THat which holy Iude deemed so needfull to write, Iude: 3: and to exhort vnto; all true Chri­stians should bee ready to in­tertaine; that is, earnestly to contend for that fayth, which was once deliuered to the Saints. This was that, which the Apostle gaue chiefely in charge to the Philippians, Phil. i. 27. Onely let your conuersation be such, as becommeth the Gospell of Christ, that whi­ther I come and see you, or else be absent, I may heare of your affaires, that yee stand fast in one spirit, with one minde, striuing together for the fayth of the Gospell. This is indeede that onely thing, worthy to bee con­tended for, and that with earnestnesse. And if those two mothers before King Solomon, did so plead about the liuing child, which yet was mortall, and a sinfull brood: [Page] how should the true Church of God plead her titles to that which brings immortality, the blessed fruit, and issue of the liuing fayth. But how shall we know who hath best right to this liuing fayth? One saith, Mine is the liuing fayth, and thine the dead fayth; a­nother sayth, No, but thine is the dead, and mine the liuing. As therefore Solomons sword deciding the quarrell, gaue the liuing childe to the true mother: So the sword of the spirit, Christs word, a greater then Solomon, onely can determine who is the true mother, the true Church, to which the liuing fayth of right belongeth, sith it is deliuered to none, but to the Saints.

Nor were it a matter of wonder to heare the whore of Babylon, the old Romish beldame, to make claime to the liuing fayth, as her naturall child, which now long agoe by ouerlaying it in the night of blacke igno­rance, and supine security, with her vnwealdy body (become so grosse and monstrous with the infinite ad­ditions of humaine Traditions, standing in stead of her many subtractions and purloynings from the diuine truth) is strangled, and become stone-dead; and on the other side, to charge the reformed Church of hauing the dead fayth, because she teacheth iustification by faith onely, with outworkes: but behold a wonder, that any sonnes of this our deare mother Church should proue so vnnaturall and vnreasonable, as (and that most impudently, though withall cunningly, euen preten­ding the doctrine of the Church of England to be for them, and they for it; a thing too vsuall) to impute vn­to her the dead fayth, as whereof she is the teacher, while vnto the doctrine of iustification by fayth onely she addeth and presseth the doctrine and practise of sanctification, not onely as a frute, but as a duty sprin­ging from the same. From which impious and sense­lesse reproach while we shall purge our mother, wee [Page] shall with one bush stop two gapps: both the wide mouth of Mother Babell, crying out against vs, that by teaching Iustification by faith onely, we destroy sancti­fication, and the impudent mouthes of the misbegot­ten homebred bratts, that exclaime, we destroy the iu­stification of the true liuing fayth. And this done, we shall by Gods grace eyther so conuince these men, as to pull them from their dead fayth; or make it so e­uident to all men, as they shall confesse the dead fayth of Belial, or of Baal to be with these men, and the li­uing fayth to be onely on our side.

Now the occasion of our taking this taske vpon vs, is this: there is a new sprung-vp opinion, which not onely in this City, but in some parts of the Country spreading like a Cancer, or gangrene, hath infected many, poysoning them with a schismaticall spirit, and not only alienating their minds from, but opening their mouthes against our Congregations and Ministers, so as they scoffe, and scandalize euen the soundest and sincearest preaching of the word of God. They deny any vse at all of the morall law, so farre as to be a rule of life and christian conuersation, after that a man is once brought to be a beleeuer in Christ. They allow the law no further vse, then as to bee a Schoolemaster to bring vs to Christ, and then farewell law. And if Ministers Preach and presse the duties of sanctification, these Antinomians ieare at them, yea and rayle on them to their very faces, calling them Anabaptists, and telling them, that they preach the dead fayth, and that such goodly doctrines are good for nothing, but to carry men to Hell.

