. And this new Sabbath on the Lord's Day, we observe, because on that day Christ rested from the work of redemption, which was wrought by his death. So that though the Lord began his labours in the work of Creation on the first day of the week, yet the Lord Christ set an end to his labours in the work of redemption on the same day of the week. As for Christ's vanquishing the powers of death on that day, to wit, the first day of the week; the Women that came to the Sepulchre at sun rising, found that he was risen. And what powers are these powers of death, he rhetoricates of? is there any positive nature in death that our Saviour had need to take such pains to overcome them; The Lord himself when he rested, he rested only from Creation; he that was best acquainted with his courses hath told us saying, Pater usque hodie peratur, my Father to this day, works still, and I work with him; yet he proceeds no farther in the work of Creation, nor Christ being once risen, in the work of redemption: S. jude 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 we had never more need then now to contend for the maintenance of the Lords Day, as our Christian Sabbath, because too many there are whose practice 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 pains in the discussion of it, considering the present occasion urging me hereunto; Out of the variety of his reading, he observes many wild derivations of the name Sabbath, and out of his judgement doth pronounce that the Jews by their Bacchanalian rites gave the World just occasion to suspect, that they did consecrate the Sabbath unto Revels rather than God's service. As for the rigorous keeping of the day in such sort; 
Sect. 2.  as neither to kindle fire in the Wintertime wherewith to warm themselves: or to dress meat for the sustentation of themselves; I am so fare from justifying it, that I willingly profess I am utterly ignorant, where any such Christians live, that press any such rigorous observation of it. The Jews 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 think, and not Lyra alone. We must know (saith he) that rest from manual works is not (now) so rigorously observed as in the old Law, because meat may be dressed, and other things done on the Lord's Day, which were not lawful 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 be not exactly observed) the whole and entire signification faileth, like as if you take away but one letter from the name of Lapis, the whole and entire signification is destroyed. To deal plainly, my opinion is, that all sports, and pastimes on the Lord's 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 expressly prohibited, that any man should go out of his own Parish to any sports, and pastimes on the Sabbath day; and this is done to prevent the profanation of it, as appears clearly by the reasons of that Act; which Parliament was held certain years after this Lecture, concerning the Doctrine of the Sabbath, was read in the University. And I nothing doubt but the censure of a Zealot will pass upon me for this, though we show no more zeal in saying, that The Lords Day is by some licentiously profaned, than others do 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 me take leave to profess, that the question it self is not indifferently 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 persuaded, that the Doctor himself will not affirm, 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 known by the very light of nature. Aristotle hath taught us in general, that moral duties are rather wrought upon a sober conscience by persuasion, than do 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 public service and worship of God, and not only so, but also it is nothing less clear, that a sufficient proportion of time must be allotted to the professed service of our Creator. But wherein this sufficient proportion of time doth consist, we are to seek, being left unto ourselves, and in my judgement, considering what we are, it is very fit we should be to seek 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 own pleasure, and not rather be guided herein by their Master's pleasure, especially by such a Master, to whom we own not only all that we do enjoy, but ourselves also; who holdeth our souls in life, and in whose hands is the breath of all mankind. The question thus untowardly proposed, it is subjoined that, They commonly which are more apt to say any thing, than able afterward to prove it, maintain 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 maintain 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 known unto us by the very common light of nature. It is true, some fetch the original 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, we cannot devise; For seeing God's blessing and sanctifying of it doth undoubtedly denote some act of God, this must be either an immanent act, or an act transient; Not an act immanent, for all such are eternal, but this was temporal, following upon God's rest on the seventh: For therefore (it is said) God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; and being an act transient and temporal, it must declare his will to have it sanctified, that is (by the general 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 commandment, seeing it is a will of God not so much concerning what shall be done, as concerning what shall be man's duty to do? And this hath both Walaeus, and after him Rivetus justified, and this latter against Gomarus, once and again, and that by divers arguments. And thus, as we have express Scripture for it, so we have as evident reason to justify it: For, no other ground can be devised for the dividing of the whole course of time into weeks, each consisting of seven days, than as it stands in congruity to Gods making the world in six days, 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 patriarchs 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 Commandment, together with the rest on Mount Sinai; Nay, this division of time into weeks, was generally observed among the heathens, as hath been showed by great variety of reading, and that this hath been the most ancient division of time, those other divisions into months and into years, coming in place long after, according as the motion of the Moon and of the Sun were found out by Astrologers, not till then, like as the denomination of the seven days of the week by the several names of the planets, was not brought in, until the several motions of all the Planets, come to be discovered. As for the second reason proposed thus on our part; If all the rest of the Commandments 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 Commandment should be taken for a part of the moral Law, I wonder that any man should be so unreasonable as to deny; but that this Commandment should flow from the Principles of nature; and that delivered without distinction, I know no man that affirms. But let us distinguish, and I make no doubt, but there will be found no difference of moment between Doctor Prideaux and us: For, I find no man to deny, but that some time in general is to be set apart, as well for God's public 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 God's service, herein we are to seek; yet herein also the light of nature doth advantage us, and that sufficiently in two particulars: For the truth whereof, I dare appeal to the judgement of Doctor Prideaux himself. 1. The first is this, that not only some time, but a sufficient proportion of time is to be consecrated to the exercises of piety, both public 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 seek of agreement about what is sufficient: 2. Therefore in the next place, the very light of nature doth suggest unto us; that it is fare 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 perform what he commands, man cannot. 4. The more clear and express the Commandment is, the more comfortable to the creature, being hereby assured, the service he performs is in the way of obedience, not unto his own will, but to the will of his Master. 3. May I not add a third? namely, that by the very equity of a natural conscience, it is more fit to apportion unto God's service one day in a week, rather than one day in a month; especially considering that originally time hath been divided into weeks, and not into months, until along time after. In all which, I am content to appeal to the judgement of Doctor Prideaux himself. Yet we have not done in this argument; For in the fourth Commandment, there is enjoined, not only the setting apart of some time in general for God's service; and the proportion of one day in seven in special, but also the particulating of a certain day under this proportion; and who seethe 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 speak hand over head of the fourth Commandment without distinctions? Now, as touching the particularity of the day, herein I confess, we are more to seek by the light of nature, than for the special 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 certain particulars. 1. As first the decent proportion of time being observed, it is nothing material in itself, as touching the advancement of the substance of God's service; what day of the week it be performed under the duly specified proportion. For we 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 work the first hour of the day, and rest the second, or five hours 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 Master's rest satisfied. So for the service of the week, if it be sufficient to perform thus much service, as namely, a day's service in a week, it matters not what day it be done, so the work be performed; I say, it matters not, as touching the substance of the work itself to be performed. 2. But though it matters not in this respect, on what day the service is performed; yet it may matter much in another respect: For whereas we are all God's creatures, and consequently his servants; and the service we speak of concerns us all in general, and that equally, and all we are reasonable creatures; 1. First it seems fit in reason, that there should be an uniformity: For, like as we converse together by commerce and trade in the works of our calling on other days of the week; so it seems most fit we should walk 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 town as ours, seven times four hundred persons (for we have almost 2000 Communicants; one of the three parishes in Reading hath as many) if one 400. should keep the first day of the week for their Sabbath another 400. the second day of the week, and so to divide the days of the week between them, here were a manifest breach of society both in things humane, and in things Divine; for every day in the week 400. would be excluded, from conversing with their brethren, in businesses temporal; and all the rest from them whose day it is to rest unto God, in exercises spiritual, which all I presume by the very light of nature, would judge intolerable. And this order would have place not only in particular towns among themselves, but with other also; considering that six days in the week we have converse by commerce and trade, not with our neighbours only, but with other towns also, fare and near. Again, another inconvenience would arise, and that a miserable one, more dangerous than the former; For hereupon a window will be opened unto dissension, each standing for his own 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 he hath appointed him the proportion of time, so he would be pleased not to leave him to seek 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 means sufficient, but Gods own prescribing of it, hereupon all just occasion of dissension 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 cheerfully and comfortably performed. 3. Thirdly, consider what D. Lake writes in his Theses de Sabbato. Thes. 44. God's Will is understood often by his Precept, but when we have not that, the practice doth guide the Church: 45. This is a Catholic rule, observable in the institution of all sacred feasts, both divine and humane: 46. The work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekly, monthly, or yearly, as particulars evidence 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. Now, suppose God had not commanded the observation of any one day in the week, but left it unto man to choose; if withal he should observe one day preferred before another in some notable work; 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 God's service; and accordingly we being upon the election of the day. Now, consider the base of Adam; God having revealed unto him how many days he had spent in the creating of all things, and in what order he created them, the last day of the six being the day wherein he created the beasts of the field, than man, and after placing him in Paradise, and after experience of his wisdom appearing in the naming of the beasts brought before him, not finding an help meet for him, casting him in a sleep, 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 work, what day should man have preferred for God's service before this; considering the proportion between God's rest from his works, and man's rest from his; and that as this day was the first of God's rest, so it was the first of man's work; And the very Heathens have counted it reasonable, à jove principium, to begin with God, especially there being no better means 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 accordingly after God's image, endued with an understanding heart to know him, and with rational affections to fear 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 quandoque uno statím: It is fit after benefits received, we should acknowledge our Creator sometimes, yea, forthwith: As we read the Angels did; as the Book of job informs 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 stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. The sum 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 God's service. 2. God being our great Lord and Master, it is most fit, by the very suggestion of nature, that God himself 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, myself to the judgement of Doctor Prideaux. The next reason here mentioned followeth; Can we conceive that this only ceremonial law crept in, we know not how, amongst the moral? Or that the Prophet Moses would have used such care in ordering the Decalogue, only to bring the Church into greater troubles? I answer, that some time should be set apart for God's service, was never accounted ceremonial; As touching the proportion of one day in seven days to be consecrated unto God, I never found any Divine ancient or modern busy his wits about devising any ceremoniality therein; neither did I observe any ancient produced to acknowledge any ceremoniality therein; but as it is fit we should wait upon God for designing the proportion of time, (in which respect divers count that positive) so God having designed unto us the proportion of time, we are bold to say with Azorius, that rationi maxime comsentaneum est, It is most agreeable to reason after six work days 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 only in the rest of the day; yet all these are shuffled together, and usually men talk of the ceremoniality of the fourth Commandment hand overhead 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 expressly, neither in Master Broad, nor in this discourse. Other Divines of these days, had rather call it positive; but how? Surely in reference only to the particular day, not to the rest of it, there being a moral rest necessarily required to the sanctification of it, namely, so fare 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 withal he confesseth, that the Jews 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 God's 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 less the designing the proportion of time; It being most requisite, the Lawmaker should design 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 himself from the sons of Cain to call upon the Name of the Lord, without some certain and appointed time for that performance. I do not think that Doctor Prideaux conceives it credible, that any wise man would think 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 than the master, the former reasons duly considered. Or is there any reason why Calvin should have so little authority, when he discourseth in reason for the original institution of the Sabbath, as from the Creation; and so great authority when he speaks upon his bare word against the morality of one day in seven (as some think) 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 drawn from those words Gen. 2.3. Therefore God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; the author alleging 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 confess, that to bless and sanctify the seventh day, is all one as if he had said that God commanded it to be sanctified. Only 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 works 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. years after, that men should consecrate that day to divine service. Now in disputing against the unreasonableness 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 only to content myself with the ground laid by Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath and Wells, in his Thesis of the Sabbath, Thes. 46. The work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekly, monthly or yearly, as particulars evince in Scripture and History. I make bold to lay this for my ground in this place, because it is apparent that God made his work on the seventh day, the ground of hallowing that day, namely, because it was the day of God's rest, therefore to make it the day of men's rest, for the sanctifying of it unto the Lord. Now I pray consider is it reasonable, that because such or such a work hath been done in such a day, provoking us to keep it a festival day unto the Lord, therefore it becomes us accordingly to sanctify it, but when? not that day nor the same day seven-night, nor throughout the 52. weeks of that year, nor any of the 52. weeks the next year; no nor for the space of a 1000 years, or two thousand: but after the expiration of 2500 years and more, then and not till then to sanctify that day, because on that day of the week the Lord rested from the work of Creation, 2500 years before? why might not the wisdom of our Parliament have imitated God, and in memory of our deliverance from the Gunpowder treason, on the 5. of November, ordained that day, should be kept festival, so far forth as in the public congregation to make a solemn, and thankful commemoration of that wonderful deliverance, to begin forsooth a thousand or two thousand years after. So the Jews observed yearly the feast of Purim, in remembrance of God's merciful deliverance of them, from the conspiracy of Haman, but when did they ordain this feast to begin? not till a thousand years after, had they done so, who would not have said, that their wisdom herein had exceeded all humane discretion? Or to avoid the like unreasonableness 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 weeks or seven days; and of sanctifying each seventh unto the Lord; but when the memory hereof began to be obliterated, to wit, about some 900 years after the flood, than it was fit the Lord should revive the observation of this day, by a particular Commandment? But hereby they shall make the fourth Commandment not only moral, but also more natural than they are ware. Though I willingly confess they might well conceive that after some 15 or 1600 years, men might grow weary of observing the seventh day, the day of God's rest from the work of Creation, because by experience we find that after some 15 or 1600 years, Christians seem to grow weary of keeping holy the Lord's day, the day whereon the Lord Christ risen from the grave, & so rested from his work of redemption. But as not long after 1600 years the flood came to set an end to the World by water; so it may be after 1600 years of the Gospel, there are but as few years to the coming of Christ, to set an end unto this World by fire: certainly, as often as some festival day, is grounded upon some singular work of God done, on that day (which Doctor Lake proposeth as a general and undoubted rule, always to hold concerning festivals) no time more fit for the observation of such a day, then when the memory of the work is fresh; then is a man like to be more devout, more cheerful in God's service, more thankful unto him for his great goodness, like as the Angels immediately upon their Creation praised God job. 38.7. When the Stars of the morning praised me, and all the children of God rejoiced, which in Cornelius his language was to observe the Sabbath. Now give me leave to enlarge this by proportion. As there are Sabbaths of rejoicing, so there are Sabbaths of mourning. And the expiation day commanded unto the Jews, was an annual feast, to inure them to this holy exercise, not only once a year, but oftener, as God should minister occasion: Now this day is called by the Lord also a Sabbath, Levit. 16.31. And Doctor Andrew's in his pattern of catechetical doctrine, handles the duties of such a day, in his doctrine of the Sabbath. And it is well known that days of wrath have their course, and shall have their course, as long as this World lasteth as well as days of mercy: And we have cause to bless God that he hath inclined his Majesty's heart to take notice of such days of wrath; and accordingly by Proclamation, to command a general humiliation throughout the Land, divers and sundry times. So we read that the Jews observed a fast on the first month, (besides the fast of the seventh which God commanded) as we read Zach. 7.3.5. and it was observed on the tenth day of that month; that being the day whereon Nabuchadnezzar burned the house of the Lord, as we read, jer. 52.12, 13. Now thus far had they observed the 70 years of their captivity Zach. 7.5. they did not put off the observation of it till a thousand years after; it being most fit, then especially to mourn, when God calleth us thereunto, and not to put it off when he calleth us thereunto; the Lord sore complaining of such courses, and pronouncing an heavy judgement upon offenders in this kind, Esay 22.12, 13, 14. Now like as it becomes us to mourn, when first God calleth us thereunto, so it becometh us to rejoice in keeping a festival unto him, when he 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. We read 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; he considering the unseasonableness thereof, it being a long time after his death; requited them accordingly saying, that he was sorry for their heaviness also, having lost so renowned a Knight as Hector was, to wit, above a thousand years before, in the wars of Troy.  
Surely when in the fourth Commandment, and in the reason given it is said; For in six days 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 conceive the meaning hereof, in reference to time past, thus; therefore the Lord commanded the sanctification of it 2500 years 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 years after. And observe I pray the form of words in the fourth Commandment, when it is said, Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it, not of the time present that he now doth bless it, and sanctify it, but of the time past, therefore he did bless it, and sanctify it; and when I pray but immediately from the Creation, that very day whereon he first rested, and consequently that very day, he commanded the seventh day to be sanctified; for to sanctify 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 signify God's Command for the sanctification of it, I have already proved.  
As for the Father's affirming that the ancient patriarchs did not observe the Sabbath, albeit their authority is of no force to countervail so manifest evidence both of Scripture itself; and of the reason drawn from the division of time into weeks, even from the creation, and so continued unto the Jews in the very days 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 chrysostom, Theophilus, Antiochenus, Austin, Theodor. maintaining that the justification of the Sabbath hath been from the Creation: To these Rivelies adds Tertullian as of the same mind, howsoever alleged on the adversaries part. And he also acknowledgeth the Jews to be of the same opinion: Beda is alleged indeed by Pererius as on the part of Tostatus, but no such thing appears in his Hexameron, but rather expressly the contrary (his words being these of the Sabbath, semper celebrari solebat) as I have showed 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 been from the Creation; which also hath been showed to have been the opinion of Philo and josephus, and divers of the Jewish Rabbins, and of the author of the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the Psalms, and of divers others. 
In Psalm. 29.  Again, concerning the passages alleged out of some Fathers to the contrary; not only Hospinian answereth, that those proceed of the rigorous observation of the Sabbath; but jacobus Salianus a Papist, in particular thus interpreteth Tertullian; and Tertullian must be in some such sense understood, as namely, either of observation of other Sabbaths in use among the Jews, 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 clearly professeth, that the Sabbath day was à primordio sanctus, as Rivetus showeth, and that the other Fathers (which are but four) 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 recompense them in this particular now in question, and add 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 weak in the former, that we have cause to suspect it will not prove any thing stronger in the latter; though I should have been 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 form and void, 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 four books of Moses, and on the fourth Precept, is express, that Diem septimum sibi sumpsit Deus ac consecravit completa mundi creatione, that God assumed and consecrated the seventh day unto himself upon the finishing of the world's creation. And it is enough for us, that then it was instituted; and hereupon let every sober reader judge, whether it be not more than probable, that the holy patriarchs at least observed it. Neither do we affect that any man should rest satisfied with our conjectures; but let our reasons be considered, and the plain Text of Scripture professing that because God rested the seventh day, 
Sect. 3.  therefore he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; and let them yield 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 think they are very few Protestants. Gomarus (as I remember) allegeth but two, Vatablus and Musculus, whereas Walaeus and Rivetus between them, have alleged no less than thirty maintaining the contrary. As for the Papists, we shall take notice of them in the next Section.  
It is confessed that this proof 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 sanctify it, which yet if any man deny, I appeal to my former argument, delivered in the former Section, for the justifying thereof. Only 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 seek of the time in reference whereunto this is delivered; most of all, if spoken only in reference to 2500 years 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 spoke this by anticipation rather to show the equity of the Commandment than the Original; If the book of Genesis were written before the Commandment was given on mount Sina, this interpretation must suppose that the Lord had already revealed to Moses what he would do 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 concern them who maintain this affirmative to make it good by Texts of Scripture? If after the Commandments were delivered on Mount Sina; what need of representing the equity thereof, seeing the equity, and that in this very way, is expressed in the Commandment itself, and that in such manner as to manifest evidently that God did not now begin to command this, but that he 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 Jesuit to●ke part with Tostatus, yet Rivetus hath showed that Cornelius de lapide, Emmanuel Sa. Ribera, all Jesuits do not, but with Catarinus rather, or that Steuchus, Eugubinus, Genebrard, and jacobus Salianus concur with them, against the opinion of Tostatus, Gomarus acknowledgeth Marius also to be of the same mind, all Papists; and let me add unto these all the Remists, as appears 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, oftener 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 he confesseth that it seemed hardly credible; neither doth the Doctor deny it, only he saith that Enosh might so do; he doth not say he did; yet undoubtedly many things are done that are hardly credible should be done, much more might be 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 himself from the sons 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 holiness is as powerfully effectual to the one as to the other; and they are called the Sons of God, in distinction from the sons, and daughtes of men, Gen. 6.2. though then the very sons 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 meet in one congregation. 2. that meeting in divers, the children of God should desire that at one time their meeting might be, the prayers of many concurring in the same faith, and joining together do besiege God's Ears, and work an holy violence upon him. 3. otherwise, there would be a breach of society and mutual commerce, that being an holy day in one place or country which was not in another. 4. being divided fare 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 return, 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 Commandment, than any promulgation of it. But suppose it had been a promulgation of it, what could that hinder the discourse of jacobs not neglecting Laban's flock upon conscience of the Sabbath, which was long before the children of israels going down into Egypt; whereas Manna fell not until their departing out of Egypt, and coming into the Wilderness, which was divers hundreds of years after. But yet the ordering of the Manna in the falling of it six days, and not the seventh; doth evidently argue that this seventh standing in just correspondency to the seventh day from the Creation, (as appears by the story following) the dividing of time into weeks, and septenaries from the Creation, was exactly observed from the Creation all along until that time: And no less 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 week whereon God rested; or by Commandment, and Commandment we find none before that on Mount Sinai, unless that in Gen. 2.3. Go for a Commandment from the beginning.  
The first mention we read of the Sabbath is that Exod. 16.23. Where Moses saith, This is that which the Lord hath said, to morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; and let every one judge whether there be any form of a Commandment in this, and whether he doth not speak unto them of a Sabbath as of a thing formerly well known unto them, and v. 25. To day is the Sabbath unto the Lord; to day ye shall not find it in the field. 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 jacob on the Sabbath had neglected Laban's flock, and that the Israelites under Pharaoh had not made up their tale of bricks, 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 counsel them to do? 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 straits are they reduced, who would impose the Sabbath as a perpetual Law of nature. As for the first of these, we cannot be ignorant, that both flocks of sheep, and heads of greater cattles were looked unto in the time of the most rigorous observation of the Sabbath. Our Saviour observes the Jews practice (notwithstanding all their rigour this way) was to unloose their Ox, and lead him to watering: Neither was Laban so rigorous a Lord to jacob being from the first his uncle, and afterwards his father in Law, and one that had as good means 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 jacobs' posterity met with Taskmasters in Egypt. And if the Egyptians 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 fare 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 King's Children; Traian made a Law that the Jews should not be molested on their Sabbath. The Turks at this day give liberty unto Christians for the free exercise of their religion. And why should we think the Egyptians more rigorous to the Israelites then the Babylonians were to the jews? Or if alike; why may not a man conclude as well of the jews 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. The Canon of Laodic●a enjoining 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 own bodies? yet what if all this were granted? who seethe 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 do profess christianity under such; they are sure of punishment from man; if not, they are sure of vengeance from God. So that to no such straits are we put as is devised, like as the state of the question obtruded upon us is devised also, but that I have formerly cleared, and shown that we are to distinguish. 1. of time in general to be set apart for God's service. 2. of the proportion of time in special. 3. of the day under that proportion of time in particular. And how fare 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 drawn from the division of time into weeks, as which had its course from the beginning of the World; and how authority both ancient, and modern doth countenance this way of ours fare more than the contrary. And Manasses ben Israel one of the ancient wise Doctors of the Jews observes, that when the Jews are bid to remember that they were servants in Egypt, this is as if it had been said, remember how that in Egypt, where thou servedst, thou wast constrained to work even upon the Sabbath day. In Exod. queast. 36. Upon the Lord's blessing the seventh day and sanctifying it from the beginning of the World, and upon the fourth Commandment is founded our observation of the Sabbath; as chrysostom hath professed; that God hath manifested from the beginning that one day in the circle of the week ought to be set apart for a spiritual rest.  
All confess that there is a difference between. 1. Time in general to be set apart for God's service. 2. And the proportion of that time. 3. And the particularity of the day in that proportion. The first is generally received to be moral, the other two some had rather call positive, then ceremonial, because they conceive it to have been instituted in Paradise before the fall, when there was no need of any ceremony. They who do most judiciously discourse of ceremony in the fourth Commandment, do not call it ceremonial 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 seven, I never read nor heard, till now. Yet wherein this ceremoniality doth consist, I mean 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 Jews rest on the seventh day, is generally conceived to prefigure Christ's rest in the grave that day full and whole, and only that day. And as Doctor Andrew's Bishop of Winchester in his Star Chamber speech professeth, that It hath ever been the Church's 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 works may have a ceremonial significaton of a rest from sin in the way of grace, as, Ezech. 20.12. and a rest both from sin, and sorrow; (which is also a special work of ours through sin, jer. 2.17. hast thou not procured this unto thyself 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 Jews under the Law had their rest from sin, (in the way of grace) as we Christians under the Gospel, yet nevertheless observed the Sabbath, and that glorious rest which shall not be accomplished till the end of the World, is commonly called an eternal Sabbath. And undoubtedly that is to be accounted as a rest moral whereunto the sanctification of the day calleth us, namely to rest from all works, as they are Avocations from sacred studies, and meditations. But doth Abulensis account the rest of one day in seven ceremonial, and not moral? Doctor Willet relates him as of an other opinion, and distinguishing thus. There are some things which are simply moral, and some things simply ceremonial; and some things of a mixed kind, as being partly moral, partly ceremonial. Simply moral are those things which are grounded on the judgement of natural reason, as when natural reason doth dictate that some time is to be set apart for God's service; But precisely to appoint the seventh day more than any day of the week, is simply ceremonial, quia non habet fundamentum à ratione, sed à voluntate condentis legem; because it is not grounded on reason, but on the will of the lawmaker. But to appoint one day of seven, and that day wholly for the space of 24. hours to consecrate to God's service, as therein to abstain from all kinds of work, these things are not purely or simply ceremonial, but partly moral as grounded on the judgement of reason, though not totally and wholly. For the first, if above one day in the week should be kept perpetually holy, Gravamen esset laborantibus toties vacare; it were a grievance to labourers to rest from work 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 temporal) 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 ourselves 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 moral; but to confirm it rather. Neither do I find that Aquinas resolves it so, as here it is pretended; that which he saith to be ceremonial, is applied by him only to the particular day of the week. Indeed he doth say that the proportion of one day in seven to be consecrated to the Lord, is moral, neither doth he deny it; only he saith, it is moral that some time should be set apart for God's 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.  
For albeit he treads in Aquinas steps when he saith, 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 moral to have a day destinate to rest from servile works so to be free for God's service. It is ceremonial, that the seventh day, and no other is prescribed for this: yet a little before he manifesteth that by one day to be set apart, for this he means one day in seven, when he thus saith.  