And for my part, I should not haue beleeued there had bene such mouthes of blasphemy in the world, had not mine cares bene witnesses of them. And for a fur­ther proofe hereof, to make it euident to others also (besides other writings, which the ringleaders of this [Page] Antinomian or lawlesse sect of Belial conuey and scat­ter among their Disciples) a letter, written with the chiefe ringleaders own hand (for ex vngue leonem) but consigned or subscribed with the name of one of his prime she-Disciples, and sent to one Mr. T. may suffice to manifest their virulent spirits to all the world. The copie whereof is here affixed verbatim; onely I haue forborne to set downe the parties name at large, but onely the first letters of her name; concealing the Masters name, who is the inditer and writer, altoge­ther. And I follow therein the example of holy Ierom, who writing to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians, Hieroinmus ad Ctesiphontem aduersus Pela­gianos: sayth, No mans name is particularly touched in this small worke: wee haue spoken against the Master of a per­uerse opinion, who if he shall be angry, and shall write againe, hee shall like the mouse bee bewrayed by his owne discouery, and expose himselfe to receiue yet greater wounds in a set pitcht field. And let me also aduertise the reader concerning this letter (as also of o­thers of the like kinde, which I haue seene) that how­soeuer it hath poyson enough in it, yet it is so mini­stred in a goulden cup so couered ouer with clowdy and obscure words, and so tempered with sugared phrases of scripture, as that both his Disciples may with the lesse suspition and more delight drinke it downe, and his iust aduersaries may haue lesse cause to cast it in his dish, or to quarrell him, and bring him in Quorum for it.

And that this was the ancient guise of Hereticks, the same Hierom tels vs in the same place where speaking to the Pelagian, he saith: Nosti &c. Thou knowst what thou teachest thy Disciples priuately, expressing one thing with thy mouth, and concealing another in thy conscience: and to vs who are strangers, & none of thy Disciples, thou speakest by Parables, but to thine owne scholars thou vnfoldest thy mysteries: and this thou [Page] boastest thou dost, according to the scriptures, because it is sayd, Iesus spake to the people abroad in para­bles, and to the Disciples within dores hee sayth, To you it is giuen to know the mysteries of the kingdome of heauen, but to them it is not giuen. And againe, Sola haec haeresis, &c. This onely is heresie, which blusheth to speake in publike, what it feares not to teach in priuate. The rage of the schollars vttereth the silence of the Masters. That which they haue heard in the cham­bers, they preach on the house tops; that if they shall please their hearers, it may bee attributed to the praise of their Masters: if it displease, the fault may bee the scholars, not the masters. Ideo creuit &c. Thus hath your heresie increased, and you haue deceiued many, because you alwayes teach and alwayes deny. Sententias ve­stras prodidisse superass est &c: Hieron. It is the Churches victory, when you speake plainely, what your opinion is. To shew your opinions, is to subdue them. So Hierome. Now let me appeale to the consci­ences of the Disciples of such Masters as we speake of, whither they doe not deliuer their documents and les­sons in plainer termes, and more perspicuous amplifi­cation in their priuate schole or chamber by word of mouth, then they do, or dare do publikly in their loose papers and pamphlets? Let them tell me wherein they differ or come short of the Pelagians, in the guise of broaching and venting their opinions, noted by Ierome. And this is the nature and practise of all heresie, which serpent-like walkes with a doubled gate, and like the snaile puts forth her hornes slowly to proue her way, but vpon the least resistance quickly puls them in a­gaine, or iugler-like, playing fast and loose with his spectators, or like lying Fame, which for feare is spa­ring at first, till spreading it selfe, it finde credit and in­tertainement in the world.

Yet the quicke sighted Reader shall finde this let­ter to be not altogether so euen spun, but that it hath [Page] many knobbs and knots of grosse errour, which is euer vneuen, and neuer but vnlike it selfe, sufficiently be­wraying a poysonous minde, and virulent spirit in the author, 2 Tim. 3.5. &c. being of the number of those, who hauing a forme of godlinesse, deny the power thereof; from such turne away. Of which sort are they which creepe into houses, and lead captiue silly women laden with sins, led away with diuerse lusts, euer learning and ne­uer able to come to the knowledge of the truth. And as Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses; soe do these also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the fayth. But they shall proceede no far­ther: for their folly shall bee manifest to all men, as theirs also was. All which, how fully it is verefied and exemplified in the Author we haue to deale with­all, this little discourse seconded with the subscripti­on of his owne handy worke, will abundantly testi­fye.

Now because the letter is teadious, so as to answere to euery circumstance would clogge our discourse with many vnnecessary and vnprofitable matters: therefore I will epitomize or contract the whole in­to one briefe view, and pitch vpon such points, as the Author stands most vpon, and wherein he placeth the maine strength of his battalion, And first I will muster vp his scattered skirmishes and brauadoes, And those I finde to be diuided into two speciall companies. The first is a brauado, setting forth his cause with many specious and glorious titles; as his ascribing it to Gods gratious calling; that it is the true liuely iusti­fying faith which he maintaineth; (which words hee often repeateth) that it is of the household of true faith; the most holy and heauenly calling into the true liuely iustifying fayth; that it is the gracious leauen­ing of the Gospell; that it is the effectuall calling to true christianity, and assured free saluation; that this [Page] leauen is the wedding garment of Christs perfect ho­linesse and that this is the good and old way which Abraham walkt in; that it is the established protes­tant doctrine of our Church of England, grounded vpon the word of God, which euery one ought to imbrace, if hee will be a loyall subiect to his Protestant King; againe, This is the Protestant fayth, this is the established doctrine of our Church; that he is as one true Prophet to a great number of false Prophets; that he with a few more goe with a right foot to the truth of the Gospell; such as call the people to a chearefull, zealous, godly life, onely for and by the ioy and ex­cellency of free iustification (but marke how) deepely considered; onely those few doe apply the law purely and truely; that these are the few foresayd true mini­sters of Christ, and (such as follow them) the true be­leeuers; that they onely bring in the true meanes of true sanctification, and of doing all good workes; that these are the true teachers, who doe truely establish the law; that these are the onely true ministers, and their followers the onely true people of God; that this doctrine is and may bee proued in euery point with two or three plaine scriptures, and two or three plaine testimonies of Orthodox Protestant writers. These and the like bee the glorious guildings, where­with hee doth so fairely inammile his leaden cause, which anon will come to the Test.