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 Commandment is moral 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 than Aquinas did; it may be they will be found to agree with us. For I do not think any schoolman, being put to it will deny but that by the very light of nature, not only some time, but a sufficient proportion of time must be set apart for God's service. And albeit had we been left unto ourselves without any indication of this proportion from God, we might well have been to seek in the setting forth of this convenient proportion Yet considering how God hath gone before us making the World in six days, and resting the seventh, and considering thereupon the division of time into septenaries of days, reason I should think with Tostatus, doth dictate that the proportion of one day in seven was more convenient than 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 Commandment what proportion of time he 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 chrysostom we have cause by the very light of nature undoubtedly to conclude; that if in the beginning, and under the Law God required one day in seven to be consecrated to his service; we surely cannot allow unto him a worse proportion under the Gospel. And jacobus de Valentia advers. Judae. q. 2. 
Conclus.  Praeceptum de Sabbato celebrando est partim morale propter primam conditionem. This first condition in respect whereof he saith it is moral, he professeth to be two fold. 1 in regard of the rest. 2. in regard of the sanctification of it, than he 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 coming to specify the proportion of time to be allowed hereunto, Oportet (saith he) 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 week must be dedicated unto God for this sanctification and worship, and thus the precept is stable and everlasting as it shall appear. In like manner Stella upon Luke 14. In the sanctification of the Sabbath there was something moral, and something ceremonial. It is moral to observe one day in the week; but that it should be this day or that day, this is ceremonial. Add 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 schoolmen are not directly against us, (as hitherto it hath appeared,) no more than Zanchy, who yet is directly for us, as hath been showed. 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 ceremonial, taking this word (ceremonial) in proper speech: for 1. it may be accounted positive. 2. what have we to do with ceremonials (in proper speech) now under the Gospel, who yet do still observe one day in seven. 3. nay why may not that also justly be accounted moral, if God hath marked out that day we celebrate by some notable work, to be consecrated to the Lord, above others? especially according to Bishop Lake his grounds, namely that the work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day: for proof whereof he appeals to the institution of all feasts both humane and divine. In this case, I should think there is no colour for suspicion of any Judaisme; who those fathers are, who have pronounced (as here it is said) the fourth Commandment to be a ceremony, a shadow, and a figure only, here it is not mentioned, but delivered at large, but I find that Isychrius rejects from the Decalogue this precept for the observation of the Sabbath, esteeming it to be only ceremonial, opposed herein by Dominicus Bannes; 
22. q. 44. art. 1.  Sed profecto fallitur quoth Bannes: for the precept is moral as touching the substance of the precept, to wit, that there be a certain 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 precept positive; in the Law of grace, the day of the Lords Resurrection; so that amongst the people of God, one day in the week hath been determined for divine service. As for our Divines, the most general opinion amongst them is, that the observation of one day in seven is of perpetual observation. For albeit Brentius upon Leviticus affirms, that the Church may in these days observe but one day in 14. if they will. Yet not only Gomarus, and Rivet profess that under the Gospel we must allow a better proportion of time for God's service, rather than 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 God's worship, and Baldwin in his cases of conscience. 2. c. 13. cas. 2. touching feasts. It is moral (saith he) to sanctify one day in seven. Master Hooker confesseth as much in his Ecclesiastical policy. And if Calvin hath a way by himself in this; there is no reason he should be introduced to affront the most general current of our own 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 than are produced here; where nothing is delivered in opposition thereunto; the last tends to the confirmation of it.  
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; we may be bold to say with Azorius (and that incorrespondency to Tostatus his discourse) that rationi maximè consentaneum est after six work days 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 appears to be most unreasonable we should allow him a worse proportion under the Gospel, 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 need of a Sabbath as ever the Jews had. As touching the three particulars wherein Tostatus is vouched to affirm the fourth Commandment to be 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 ceremonial. 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 accounted by them ceremonial. But as for the proportion of one day in seven, never yet did I meet with any who set his wits on work to devise any thing in Christ to be prefigured thereby, that so it also might be accounted ceremonial. 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 accounted by Jacobus de Valentia, stabile & aeternum, stable and everlasting; and most unreasonable that we should not be bound to allow as good a proportion of service unto God under the Gospel, as the Jews were bound to allow him under the Law.  
The rest of the seventh day being ceremonial, we hold not only with Tostatus that it is alterable, but with Stella that it must be altered; and I hope the word itself affords evidence enough for this. It is true, the fourth Commandment in the very front commands the sanctifying the Sabbath not the seventh day, but the Sabbath: and in like manner 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 days of work. But we 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; lest otherwise there might be as many different opinions hereabouts, and courses according thereunto amongst the people of God, as there be days in the week. Now God did appoint the seventh day of the week unto the Jews for their Sabbath; but the first day of the week, he hath appointed unto us for our Sabbath; still observing six days work before, and a seventh of rest unto God, after. And thus Zanchy a learned and judicious Divine interpreteth the fourth Commandment in 4. precept. 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 said, remember the seventh day, but remember the Sabbath day, that is, the day of rest to sanctify it. For by this means, we also keep this precept in sanctifying the Lords Day.  
So that this is not the opinion of Doctor bound only, and of Master Perkins, but of Zanchy also, and jacobus de Valentia advers. judaeos qu. 2. conclus. 4. Christian Religion celebrates a true moral Sabbath on the Lord's Day, as touching the 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 moral remains in the new time celebrated on the Lord's day. So Dominicus Bannes formerly alleged distinguisheth the substance of the precept, from the particular determination of the day; and adds, that by a positive precept the seventh day was designed unto the jews; 
Bannes' 22. 4. 44 art. 1.  but afterwards under the Law of grace was designed the day of the Lords Resurrection, So that always to God's faithful people was designed one day in the week, for Divine Service. Whereas other festivities (saith he) are in course by the institution of the Church. And Doctor Andrew's also showeth out of Math. 24.20. that there must needs be a Sabbath after Christ's death, and adds, that Those which were ceremonies were abrogated: but those which were not ceremonies were changed; at the Ministry from the Levites to be chosen throughout the World So here the day changed from the day of the Jews to the Lord's Day. Revel. 1.10. And accordingly interpreteth the fourth Commandment as belonging unto us Christians as bound to observe the Sabbath 1. in our judgement by a reverend esteeming of it, not as a day appointed by man. 2. in our use set down, Esay 58.13. not following our own will, nor doing our own works. 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, look 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 practice of piety is a book dedicated unto his Majesty that now is, when he was Prince Carls in the year 1626. which is now 15. years ago, came forth the 10th Edition of it; we have heard it highly commended by King james, and that it commended the author of the dedication to a Bishopric. The author of this treatise, is large upon the Sabbath, and concurres with us in every particular wherein we are by the Prefacer to this translation opposed. Amongst other particulars this is one, that he interpreteth the fourth Commandment as Zanchy doth, saying, The Commandment doth not say. Remember to keep holy the seventh day next following the sixth day of the Creation or this or that seventh day: but indefinitely, Remember that thou keep holy a Sabbath day, and that Our Lord jesus having authority as Lord over the Sabbath, had likewise far greater reason to translate the Sabbath day, from the jewish seventh unto the seventh day whereon Christians do keep their Sabbath; which also he proves by divers reasons. And the book of Homilies whereunto all our Ministers are required to subscribe, professeth that we Christians are still bound to the observation of the Sabbath, and that the Sunday is now our Sabbath. So then as the Jews were tied to the observation of the Sabbath on the day prescribed too them, so are we Christians tied to the observation of the Sabbath too, but on the day prescribed unto us; should we observe the same day with the Jews, we should fall justly under Augustine's censure, that every such one carnaliter sapit. And the same Austin professeth that Doctores Ecclesiae decreverunt omnem gloriam Iudaici Sabbati in illam transfer. 
August de. Tem. Ser. 251.  The Doctors of the Church have decreed to transfer all the glory of the Jews Sabbath unto the Lord's Day. So that the censure following in these words. They therefore are but idly busied, who would so fare enlarge the Sabbath or seventh day in this commandment, as to include the Lords Day in it, must light not upon us only, but upon other greater Divines, yea and upon the Church of England also; but our comfort is, that we find it very weakly grounded. As for the institution of the Lords Day, I never read nor heard any that grounded it upon the fourth Commandment otherwise, then by proportion.  
That Commandment contains 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 infer the setting of some time in general a part for God's service, which not one (that I know) denies to be the substance of this commandment. Now as the Lord designed, what should be their Sabbath day unto the Jews; so hath he designed what shall be the Sabbath day to us Christians.  
This designation made to us we do not derive from the fourth commandment; 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 do we derive from the fourth commandment, and also, that undoubtedly we Christians ought not to allow unto God a worse proportion of time for his Service, than did the Jews: and the proportion is apparent between 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 Christ's 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 alleged out of Calvin, I am sorry to observe the common error of others committed here also; by dismembering Calvin's sentence, leaving out one half of it, making him to deliver that absolutely, which he utters only conditionally. And the other half of the first sentence here mentioned doth manifest as much, namely that Calvin speaks only against them, who think themselves obliged to the observation of one day in 7. for some mysterious significations sake; and accordingly Wallaeus showeth that he opposeth none but Papists, whose course is to observe festival days for some mystery sake, whereof he 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 do urge the words of this Commandment, so fare till they draw blood instead of comfort, are but words: nothing of this kind hath been hitherto made good so much as in the least colour of probability: And who upon due observing of the fourth commandment may not well be brought to admire the wisdom of God, that as he hath placed it in the moral law, 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 be of force, whether on the seventh day which was the Sabbath day unto the Jews, or the Lord's day which should be our Christian Sabbath; thereon to rest unto God and to sanctify that day unto his service; we make no doubt but the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, and so hath power to change it, and none hath power to change it, but he that is Lord of it▪ It is true, this was one argument amongst many, which the Author of the Practice of Piety useth to prove that the fourth commandment stands still in force; because our Saviour professeth that, He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it: and that the least of them, should not be abrogated in his kingdom of the new Testament. In so much that whosoever breaketh one of the least of these ten commandments and teacheth men so, he should be called the least in the Kingdom 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: Do we destroy the Law by faith? God forbidden: We confirm it rather. 2 Christ then hath put away the shadow, but retained the light, and spreads it wider than before: showing thereby the excellent harmony, between the Gospel and the Law. As touching the first part of this present answer; that is too alien from our present purpose; the question between us, being not whether the Law be destroyed, by preaching justification by faith; we know that as touching the ceremonial Law, whatsoever was prefigured thereby is fulfilled by Christ; and as touching the moral Law, Christ hath fulfilled that also partly in himself by perfect obedience thereunto, and making satisfaction for our disobedience; and partly in us, by giving us more power to perform obedience thereunto through faith in him, than 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 commandment, I cannot comprehend; Suppose it be but one of the least commandments, yet let them look to it, who discourse of abrogating it, and teach men that they are not obliged by it, hand over head; lest they be accounted by the Lord of Sabbath the least in the kingdom of heaven: therefore it stands them upon to confirm it rather as they profess, but how they do perform that which they pretend, I am utterly to seek. 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 we have heard the proportion of one day in seven allowed unto God's service, to be called a ceremony, and consequently a shadow; But what this prefigured is not explained at all, nor ever hath been 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 been also called a ceremony, but too too crudely and without all explication of what it figured: yet we willingly grant a fair prefiguration of somewhat concerning Christ is found in the seventh day acknowledged by the Ancients and by modern 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, fairly representing Christ's rest that day in his grave; and thereupon grounding the rigorous condition of the Jewish rest, which is the practice both of Papists & of Protestants so that the Sabbath is not taken away neither as touching some time, in general to be sanctified unto God, nor as touching the proportion of time in special, as of one day in seven; but only as touching the particular day which is changed into the Lord's day: Our Saviour professing that a Sabbath still was to be kept of Christians, as Doctor Andrew's proveth out of Matth. 24 20. As for the second, to wit, the light that is said to be retained and spread wider than before; this is mere darkness unto me, for I cannot by any means 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 the thing prefigured; and that is devised to be a spiritual rest from sin. 
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 Gospel; and if the sanctification of the Sabbath (I speak of our Christian Sabbath, according to our Saviour's language, Matth. 24.20.) be taken from us, I doubt we shall enjoy that spiritual rest from sin, in fare less measure under the Gospel, than the Jews did under the law. Yet neither they nor we shall enjoy it entirely, till we are brought to our rest in glory. Certainly the conscionable observation of the Sabbath ever was, and is a principal means to draw us to that spiritual rest from sin, and eternal rest in glory. If Saint Paul by taxing the Jewish observation of days & times, doth therewithal tax the observation of the Lords day in place of the Jewish: then let us turn Anabaptists, and Socinians, and utterly renounce the observation of the Lords day, as well as of the Jewish Sabbath. The same Apostle Col. 2. speaks not of the Sabbath, but of Sabbaths; and there were days enough so called amongst the Jews, and that by the Lord both of days and years, besides the weekly Sabbath; yet we are content the rest of the seventh may be ranged amongst other Sabbaths, as prefiguring Christ's rest that day in the grave. But to speak of the Sabbath hand-over-head without distinction we love not; nor see I any cause, why men should be in love therewith unless withal they love confusion: and to fish in troubled waters, is many times an advantage to serve turns. Let the rest of the seventh be in God's name crucified with Christ upon the cross, or at least be buried with him in his grave, and so as never to rise with him; but let our Christian Sabbath (our Saviour speaks of Matth. 24.20.) take life together with our Saviour's resurrection that brought with it a new creation, a new world, and there withal a new Sabbath, as Doctor Andrew's Bishop of Winchester delivers it in his Star Chamber speech in the case of Trask. As reason tells us that there must be some certain appointed time for God's public Service; so as good reason tells us, we Christians cannot without sin, allow unto God for his public service a worse proportion of time under the Gospel, than the Jews were bound to allow unto him under the Law. God himself never having deserved so much at the hands of man as under the Gospel; and there never being greater necessity of observing a Sabbath, then under the Gospel, the way of truth and holiness being so beset, and with such encumbrances as the like were never known to the world before; yet still from the bondage and necessity of the jewish Sabbath, we are delivered by the Gospel; for neither do we keep their day, than called the Lords holy day; but the first day of the week, the day of Christ's 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 days equal and equally to be regarded, so instead of Christian liberty to bring into the Church, an Heathenish licentiousness, yet surely the heathens ever had their festivals even weekly, and that on the seventh day, which was sometimes called in this respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And at this day the Turks festival is their Friday, the first day of Mahumets kingdom, when he fled from Maecha to jethrib, and thenceforth constituted both the first day of their week and of their year. Let as many as by their Sabbatarian speculations, bring all to judaisme be censured as they deserve; but as for them that desire to have all the glory of the jews Sabbath transferred to the Lords day, take heed how you censure them, lest 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 lettuce serves their lips that like them. Censures of fanatic and peevish spirits, are as liberally bestowed by some; as the Baiocchis 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 profaned by May-games and Morris dances, they are censured for men fanatic & of peevish spirits; but they little think that all the Prelates of the kingdom may as well come under their lash, and the whole Parliament in the first of king Charles. 
Sect. 3.  But that thread which here is begun, is drawn out somewhat longer in the next Section following.  
5 In this fifth Section things are so carried, that it is an hard matter to discern the Doctor's 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 commandment: 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, do draw their arguments for the justifying of their Tenet; which I willingly profess, doth seem 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 Gospel, the Sabbath is to be translated from the seventh day to the first day of the week. Or thus, the Lord in the fourth commandment gave in charge to sanctify the Sabbath, and tells them, that the seventh day (of the week) was their Sabbath, therefore the translation of the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week 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 Andrew's Bishop of Winchester, in the Star 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 ago 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 he discourseth there more at large. And we find manifestly this notable congruity between the Sabbath day and the Lords day, that like as God on the seventh day rested from the work of creation; so Christ our Saviour rising on the first day of the week from the dead, made that the first day of his resting from the work of redemption. But when I consider the Doctor's sharp censures of weakness, of impudence, of ignorance; it is not credible he should closely let flee at such as Athanasius and Doctor Andrew's Bishop of Winchester; Neither do I find throughout this whole discourse any notice taken of this ground, whereupon their discourse runs. It is more likely by fare that some lo●ner persons, and poor snakes are herein set up as marks to shoot at, and as signs to be spoken against It is true, many do prove herence the morality of the fourth commandment; The author of the practice of piety which goes under a Bishop's name, takes this course of his ten arguments to prove the commandments of the Sabbath to be moral; this is the second; Because it was commanded of God to Adam in his innocency. Bishop Andrew's in his Pattern of catechetical doctrine taketh the like course, as formerly hath been 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 eternal: 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 be observed, and consecrated unto God's Service, as chrysostom long ago hath inferred herence; but it is nothing usual to infer herence the celebration of the Lords day. In like manner not one that I know, ancient or late, do conclude from the fourth commandment, either the celebration of the Lords day, or the translation of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week. But herence indeed they infer (and most justly in my judgement) that if one day in the week were to be consecrated unto the Lord. by virtue of the moral law, in the days 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 God's service under the Gospel; And accordingly to rest from all works, that hinder the sanctification of that day in the exercises of piety, and so fare 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 be enjoined to the Jews. I do wonder the Canonists are reckoned amongst those, who do build the celebration of the Lords day, upon the constitution of the Church and affirm this absolutely; 
Sect. 4.  when in the next Section many Canonists are alleged out of Azorius, as maintaining the divine authority of the Lords days: and one of them, Sylvester by name, 
22. q. 44. art. 1.  professing it to be opinionem communem. And as for Schoolmen, it is apparent, that Dominicus Bannes, puts a manifest difference between the Lord's day and other festivities, which are ex institutione ecclesiae. And whereas Bellarmine is alleged as the mouth of the Schoolmen, to affirm 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 week 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 Lord's day by the Apostles; his words are these, Ius divinum requirebat ut unus 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 showed 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 fourteen to be consecrated; which whether it be not an unreasonable conceit, I am willing to appeal to the judgement of Doctor Prideaux, yet Gemardus the Lutheran will not follow Brentius in this (as I have showed in my answer to the preface and 5. Section) For he 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 joint consent of some 11. or 12. of our modern 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 general 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, 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 authority, of the celebrity 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 apparent, they do not maintain the observation of the seventh day. Certainly this is delivered in reference to somewhat, that is not thought fit to be expressed; yet the prefacer did express it, imputing unto them whom he opposeth, that they do 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 maintains any other rest from works, then as they are avocations from sacred studies and meditations: whereas the Jews observed it for some mysterious signification sake, and thereupon were tied to a more rigorous rest. But let them speak plainly, and say we are too rigorous in thinking sports and pastimes unlawful on the Lord's day. And herein I appeal to every Christian conscience; whether these be not as great avocations from sacred studies and meditations, as the works of our ordinary callings. Then again which of us comes nearest to Judaisme herein? Is it not against the Jews, that Austin professeth? Melius est orare quam saltare, Better to go to plough then to dances; and Foeminae vestrae melius lanam facerent quam saltarent. Better it were your women should spin wool then dance: as their course was in their festivals. Again, why should their opinion be Jewish, by maintaining it out of the old Testament; rather than out of the new? Then, who are they that maintain it only by the old Testament? And lastly, not one that I know (neither do I think it can be justly obtruded on any) do maintain the succession of the Lords day, in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, either by the original institution of it, as from the creation, or by the fourth commandment; yet upon these nullities▪ is founded the imputation of both impudence 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 alleged for it, and but two Papists quoted; the one of which I have showed to be of a plain contrary opinion. 
Sect. 4.  And of Protestant Divines, I have represented no less than eleven, maintaining the Apostolical and divine constitution of the Lords day, besides Gerardus the Lutheran, to affront Brentius; Nay, Doctor Prideaux himself Sect. 7. maintains 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 believe because the Apostle saith it Heb. 7.12. & it is well if the Schoolmen make the word of God their principles; but of what Law? of the moral law, or of the ten commandments; or any one of them? (yet we willingly confess 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 Schoolmen conclude that at this day, the moral law bindeth not, as it was published and proclaimed by Moses; but as at first it appertained no less to the Gentiles then to the jews; this I say is a mystery: And to confess a truth, when I met with this, in a certain manuscript of one Brewers, it seemed to me a very wild discourse, from this place of the Apostle to infer 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 wait until I hear what those Schoolmen 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. Certainly 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 weak to prove it, as appears to all that acknowledge the Commandment of sanctifying the Sabbath to be given to Adam, immediately after his creation; who deserve to be accounted more hot spurs than they, in whom The desire of prey doth over-runne the scent? Now what one of our Divines can be alleged to derive the authority of the Lords day from the law of Moses? I am verily persuaded, 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 appear otherwise, that the Lords day by good authority is substituted in the place of the seventh to become our Christian Sabbath, such as our Saviour foreprohesied of Matth. 24.20. then from the fourth commandment, they may make bold to conclude, that it ought to be sanctified. And this Zanchy himself justifies in the place quoted Chap. 19, as before hath been showed. And our book of homilies expressly tell us, that now Sunday is become our Sabbath. But we keep not the seventh day, the rest on that day being ceremonial, and prefiguring the rest of Christ that day in his grave.  
And as for the authority whereby we 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 work nothing inferior to the work of Creation; to wit, the work of Christ's Resurrection, such a work as brings with it a new Creation, and therewithal a new Sabbath, as Doctor Andrew's observes out of the ancients, and delivered as much in the Star Chamber. And whereas under the Law the Jewish Sabbath was called the Lords Day; Now under the Gospel the first day of the week 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 we are to have a Sabbath under the Gospel Math. 24.20. as the aforementioned Doctor Andrew's doth observe in his pattern of catechetical doctrine, In common reason, and in the conscience of a Christian what day ought to be this our Sabbath rather than the Lords Day, so called in the language of the holy Ghost; especially considering that not that day of the year, but that day of the week is called the Lords Day, as by most general acknowledgement of all the ancients hath been supposed. And to urge one place more out of the old Testament, than here is in a violent manner obtruded upon us, Psal. 118 14. This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoice, and be glad in it, is evidently spoken of that day wherein the stone which the bvilders refused was made the head of the corner: Now by that stone the holy Ghost chiefly understands the Lord Christ, Mat. 21.42. Marc. 12.10. Luc. 20.17. Acts 4.11. 1 Pet 2.7. and when was he 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 Son of God touching the spirit of sanctification by the Resurrection from the dead. And under what stile did they reject him, and condemn him as a blasphemer but for making himself the Son of God? As for the rigorous observation of the rest prescribed unto the Jews; as from kindling of fire, and dressing of meat; some qualify that rigour, conceaving that kindling of fire was forbidden only 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 received for the promoting of the workmanship of that which formerly was commanded. And that dressing of meat was not forbidden them, no not in the gathering of Manna, as some think; if then, yet not as a general course to be observed for ever; And as touching the Table that Nehemiah kept, thus we read. Moreover there were at my Table, 
Nehem. 5.17.18.  an. 150. of the jews and rulers which came unto us from among the Heathen that are about us. And there was prepared daily an Ox, and six chosen Sheep, and Birds were prepared for me— and he was so fare from consciousness of profaning the Lords Sabbath herein, that he concludes thus, Remember me O my God in goodness, according to all that I have done for this people. But suppose they were tied so strictly to such a rest, as from works not servile, only in seeking again, (as Zanchy instanceth the condition of a work 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 we are absolved, and consequently freed from that rigorous rest depending thereupon, and rest only from works so fare forth as they are avocations from Sacred Studies and meditations, as Calvin expresseth it; and this we account a moral rest, distinguished from ceremonial. And whereas the Doctor tells us that such a like distinction is infirm, being content to say nothing to confirm it, save that the Text (as he saith) affords it not: I had thought the very light of nature had been sufficient to embolden us to conclude, 
Sect. 6.  that where the sanctification of the day is commanded, therewithal is commanded abstinence from all such things as would hinder the sanctification of it, And as for the text itself, it is apparent that neither the kindling of the fire, nor dressing of meat is particularly forbidden in the fourth Commandment. Neither doth he so much as obtrude upon his adversaries that they derive the sanctification of their christian Sabbath from aught in the old Testament, save from Gen. 2.3. and from the fourth Commandment. In neither of which doth he deal fairly; 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, than he is willing to take notice of, namely out of the Psal. 118.24. Neither is it possible he should be ignorant thereof, howsoever he doth dissemble his knowledge of it. Yet I hope it is enough for us to find evidence for it in the Sunshine of the Gospel; and indeed here alone we have the original observation of it, though that it should be observed, is as evidently prophesied in the old Testament, as that Christ is the stone which was first refused of the bvilders, 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 work, 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 expressly, I willingly profess I know not, neither do I think the Doctor knows. 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 Jews plainly It is better to go to plough then to dance: but if hereupon you ask, where is any the least suspicion of the abrogating of it? I answer every one knows, The time was not yet come for the abrogating of it. Nay, he discourseth so as if 40. years 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 do, who shall more deservedly be obnoxious to the censure of Judaisme, you or we? yet when he tells them, that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, how few interpreters writing hereupon, do not take notice of his power to abrogat it? But is it not enough that Paul cryeth down the ceremonies of the Jews, and in special their holy days, and particularly Sabbaths; to wit, so far forth, as they are found to be shadows, the body whereof was Christ, such was the rest on the seventh day, as prefiguring Christ's rest in the grave. But no sober man (I trow) will herence conclude that herewithal he cryeth down the setting apart of any time for God's service, that having no colour of ceremony, or rest from such works, as hinder us in the service of God, this being as little ceremonial as the former. I make bold to go one step farther, and conclude by the same reason, that neither doth he cry down 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 Saviour's disputations with the Pharisees about the Sabbath, mention should be made of the Lords day instituted in the place thereof? It is enough, we find it instituted after our Saviour's resurrection; and sufficient I trow it is to prove that it was instituted, and that in the best manner, namely by establishing it the facto in practice amongst the Churches; I say this is sufficiently proved by the observation of it; which undoubtedly, neither was nor could be by chance. A Sow 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 you ask, Did not the Apostles keep the jewish Sabbath? I answer, I do not find they did, yet I find 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 Gospel unto the Gentiles. They took indeed advantage of the Jews Sabbath, to preach the Gospel 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 infer herehence that the celebration of the Lords day, is grounded upon the constitution of the Church only, let him make it good; for there is no reason that words should carry it, much less the voice 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 maintain 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 authority. If Brentius thinks otherwise, yet Gerardus refuseth to tread in his steps, though both are Lutherans. And if the Remonstrants concur with Brentius, it is nothing strange, they are so near a kin to the Socinians and Anabaptists, who renounce altogether the observation of the Lords day. I have formerly reckoned up and produced no less than eleven of our Protestant Divines maintaining the ordinance thereof to be Divine and Apostolical. Besides the Ancients who are many, and they express 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 which is better than a precept. For had the Apostles commanded it, and the Churches not practised it, their commandment had been obnoxious to various interpretations; but they took order to establish it as appears, de facto. And D. Lake tells us, that where divine precept is wanting, practice guides the Church; and that the work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day; and the work of redemption is nothing inferior to the work of creation; and I appeal to every Christian conscience, 
Sect. 6.  whether upon suspicion that we Christians must have a Sabbath to observe, as the Jews had, for which we have the express words of our Saviour, Matth. 24.20. D. Andrew's concurring with us in this; and that this Sabbath must be some one day in the week; which from the ordinance of God immediately from the creation, that God himself hath declared unto us, as chrysostom observeth, and reason concludeth as much for this, and that from consideration of the proportion of time which the Lord required of the Jews under the law, for undoubtedly we should sinne if we should allow God a worse proportion under the Gospel; 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 week be to be preferred for this before the Lord's day; that being the day of Christ's resurrection, the day wherein The Stone which the Builders refused was made the head of the corner; and this day not of the year, but of the week being in Scripture-phrase called the Lords day; like as the Jewish Sabbath was formerly called the Lords holy day, Es. 58. Add unto this that D. Prideaux here justifieth their observation who maintain 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 Fabric of religion, should humane ordinances limit the necessity of God's worship. Or that the Church should not assemble but at the pleasure of the Clergy, and they perhaps not well at one among themselves. For what would men busied about their Farms, their yokes of Oxen and domestic troubles (' as the invited guests in the holy Gospel) would they not easily set at naught an humane ordinance, would not profane 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 than any humane ordinance or institution should bind the conscience? yet it is easy 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 laws of the land and penal statutes, may provide for such restraints by such punishments; as whereof every natural man will be sensible enough; we have other considerations to propose, as 1. Touching the proportion of time, to be allowed to God's service, which concerneth the quantity of the service itself. 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 freedom and happiness. 4. And who is able to give us strength to perform 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 perform less unto him under the Gospel. 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 festivals were said to be of his making Psalm 118.24. This is the day which the Lord hath made, not of man's 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 show their Charter for this. Thirdly, for my part, I see no cause, we should desire any such liberty, but rather pray unto God to bless us from it, 1. For as I am flesh, I shall be sure to put it off to the end of the week; 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 assoon weary of it, and say, when will the Sabbath be gone, that I may return to my former courses, secondly, as I am spirit, I have cause to make choice of the first day; for à Iove principium; and Adam and Eve, being after the beasts of the field, made on the sixth day, and planted in Paradise, the seventh day, was the first entire day to him 4. Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath and Wells, observes that festivals days have ever been commended unto us; by some notable work done on that day. Now what work, like unto the resurrection of Christ, on the first day of the week? 5. Bishop Andrew's observes in his Star Chamber speech, that this resurrection brings with it a new creation, and calls for a new Sabbath; and I find this, to have been the observation of Athanasius, about 1300. years ago. 6. If we were left at liberty in the choice of the day, it is to be feared, that if there were twenty days in the week, there would be twenty differences between us thereabouts, 7. Lastly, if left at liberty; I find no reason why we should keep ourselves, to the observation of the same day; this is so apt and prone to breed in us an opinion of the necessity thereof, and so plunge us into superstition ere we are ware, and thereby make our whole service of God, on that day distasteful unto him. To proceed, the Practice of the Apostles is in Scripture, represented unto us in three several places; the first whereof is Act. 20▪ 7. upon the first day of the week, when the Disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them. The practice is improved thus, why is it said expressly, that the Disciples came together to hear the word preached, and receive the Sacraments, rather on this day than any other; rather then on the jewish Sabbath, were it not then a custom, to celebrate on that day their public meetings, the Sabbath of the jews, beginning by degrees to vanish? It is farther confessed, that the Fathers and all interpreters (almost) do 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 signify some one day of the week; and yet in Scripture phrase, it is apparent 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 week 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the Doctor professeth, that from a casual fact he seethe not, how a solemn Institution may be justly grounded; but it is not proved, that this fact was casual; nay the text carrieth in the face of it manifest evidence against casuality. For it is said that they came together to eat bread; all than convening to a sacred action, how could this be done, if they had not agreed hereupon before; especially it being a business whereabout they came, that required solemn and sacred preparation? all which affront casuality. Take the circumstances aright, The Disciples from divers parts came together that day about solemn 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 do not conclude, but jointly; Now by the next place, 1. Cor. 16.2. it appeareth, that the same day was the ordinary day of meeting for the Corinth's; and for the Churches of Galatia also: Now how came it to pass, 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 pass by chance, or could their consent herein, so many Churches so fare distant one from another, be wrought by chance, and not rather in all reason, was wrought by authority Apostolical? 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 Andrew's in his Star Chamber speech allegeth 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 employed, as by the reason formerly mentioned hath been argued: especially considering the last place, Revel. 