The second company, wherewith he skirmisheth all along, is of such reproches, as hee casts vpon all those that are aduersaries to his opinion. I take them in order as they lie. That to auouch the contrary is a sinfull preiudice of Gods truth; that it is a blasphe­ming of the true liuely iustifying fayth; such are too much leauened with the sowre leauen of the deuouter sort of Pharisees, which with the false brethren a­mong the Galatians leauened and corrupted the faith [Page] of the Galatians; Thus the pen­tificians, where they find cer­tainety of Sal­uation, they call it presump­tion, &c. and that with a conceited holinesse of doing and keeping the morall law; this is a dangerous leauen of the Pharisees, which vnder the vi­sour, and conceit and opinion of sincerity and obedi­ence to God, and zeale of God, is but hipocrisie; Christs marriage garment is now a dayes eagerly op­posed, and subtilly betrayed with a Iudasses kisse; in this regard these are the perilous times, wherein men and women are euer learning, and neuer able to come to the truth of the assurance of their free saluation, and that there is in a manner now no fayth on the earth, because the dead fayth, before God, is no fayth; al­though it be varnished and guilded ouer with a blinde prepostrous zeale, and opinion of obedience, and walking in all gods commandements, as Paul before his conuersion was in this blind zealous dead fayth (which phrase is very frequent with him) that it is another Ghospell; that the blinde zealous dead faith thinkes it knowes something, when it knowes no­thing as it ought to know, that they are not some few teachers among vs that trouble the people of God by Preaching another Gospell: but (especially when God meanes to punish an vngratefull Church and Nation) many false teachers; This great pro­phet, Iwis. as of old, there are many hundred false Prophets to one true Prophet; hanging, relying, and depending, yea bragging of their obedience, workes, and weldoings, and keeping of the law; these bad ministers and teachers that trouble the people of God are, and for the iuster iudgement and scourge of the great vnthankefull multitude euer haue beene the greatest multitude; and these are deuided into two sorts: the first sort are such, as are euill beasts, slow bellies, that vse to preach a little for their liuing sake, and for their bellie, but care not for the sauing of soules, but for their ease, their pompe, and worldly esteeme; and those ministers make onely Hoggschristians; that [Page 9] trampling free iustification and the Pearles of the Gos­pell vnder the feete of their durty affections, doe care for nothing, but rooting in the earth, and filling the belly: but the other sort of bad teachers, although their right eye also of true fayth bee out, and doe more deepely delude themselues and others in the dead fayth, yet they haue the light of nature more strongly stirring in them, described Rom. 2.14.15. where it is sayd, that the Gentiles which haue not the law doe by nature the things conteined in the law, which shew the effect or worke of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witnesse, and their thoughts accusing them, that is, with feare of punish­ment, when they doe ill, and will preach it, as the true Gospell I warrant you: and excusing them, that is, hoping to speede well, when they doe well; and this light of nature they varnish ouer with titles of the Gospell, whereby especially young Ministers being carryed with a preposterous zeale of Gods glory, Rom. 10.2.3. in workes and conceited weldoings, they slight ouer fayth, and free iustification with a wet finger, thinking with the Papists by a carnall vnder­standing of them, that they are quickly, or rather lear­ned too fast, and so doe preach neyther true law, nor true Gospell, but a corrupting, blending and marring of both law and Gospell; whereby they put out the right eye of the greatest multitude of zealous profes­sors, they drowne them with themselues in the dead fayth, and instead of a true fayth in Christs righte­ousnesse, doe make them to rely and hang vpon their owne holinesse, workes, and well-doings, whereby people are euer troubled in conscience; or else glory with the Pharises Luke. 8.11. in a prepostrous, false, bastard sanctification, and Anabaptisticall mortifica­tion, and obedience, in doing the law of God, flow­ing from no true loue or charity; and so, as the for­mer [Page 10] profaine Ministers doe make dogg-christians; so greedily feeding vpon the fifthy pleasing carrion of the secret lurking vaine glory of their owne holynesse, o­bedience, workes, and well-doings; that these most Iudas-like and traiterously trample the pearle of free iustification, and free grace vnder the feete of their Pharisaicall affections, and doe not onely fall a barking like doggs at the few Meaning those of his Antino­mian and lawlesse sect. foresayd true Ministers of Christ, and so trouble the true beleeuers with all man­ner of caluminations, raylings, and slanderings, as that they are against sanctification, and good workes, whereas they onely bring in the true meanes of true sanctification, and of doing all good workes; and that those true teachers destroy the law, when they truely stablish the law; & with such-like innumerable calumi­nations; but also sticke euen violently like doggs to fly in the true Ministers and people of Gods faces, and are ready (if they can) to teare out their very throats, with bitter hatred, and cruell persecution; are not these truely Christs dogg-christians? the Disciples of such false masters plainely declaring, that whilst they con­tend for the law, they are both in words and deedes the greatest destroyers of the law, and that their brag­ging obedience is most grieuous disobedience, all their holy sanctification is dubble sin and iniquity, and that their whole worship of high esteeme with men is idolatrous and abomination before God, traiterous to their King, and dangerous to the betraying and de­struction of their whole Country and Kingdome, wherein such liue. Therefore in my hearty loue, and in the sincerity of my bettered affections, I pray you take heed of this blinde, zealous, dead fayth, and con­tent not your selues in the carnall knowledge of free iustification, &c.

Thus farre of his skirmish. Wherein thou mayest (good reader) obserue how he magnifieth himselfe as [Page 11] the onely true Prophet opposed by many hundred of false Prophets; those hee rankes together with their hearers, and seuerall congregations, into two compa­nies: the one a heard of hoggs, the other a kennell of doggs: and of these two he makes vp the vniuersall body of the Church of England, as which God hath giuen vp to bee plagued with such ministers of the blind dead fayth, as his vsuall manner of language is to call it. So as in summe he makes the Church and nation of England to be an accursed Isle of hoggs, and doggs. Againe, for all this, note how sliely, like the subtile serpent, hee seekes by insinuation to patronize his doctrine vnder the authority of the Church of Eng­lands established doctrine, as grounded thereon, and consonant thereunto, and so consequently vnder the Kings protection: (a pestilent peece of policy and practice) though by necessary consequence, hee makes the Defender of the fayth no better, (that which my very thought abhorreth) then one of his hogg, or dogg-christians: and on the other side labours to make all his aduersaries odious, as being in their doctrines enemyes to the King and State; (a notable practise of heretickes in all ages) and such are all Ministers in Court, City, Country, all Courtiers, Citi­zens, Country-men, that follow not this man in his conceited true liuely fayth.