1.10. where the first day of the week 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 Andrew's compares the Lord's 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 God's worship, but the appointment of the tim, etc. wherein endeth this Section. And the next gins with this question, what then? shall we affirm that the Lords day is founded on divine authority? and the answer is, For my part (without prejudice to any man's 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, confer 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 sanctify it by the Law of Nature: since I both doubt, whether the patriarchs did observe it before Moses time, and have learned also that the Law of nature is immutable; Doctor Andrew's in his pattern of catechetical 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 patriarchs observed; we say God ordained it in as much as he commanded it in these words, Therefore God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, that is, commanded man to sanctify it as hath been proved: and is also confessed; only to help 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 sanctify it, but when? 2500. years after; for the unreasonableness of which interpretation, and the incongruity thereof unto the same words, repeated in the fourth commandment; I appeal to that which I have formerly discoursed hereupon: Now if God from the beginning ordained the seventh day to be kept holy; we leave it to every sober conscience to judge, whether it be not most likely, that both Adam and the holy patriarchs observed it; for we insist not in this argument upon humane observation, but merely upon Divine institution. And though God did from the beginning command it, yet it followeth not, that all men are bound to sanctify that day, unless they have some evidence of God's command, wherewith we are made acquainted by the Scriptures. If the law of nature be meant a light of nature convincing us, we do not infer herence or at all maintain (nor any that I know) that in this sense, all or any are bound to keep the seventh, or a seventh day holy; but only by virtue of God's command. Yet this we profess, that seeing it is generally confessed that by the very light of nature some time is to be set apart for God's service. We cannot devise in reason any better course, then to set one day in seven apart for this; considering the first division of days is into weeks, and if a seventh part of our time be in reason to be consecrated unto God, we think it more convenient to set one entire day in seven apart for this, than 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 he shall perform 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 he 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 mark out that also unto him by some prerogative set upon the day, as he did the seventh day, by finishing the work of Creation, and by his rest thereon from his works 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 bear of inconvenience in all this. Neither do I see any reason why the spending of one day in Gods holy worship as a moral and perpetual duty, should seem distasteful to any. Since it is apparent that God commanded it unto his people of the Jews; and for 1600 years it hath been continually observed by Christian Churches unto this day; and I make no doubt, but it shall hold till Christ's coming; though from the beginning of the World it was never found to be so hotly opposed as at this day. And why should any man stick in acknowledging it to be moral; when never any man busied himself to find out any ceremoniality in reference to the proportion of one day in seven? Neither do I think ever any man called it judicial, but Azorius professeth it to be rationi maxime consentancum most agreeable to reason: and no man that I know hath at any time set himself to devise a proportion of time to be spent in God's service, more agreeable to reason then this. And as for the third offence taken (for I know not any that give it) The fourth Commandment 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 book of Homilies saith it is; and our Saviour signified that Christians should have their Sabbath, as well as the Jews had theirs, Math. 24 20. we produce the fourth Commandment to prove, that we ought to sanctify it, and that we may the better sanctify it, to rest from all works that hinder the sanctification thereof; And indeed the Commandedement is so drawn, as to command one day in seven to be observed, and whatsoever is that seventh prescribed by lawful authority, to sanctify it, and abstain from all works whereby the hallowing of it is disturbed; and all this we take to be moral, namely the worshipping of God in a certain proportion of time prescribed by him, and to that purpose to rest from works, not for any mysterious signification sake, as did the Jews; we think the practice of the Church in the Apostles days is sufficient to infer the apostolical, and divine institution thereof; from hence Athanasius, Cyrill, Austin, and the Fathers generally, (for I know not one alleged to the contrary) so take it. And the Lords Day hath no other notion in Scripture language, than a day of the Lords institution; and this is confirmed in that it comes in the place of the Jews 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 been formerly refused of the bvilders, it is expressly said, that it is the day that the Lord hath made; and thereupon we are called to rejoice and be glad in it. And it hath this congivity in the cause of its institution to the first Sabbath; that as on the seventh day the Lord rested from his work of Creation, so on the first day of the week the Lord Christ rising from the dead, then rested from his work 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 he not be driven to acknowledge an ordination more than humane, requirable thereunto? Of the necessity of my consequences, and evidence of express Scripture formerly mentioned, I leave it to the indifferent to judge; and to none sooner than to Doctor Prideaux himself, none being more able to judge of consequences than he, being so versed therein, and I am well persuaded of the indifferency of his affections, and had those writings in the canvasing of this point been extant before this Lecture of his which hath since come to the light of the press; I am apt to conceive that either he would have given way to that which seems in my judgement to be the truth, or represented good reason of his dissenting from it. The Apostles example, nor so only, but drawing the Churches generally to the same practice, 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 veils and shadows of the old Testament to find this institution is a mystery unto me, and so fare am I from that course, that I know none guilty of it; The ancient Fathers sometimes do expatiate this way, for the setting forth of the honourable 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 been enough to have cried us down.  
As for Judaisme, I have often showed, 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, whereof I find not the least evidence; yet should not we draw with them under the same yoke; 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 himself not satisfied with the bare ordinance of the Church, as but erst the Doctor did. Of Brentius I have spoken enough; yet well far him that professeth the authority of the day to be so fare divine, that he who shall neglect it, or rashly break it, doth forthwith become worse than the Jew or Infidel. As for the Arminians, what respect soever they pretend to the pattern of the primitive Church, like enough they could be very well content with the Socinians, to make all days equal in use, as well as they are in nature, or in respect of any mysterious signification; I leave Azorius to refresh himself with the juice of his own distinction; It is well that Suarez comes so fare as to profess that practically it is not alterable by the Church. As for Calvin, Bucer, Chemnitius, and the rest, who are only said to affirm that still the Church hath power to change the Lords day to some other, I find no such thing in Calvin, and Bucer: as for what Chemnitius delivers hereupon, in my judgement he saith no more than Calvin: though some particulars in him I have found to be weak 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 me they should give power to the Church to bring us bacl to the Jewish Sabbath: in that case who should savour most of Judaisme? or prefer us to the Turks festival 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 Andrew's discourseth and Athanasius 1200 years before him; No day had a better mark for this to be preferred into the place of the Jews Sabbath then the day of Christ's Resurrection; yet considering that not that day of the year; but that day of the week is called in Scripture the Lord's Day, this maketh it evidently to savour of Divine institution, yet it is well that here it is acknowledged to be expressly of traditions Apostolical. Beza addeth, & vere Divinae, on Revel. 1.10. I trust we shall ever give due respect, both to Law, and Gospel; and the better concurrence we find of them for the maintenance of any doctrine of ours, the more cause we shall have to rejoice therein without fear of censure for the mixing of them, or framing any sabbatical Idol 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 year was printed D. Willet upon Genesis dedicated to King james, 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 laid down in the former positions, which shallbe able to abide the trial of the Word of God; and stand warranted thereby, when other humane fantasies shall vanish: howsoever some in their heat and intemperance, are not afraid to call them Sabbatarian errors, yea heretical assertions, a new jubily, Saint Sabbath, more than either jewish or Popish institution; much less do we fear the story of the Jew of Teukesbury; Solomon hath taught us that the righteous spareth his beast, and in our Saviour's days the Jews themselves though very superstitious in the observation of their Sabbath, yet shown 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 mind void of all judgement, as to the destruction of their souls, so to the temporal destruction of their bodies also, and that as in the way of profaneness, whereof 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 been wanting to justify the doctrine they maintain: 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 half of this Section, there is little or nothing controverted between us. But here we have a fair distinction as good as confessed, between a ceremonial rest, and another rest, which is described by a rest from works, as it is an impediment to the performance of such duties, as are then commanded: this I can a rest moral, the rather that the distinction may not fly with one wing: That of Saint Hierome is a quick passage on Act. 18. affirming that Saint Paul when he had none to whom to preach in the congregation, did on the Lord's day use the works of his occupation. I will not answer, as the outlandish Priest's 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 own, in providing for escape out of the briers by the other: lest I might be served as Sir Thomas More served the Priest, pretending to quote such a chapter of Saint Matthew, or Mark, when there were not so many in the whole Gospel, or such a verse in a certain 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 seek it I know not. Yet I deny not, but that Dietericus the Lutheran upon the 17. Dominical 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 specify ●t our Saviour was borne under the Law, and knew full well, it became him to fulfil all righteousness, and therefore undoubtedly he never did transgress the fourth commandment: indeed some there are, who distaste the name of Sabbath now a days; and truly the Ancients do usually speak of the Lords day, in distinction from the Sabbath, because that denomination doth denote the Saturday; but I doubt, that in these days it is distasted in another respect, even for the rest of it; which I no no where find distasted amongst the Ancients, nor any liberty given by them for sports and pastimes on the Lord's day: But our book of Homilies speaks plainly in saying, The Sunday is our Sabbath day. And Proclamations that come forth in his Majesty's name usually call the Lord's day by the name of Sabbath. And in the conference at Hampton Court, Doctor Raynolds made a motion, for preserving the Sabbath day from profanation, according to the King's proclamation, neither have we heard of any prelate of this kingdom, that then interposed to alter that phrase; And which is more, our Saviour calls it the Sabbath, speaking of the times of the Gospel, when the Jewish Sabbath was to be buried with Christ, to wit, Matth. 24.20. and Doctor Andrew's in his pattern of catechetical Doctrine, justifieth this interpretation of that place, and that to this end, so to maintain the continuance of a Sabbath amongst us Christians. I do highly approve the distinction following of things commanded, and things permitted on the Lord's day, and the explication of each member; the object of the one, all actions advancing God's service, the object of the other, such things as are no hindrance thereunto; As in the first place works of necessity; then works of charity; yet the permitting of these, is rightly to be understood; not so as if the works of necessity here mentioned, were in such sort permitted as left to a man's liberty, whether he will perform them or no. For undoubtedly we are bound as much as lies in our power, to quench a dangerous fire kindled in a Town, on the Sabbath day, it being a work of mercy, necessarily required. For if to return a pledge ere the poor pawner of it went to his bed, in case it were his covering, were a work of mercy, how much more to save a man's house from burning, how much more to save a whole Town from being consumed, whereby many might be driven to lie without doors, void of all comfort to the body? So to draw the ox out of the ditch, and to lead Cattles to watering, I take it to be a work of mercy, as tending to the preservation of life in a dumb creature. In like sort the dressing of meat for the health of man's body, I take to be a work 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 works of necessity) and consequently not permitted only, but commanded also in the general, though not in this commandment; but in the second commandment of the second table only they are said to be permitted on the Lord's day to signify, that the fourth commandment doth not enjoin them nor forbidden them, in commanding rest from works on that day, and the sanctifying of that rest. I do not doubt but that charity gins from itself, and the Scripture commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves. And can we perform better love to ourselves in advancing our own 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 do I know any difference between the recreating of our Spirits, and the refreshing of our Spirits: yet here the refreshing of our Spirits is made the end of recreation. Again it were good to distinguish between recreation of the body, and recreation of the mind. I think the refreshing of Spirits pertains to the recreation of the body; men's spirits are natural and material things, and they are apt to be wasted first naturally: for as life consists in calido, in an hot matter, so heat 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 victual 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 Lord's day; and as to allow such rest to our servants as a work of mercy, so to our own bodies also. But now a days many courses are called recreations, wherein there is found little rest; and the natural Spirits of man are rather wasted, and his nature tired; fare more than the one is repaired, or the other eased. And when all comes to all, I doubt the issue will be, to style the pleasures of our senses by the cleanly name of recreations. Now the Jews were expressly forbidden to find their own 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 weekly Sabbath, was for pleasure and delight, but not for man's own pleasure, nor for the doing of their own ways. But to delight in the Lord, which is spiritual 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 soul; No recreates like unto God's holy ordinances. Of wisdom it is said, that her ways are the ways of pleasantness. I willingly confess, that to the natural man, as the things of God are foolishness, so the word of God is a reproach unto him, 
Pro. 3.17. 1 Cor. 2.14. jer. 6.10. Luc. 8.14.  he hath no delight in it. He delights rather in carnal pleasures; and is it fit to humour him in such courses, and that on the Lord's day? our Saviour expressly tells us, that The pleasures of life choke the word, and make it become unfruitful: Therefore it no way fits a man to God's 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 return to their trading. A natural man, before his calling is described unto us in Scripture, to be such a one as served lusts and divers pleasures, 
Tit. 3.3. job. 36.11. Es. 47.8.  and the wicked are said to spend their days in pleasure; and such are they, whom the Prophet describeth after this manner, Hear 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. I delight myself in thy Statutes, & v. 24. thy testimonies are my delight, and 47. I will delight myself in the commandment, and Psalm 94.19. Thy comforts delight my soul: on the other side, the Character of the fool is this, H● hath no delight in understanding. 
Psal. 18.2.  As for the reformation of such fools, let every wise & sober Christian consider, whether it be a fit course to let the reins lose upon their neck, and give them liberty to take their courses, and not rather to endeavour to wean 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 Sons of men as much as any, and tells us what fruit and profit he reaped by them, saying, vanity of vanities, all is but vanitiy; and that the end of all that discourse of his, is to promote this exhortation, Fear God, and keep his commandments, 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 thou in the Lord, and he shall give thee thy hearts desire; to meet with the contrary judgement of carnal men, who say, It profitteth not a man, 
Ps. 37.4. Job 34.9.  that he should delight himself 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 works 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 God's Service, not public only, but private also, fare better fit us to serve God in the works of our calling, and make us more capable of his blessing upon our labours, than the exercising of ourselves in sports and pastimes? As for the maintaining of good neighbourhood, I appeal to every man's conscience, whether Christian neighbourhood be not better maintained, in meeting together in the repeating of a Sermon, the word in the original being only Consortium, or in edifying one another in holy communication; then in meeting together at bearbaiting, or at a play, or at a may game, or to look upon a morris dance. 2. whether on the Lord's day which is our Christian Sabbath it is not fit to maintain neighbourhood, and Communion in things spiritual; as at other times to maintain neighbourhood in things civil, and temporal. 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, whereby men are made more fit for labour both of body, and mind, but also, (and that more principally intended as it semees) the pleasing of the senses, and especially the eye and the ear, and thus men's pleasures carnal pleasures are cleanly carried 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 special vocations, or for the works of our general calling, as sauce is for meats. 3. Lastly under recreations lawful there seems 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 knows by curious demonstration, that a Triangle contains three angles equal to two right: such like thing was that which Archimedes rejoiced in, when 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 been found until about fifty years ago, 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 mutual communication? I have heard it accounted the best music; how much less 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 entertain us? not to speak of that fullness of joy which is in his presence, 
Psal. 16.11.  and at his right hand pleasures for evermore, God's soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 takes pleasure in us: why should not we take delight in him? Is not all other rejoicing in comparison to our rejoicing in him a rejoicing 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 poor creature. But to proceed; after this a rule is given, That this our christian liberty be void of scandal, to wit, of scandal justly given, 
Prov. 21.17.  and not vainly 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 seem necessary in every wise man's judgement; especially to me it must needs seem so, being as I am, in extreme despair of devising these different cases of mine own 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 Lord's day, I never read till now. The Jews to this day continue their ceremonies, but not any abstinence from all sports, and pastimes on their Sabbath; for if they did, why should Austin tell them, it were better for them to go to plough then to dance? In the very festivals of the Jews which were yearly, a difference there was in the days of each; the first, and last were Sabbaths appointed for holy convocations, and thereon abstinence commanded from all servile works; I no no where find any piping and dancing on those days, saving their temple music; how much more undecent is it to clap the weekly Sabbath, together with other festivals, 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 festivals of the Jews, whereby they testified their rejoicing in the Lord, jer. 31. and with a pipe they came to the mount of the Lord, Es. 30. and Miriam Moses sister, and other women also with Timbrels, 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 yearly feasts, which were set apart for holy convocations, we find no example amongst them; much less as approved, while they continued the Church, and people of God, least of all on the weekly Sabbath. As for love feasts on the Sabbath until 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 Stoical soever, that took upon him the authority of the civil magistrate: All for ought I know, concur in this, that it belongs only to the magistrate out of coercitive power to command, and compel, but to the Minister of what sect soever, only to persuade, and work upon men's consciences: so that the members of this comparison are most indecently yoked feigning men to be of what spirit soever it pleaseth to shape them, and to do whatsoever they think good, though never so unreasonably, and without all example. Of the Jews I have read, that they count it unlawful 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 buff given to debauched companions in words, when under the cleanly term of Recreations on the Lord's Day, the course here taken is to sacrifice unto them indeed, and in effect.    
FINIS.   

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 we had a double being, or were fitted for a double Society 

1. Civil.  
2. Ecclesiastical.    
3. These states are enwrapped the one in the other; For the Ecclesiastical presuposeth the Civil, He that is a child of God is a man, and he must be of the Civil that is of the Ecclesiastical society.  
4. And the Civil state must be seasoned with, and moderated by the Ecclesiastical; for a man in his Civil 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 principal employments.  
6. And for these employments he appointed certain times.  
7. The proportion of time allowed, the principal employment of the civil state was six days; And that which was allowed the principal employment of Ecclesiastical state was one day.  
8. What times himself took for to work in or rest after the Creation, the same did he assign to men, and made his pattern a perpetual Law?  
9 So then of our time God reserved a seventh part for his service.  
10. But in this apportioning as he reserved a seventh part of time; so was that seventh the seventh day of the week.  
11. Whereof the ground was his rest from labour.  
12. For that he would have to be the day of man's rest, because he sanctified it.  
13. And though, no mean both Jews, and Christians doubt of the beginning of this observance by man, yet I think it began with Adam.  
14. God had a Church and a service of his own prescript from the beginning; and why should we doubt whether he clothed then his service with due circumstances of 

Time.  
Place.    
15 Did he sanctify it for his own use? That were absurd to think 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 Commandment [remember] weigh more with me then all the weak presumptions that are brought to the contrary.  
17. I conclude then, that the fourth Commandment is not an introduction, but a declaratory Law.  
18. But moreover I add, that when it was delivered to the Jews there was superadded, a distinguishing reference to that Church.  
19 For it was prescribed as a sign of God's sanctifying residence amongst them; and a memorial of their freedom from Egyptian bondage.  
20. But these accessories derogate not from the first institution.  
21. No more doth the form of Liturgy which was occasioned by the fall, or their freedom.  
22. These things show rather to what special use they did apply the time, then touch the apportionment thereof.  
23. The apportionment of time (of which I take these Questions moved) hath too remarkable things.  
24. 

1. That God reserveth a seventh part of time,  
2. That he designeth which of the seven days shall be his.    
25. The reserving of the seventh part I hold, to be by God's 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 been as lasting, had it not been 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 Christian instauration of the World.  
28. He (as the Scripture speaks of Christ's 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 work, make a day of rest and sanctified it.  
32. Not altering the proportion of time which is eternal, 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 memorial abolished.  
34 And although the Apostles were indulgent to the Jews in keeping the seventh as well as the first, when they conversed with them; until 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 clear in the Gospel and Acts.  
37 The Apostles directed by Christ's not only example, but spirits also, observed the same; witness in the Acts S. Paul; S. john in the Revelation.  
38 And from the Apostles the Catholic Church uniformly received it; witness all Ecclesiastical writers.  
39 And the Church hath received 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 World's 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.  
41 And he doth it by the work which he doth on the day; the work I say doth difference a day from a day.  
42 Whereas otherwise all days are equal, and the same in themselves; as the son of Syrach teacheth.  
43 Now then when God doth any remarkable work, then will he be honoured with a commemoration day for that work; if the work concern the whole by the whole Church; and by a part if it concern a part.  
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 catholic rule observable in the institution of all sacred feasts both Divine and Humane.  
46 The work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekly monthly or yearly, as particulars evince in Scripture and History.  
47 No man can translate the work, 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 work, therefore he 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 only changed the day, though not properly, yet by analogy; though not with the accessories, yet according to the Original Sabbath, It may well agree with the tenor of the fourth Commandment, and the observance thereof be commanded therein.  
According to these Theses which I hold true, until any of them be confuted, I will point out what I mislike in the Questions or the Answers: not every particular, but some principal points.  
Figure the Section of the Answers in your book, and you shall the better fit my Theses to them.  

Question 1.  
What do you mean when you pray after the fourth Commandment, Lord have mercy upon us, etc. The 49 Theses answereth, that we mean not the Jewish Sabbath, but that which analogically to the Original Sabbath we observe, The Lords Day.   

Question 2. Sect. 1.  
The observation of the Sabbath some say is moral, and perpetual.]  
By Sabbath you must understand the Lords Day, otherwise none but Heretics hold this opinion.  
Then I think the proportion of time is perpetual Thesi 15; though if you look to the assignation of the day, it is not perpetual; sin hath altered it occasionally, and God Causally; absque hoc it was intended that it should be perpetual, Thesi 26.  
But whether is the observation of the Lords Day moral?  
Certainly this is a moral rule; to hollow the day wherein God doth some remarkable work. Thes. 43. & 48.  
But Christ did rise for the restauration of the World this day, therefore the observance thereof moral.  
Were it an absolute assignation of time, the appointing of the Lords Day, it might be doubted: but take this circumstance as it clotheth the work, than I hold it clear, that though time be but a circumstance, yet the observance of time so understood is Moral.  
But there is a mutability in the observance of such times as  God's 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 clear Colos. 2. that the observation of the Sabbath was ceremonial]  
As a shadow? mean you this of the original Sabbath or the declaratory clothed with the accessories. Thes. 18, 19, etc. It is certain the original could be no shadow, for it is precedent to the fall.  
The declaration may; true; as considered with his accessories, but the author of the Questions (I think) mistaketh the text of S. Paul.  
For the words refer to the controversy between the Jews and Gentiles, both believers; but the believing Jew would have put upon the believing Gentile the ceremonies, which S. Paul endureth 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 conceit of Christian liberty forgot to bear with the weak Jew.  
All this is nothing to the Original Sabbath, whereunto (I say,) the Lord's Day succeedeth, and is by analogy in the fourth Commandment, which hath no mixture of those accessories, for aught I can see in the words.   

Question 1. Section 2.  
It cannot be proved, that the Apostles commanded to sanctify the Lords day in memory of Christ's Resurrection.]  
No can? what author ancient is there that doth not hold it to have had its original from the Apostles? he should do well to allege them.  
It is something discrepant from the doctrine of our Church.]  
You allege the words of the Homily, but straighten the tense of them; for the Christian People that chose the first day, were those that lived in the days of the Apostles, all of them and their posterity successively to us.  
Doth it therefore follow that we may not keep the seventh day in memory of the world's Creation?  
It doth; for the Lord's 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.  
Ib.  
Constantine commanded the sixth day should be kept in memory of Christ's death]  
Kept as a fasting day, not as a festival day; and so the Church keepeth it still.  
Ibid.  
Sabbato & postridie Sabbati conveniunt.]  
So doth the Church now; but Saturday is Parasceve to the Lords Day; and lest they should seem to Judaize, they did and do begin the Eve after noon, to note it is but a preparation to Sunday.  
Ibid.  
Saint Austin termeth the Sabbath in the fourth Commandment, Sacramentum Vmbratile.]  
True, as the Jews did observe it; So themselves there expoundeth himself.   

Question. 1. Section 4.  
The observance of the Sabbath day by Christ compared to Jewish sacrifice.]  
This speaketh not of the assignation of days, but how strictly the day must be kept, and it is as true of the Lords Day.   

Section 5.  
Hebrews 4. mention is made of three rests.]  
Or one rest rather, which is God's rest, 
Gen. 2.  and the participation thereof 2 ways 

Typically.  
Spiritually.    
The Typical is the entrance into Canaan, which carried with it a cessation from labours of the Jewish servitude, and Pilgrimage.  
From this Typical many (saith the Apostle) were excluded through infidelity, and by faith some did partake it.  
But there was another participation, a spiritual, which came by Jesus, whereunto josuah could not bring, which is a ceasing not from corporal, but spiritual toils and sins immediately: but mediately it will bring unto a spiritual blessed rest both of body and soul in Heaven.  
This spiritual immediate rest or participation of God's rest is called Sabbatismus populi Dei.  
If this be (as I conceive it is) the meaning of the place; what is this to days?  
Ib. Section 6.  
Some will have a weekly Sabbath a shadow in regard of the strictness of the Rest.]  
I think the strictness 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 speaks of shadow whereof the body is Christ, Now before the fall the Sabbath was a kind of shadow of our eternal rest; but not of that whereof Christ is the body.  
And to us the Lords day is a foretaste of that eternal rest, and I hold this shadow to be as lasting as the World.  
Ib.  
New Moon Et caetera shadows in their substance not their accessories, Ergo the Sabbath.  
A weak 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 accessory, 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 kind of shadow of eternal rest in the foundation, and the Lords Day continueth so now.  
Ib.  
The Apostle Hebrew 4 speaketh of the seventh as rested upon, not sanctified.]  
Read the mistake of this place before.  
Ib. Section 6.  
The Sabbath more ceremonial than the other Commandments: you prove it out of S. Austin.]  
And it is plain he speaketh of the Sabbath as the Jews observed it, and had it given in charge with his accessories, but I still call you to the Original 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, etc.  
A strange answer; I think they must and do agree; for by analogy is the Lords Day contained in the Commandment, 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 Catechise taught to be grounded upon a new Creation succeeding the old.  
The personal defects I cannot reply to, but leave them to be reform. Though the imperfections of the ignorant should not be presented, when the question is made so difficult that the learned can hardly assoil it. As the author of the questions thinketh.    

Question 2.  
How shall the fourth Commandment bind us considering the form 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 eternal, which I think cannot justly be denied, 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 Commandment) and the first Creation being by sin dissolved jure, & restored again by Christ upon the first day; where we find the rest after the new Creation, there we must fix the feast; And this is persuaded 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 than we do not acknowledge the dissolution thereof, I mean still merito.  
In testimony of that, and Christ's restitution, we keep the day of the new Creation, and we are guided to it by the fourth Commandment.   

Question 3.  
How shall it appear to be the Law of nature to sanctify one day every week?  
Surely here the Author of the questions makes a strange answer.  
For he looseth himself in his distinction of the Moral 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 moral Law, whereas the morality stands in observing the circumstance of actions, as the Ethics will teach, and this in the phrase medium rationis.  
Secondly, he thinketh that all the Laws moral are as he calleth them of nature, do represent the Image of God, and are unalterable even by God himself.  
Not considering that there is a morality that concerneth man as he is Animal rationale, and reason moderateth the sensual part, which cometh not within the compass 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 rip up these two Errors.  
I rather note, that he understandeth not the ground of a Festival day, that maketh no other ground of it than Omnia fiant ordine & decenter.  
The Lord's Day had a higher ground, which I opened in the Theses, and that is Christ's Resurrection, and thereby a new Instauration of the World.  
Which we are bound to observe upon the grounds set down in the Theses.  
And in a word; He that doth not let God's Word be the guide directing to sanctify a Festival day, I think he squareth not his opinion according to truth, neither hath he any precedent from God's Word.   
FINIS.   

Defensio Thesium de Sabbato.  
13 I Take notice of Tertull. justin Martyr:] 
Thes. 1.  true; but they altar not my judgement: And why? I find in them only 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 Jews. Galatinus allegeth some. But I oppose Jews to Jews. Philo judaeus de opificio Mundi not only 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 memorial of the Creation. But I will not enlarge that discourse. It shall suffice that Philo judaeus, 
In Decalog.  and Aben Ezra also and others think otherwise, whose judgement our Orthodox Divines do, if not all, yet for the most part follow. Read them upon the second of Genesis.  
14 What the Patriarches did in point of religion, 
2.  I think they did it by Divine direction. Ye know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did never please God; wherefore the Mosaical Laws (other than those that had reference to the Church as national, 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 think concerning the circumstance of time, and place.  
The place; for there where God appeared, there did they erect their altars: yea, and in the story of Rebecca it is plain that she 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 showeth that he was not of justin Martyr or Tertullian his opinion, and yet giveth no reason that may move to credit him, or countervail what I have alleged for my opinion.  
18 Yes, there is more, if you compare Deut. c. 5. with Exodus c. 20. but I meant not only that, but other passages which make the Sabbath a sign of God's residence sanctifying the Jews, etc. which I expressed in the next thesis.  
19 Bedes conceit may pass for an allegory built upon a witty accommodation of the literal sense which other fathers observed before him. But that cannot be the literal sense of the Commandment. You will not deny it, if you grant that the Sabbath was instituted before the fall, which I think more than probable, though the Broughtonists hasten the fall before the Sabbath. And I cannot without good reason yield that the patriarches had no set time for divine service, I mean a weekly time.  
31 True it is, that Christ did rest from suffering upon the seventh; but the last enemy death was not apparently overthrown until the reunion of his soul, and body, till he risen again for our justification, etc. Therefore did the apostles make that the consummation of redemption in Christ's Person.  
35 You cannot find in all the 14. to the Romans that the Apostle is positive in the doctrine of days, he expresseth a mutual indulgence until men had attained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the liberty from Moses Law. Neither doth he bear out the Gentiles against the Jews, but qualify rather the destempered zeal of the Gentiles that were too hot against the Jews; Sensus dictorum sumendus est ex causis dicendorum, It is plain that there was a question, whether the Christian gentile should be pressed to observe the ceremonies whereunto the christian Jew's were pertinaciously addicted? but never was there (for aught I read) a question whether the Jews should keep the Lords day? for I think they never refused it. Had there been such a quarrel, I would enlarge the sense of that Chapter, as you do, 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 holiness upon the first day of the week; It was Christ's 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 work done on the day; If it were not a continued work, as the dwelling in Tabernacles.  
But you think the Apostles did not prescribe the observation of that day; No? you confess they made choice of it, and were moved so to do by the reason which I allege, 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 think that this could be done without an apostolical prescript?  
37. & 43. I conjoin them, because one answer will clear 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, leaveth a possibility for an alteration by humane authority, if any reason shall persuade a conveniency so to do; though so long as public authority 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 juris positivi.  
Secondly, that Extra scandalum, a man may transgress it. For example, a Tradesman may work in his Chamber, if no body be privy to it.  
If this be the Commentary upon Libera observatio (and if it be well inquired into, you will find that I do not mistake the meaning) than I prof sse I cannot like of such a Libera observatio.  
For I am persuaded that if all Christendom should meet, and have never so plausible a ground, they cannot alter the day de jure, though de facto they may; but it is worse than previshnesse so to do. And why? they cannot alter the first ground, Christ's rising upon that day. Secondly, they cannot alter the uniform order that upon that undeniable 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 scandal.  
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 laid 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 speak of the Jewish Sabbath, and Allegorise that as it was carnally used by the Jews. But we shall wrong the Fathers, if we think they held that there was no Morality in the Letter of the Commandment.  
For though there were a mystery figured in it, yet they do not deny that there was a moral proportioning of time for Divine Service prescribed therein, which is the seventh part of the week.  
It is one thing to say that all our life time we must be religious in our conversation, and keep a spiritual Sabbath; another thing to affirm that we must not have a solemn weekly day, wherein to intent only Divine worship.  
This last point the Fathers do not say, the former they do, and to argue from their Omission, is to extend their words beyond their meaning; at least, their meaning is not adequate to the sense of the Commandment.  
No nor to their practice; For they did constantly observe a seventh part of the week, which I say is the first principle contained in the fourth Commandment.  
Though I deny not but there is moreover a limitation to the seventh day from the Creation expressed, which Christ and his Apostles altered; but this alteration cannot overthrow the first principle; they may both well go 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 mystical sense doth not overthrow the literal of the Commandment. And they understand the seventh day precisely from the Creation▪ which we confess altered, and speak not of the divine Ordinance, for the apportioning of time, but the carnal observation of the Jews.  
And your answer to the first Question grounded on the Father's words may pass for good; but there is more in the Commandment then so.  
Your Answer to the second I cannot so well approve, because it is Exclusive.  
As for your third answer, That the fourth Commandment is not the Law of nature, but a positive law; take the Law of Nature for Moral Reason, than I think there is more than mere positiveness in it. For moral reason teacheth to honour the day whereon the work is done; and that moral reason which gave this in charge was Apostolical, and so of a commanding power in both. And then you see that it is neither merely positive, nor merely natural, but mixed, and so binding accordingly, ut supra ad Thesin. 37. & 43.  
You add two Questions.  
1 Whether seeing the Lords day succeeds the Jewish Sabbath, we are to keep it in the same manner, and with the same strictness?  
First I hold in my Theses, that our Lord's day doth properly succeed the Sabbath instituted at the Creation.  
Whereupon I separate all the Accessories from Moses Law.  
Secondly, The Jews did misconstrue the strictness of their Sabbath, as appeareth by the many corrections of our Saviour in the Gospel, and his General 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 dress Meat upon that day, grounding their conceit upon the Texts that are Ex. 35. & cap. 16.  
But both Texts seem 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 works, as they are called. And so Munster, Vatable, and others upon that place censure their mistake.  
And that it is a mistake against the meaning of the Commandment, I gather from hence: For the Jews that will not put their own hands to kindle a fire, will hire Christians to do 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 do they use to abuse the Scripture, and confute their Glosses by their own 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 find that upon the sixth day they were to dress any more than served for that day, and to lay up the rest undressed until the Sabbath; at what time (I hope) they were to dress 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 putrify upon the Sabbath, though they kept it till then, whereas upon other days it would.  
And in this sense do 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 seem, 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 spiritual, and as a foretaste of that which is eternal, it were to be wished that we did intent those things as fare as our frailty will reach.  
But Vivitur non cum perfectis hominibus, and we 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 do not solemnize our feast vainly as either the jews or Gentiles did.  
Against whom Nazianzene is very tart, & Tertul. in his Apolog.  
In the Civil Law we find a dispensation for Husbandmen in case of necessity, contrary to the Jewish policy, Exod. 34.  
Which is followed by our Law. Edward. the 6.  
We may in apparel and diet, be more liberal and costly on feasts then on other days.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Corporal feasts joined to the Eucharist, wherein the rich did feed the poor.  
Which afterward for inconvenience was removed out of the Church.  
I mean the Corporal feast (although in Saint Augustine's confessions you shall find, that in Saint Ambrose days there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the Toombs of Martyrs which Saint Ambrose took away.  
But though the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken out of the Church, yet upon those days the rich relieved their poor Brethren.  
Which they little think of, that for fear of breaking the Sabbath have taken away Hospitality.  
Some men are overnice in this point, more nice than Christ himself, 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 toil of Acquisition.  
So that the Sabbath is not violated by feasts, if we exceed not Necessitatem Personae, though Naturae we do.  
Now Necessitas Personae requireth that more be employed in providing feasts; as a King's diet then a Subjects, a Noble than a Common man's, a College then a single Person:  
But we must take care Ne quid nimis in victu, joy etc. Alogia which S. Austin reproves Epist. 86. ad Casulanum must not be used.  
And we must keep the Apostles rule; Whether we eat or drink, we must do all to the glory of God.  
And it were to be wished, that the old practice, whereof there is a Pattern in the King's house, & some Cathedral 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 go then to Church, at whose return the Masters might go with the rest of their family.  
As for other recreations, if they be not opposite or prejudicial to Piety, they may well stand with the solemnising of the Sabbath and other feasts.  
Too much Austerity doth rather hurt then good; especially in those days, wherein Indulgence, where of we have Patterns in Gods Synchoreticall Laws, is extorted from those that are in Authority, by the general corruption of the time.  
Wherefore I would distinguish in such cases between the Precept and permission.  
The Precept showeth whereunto men should tend and be exhorted; and it were to be wished they would follow, and keep the Lords Day, as they are directed by the Canon and Injunction.  
The Permission showeth what must be tolerated for the hardness of men's hearts.  
Vacation from bodily labour is required both Per se; for it is a figure of our freedom from those Animal toils in the Church Triumphant, and also Propter aliud, that we may the better intent our spiritual life.  
To conclude all, seeing all agree that it must be observed, and differ only upon what ground and how fare; seeing to fetch the authority from God, and to keep it with all reasonable strictness maketh most for Piety, in a doubtful case, I incline thither, though I condemn not them that are otherwise minded, wishing that sobriety of judgement to all in such disputes, which Saint Paul commendeth Rom. c. 14.  
FINIS.   

An Errata.  
IN the preface p. 8. li. 22. 23. it is so far to be accounted moral, In the treatise, p. 3. l. 20. report, read repent. p. 7. l. 28. to seal, read to steal, 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. we, 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. Roger's upon. read Rogers. Upon, l. 26. is contrary read it contrary p. 167. l. the last, deal which the Jews keep, read as the letter soundeth, p. 168. 29. against, read again, p. 170. l. 16. be, read to be, l. 171. l. 1. 15. deal 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, deal 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.