Come we in the next place to his maine battalion, which hee rangeth into 3 squadrons. Namely hee sets downe the state of the doctrine in 3 Propositions, which he cals his 3 Protestant positions. The first is: that the horrible filthinesse of sin is such to Gods infinite, pure, and righteous nature, that God cannot but abhorre, curse, and detest the creature, that hath any sin in his sight: as these, and such like scriptures teach: Deut. 27.26. 2. Pet. 2.4. Rom. 5.12.15. Esa. 59 2. Iob. 15.16.

The second is: I beleeue, that for remedy of this my misery by sin, God by the power of his imputati­on doth, though mystically, yet soe truely cloth mee with the wedding garment of his sons perfect holi­nesse, and righteousnesse, Esa. 61.10. that all my sins, both of my person and works being truely abolished, not out of me, 1 Ioh. 1.8. that there may be place for fayth, Heb. 11.1. Rom. 4.18.19. to 21. but yet vtterly abolished out of Gods sight Col. 1.22. I and all my workes are of vniust made iust before God, that is per­fectly holy & righteous from all spot of sin in the sight of God freely by faith only without works. And I say, By fayth onely without workes, because onely true fayth seeth this, and onely true fayth inioyeth this. And thus by Christs stripes am I healed, Esa. 53.5. And so God is well pleased and at peace with mee. For being iustified by fayth, we haue peace with God, Rom. 5.1. And am truely blessed, Rom. 4.6. For as many as are of this fayth of free iustification, are blessed with faith­full Abraham, Gal. 3.8.9. and shall be certainely glo­rified: for whom God iustifieth them he also glorifieth, Rem. 8.30. All which Protestant position of free iustification is abundantly and clearely taught by these and such like scriptures: Esa. 43.25. Esa. 44.22.23. Ioh. 1.29. Heb. 1.3. Heb. 9.26. 1. Ioh. 1.7. Reu. 1.5.6. Dan. 9.24. Rom. 3.21.22. Rom. 5.17.18.19.21. Eph. 5.26.27. Reu. 3.18. Col. 1.22.23. Rom. 8.4. Col. 2.10. Rom. 9.30. Heb. 10.14. Esa. 62. Phil. 3.8.9. Tit. 1.15. Heb. 11.4.

The 3 is: my third position is, that this true fayth of free iustification doth infallibly inflame the heart with true loue, Gal. 5.6. which makes the true belee­uer to breake off from; and mortifie his former cor­rupt and profane conuersation, and brings forth a de­claratiue obedience, and redinesse to euery good worke, and a free and cherefull walking in all Gods [Page 13] will and commandements declaratiuely to manward, which is true sanctification: as these, and such like scriptures teach, Tim. 2.11. to 15. 1. Ioh. 3.5.6.9. Eph: 2.10. Rom. 6. Eph. 4.22.23.24. Math. 5.16. This is the Protestant fayth; this is the established doctrine of our Church: these are the 3 positions, that (here hee makes the woman-Disciple to speake) I haue too lately receiued, and which haue so changed mee out of the blinde zealous dead fayth, into the true liuely iusti­fying fayth.

Thus you haue his 3 Protestant positions (as hee calls them) set downe word for word. which an indif­ferent reader, yea a sound Protestant perusing, and knowing no more of the authors minde, then what is here expressed: hee would at the first sight perhapps take all for harmelesse and sound doctrine. But when he shall consider how all these positions (as Protestant as they bee) stand in opposition to all that doctrine, which is generally taught by the most sound, learned, and orthodox Diuines in England, and so (I may safely say) in all the world: then hee may well suspect a Pad in the straw, and a serpent to lurke vnder the greene leaues, and some thing more in it, then at the first ap­peareth.

For touching the first position: What one Protestant Diuine doth not hold and teach, that sin is most detesta­ble to God, which his pure eyes cannot behold, and that it makes a man odious in Gods sight? Witnes the bitter and cursed death of the son of God himselfe, which hee suffered for sin; otherwise wee had all re­mained vnder the curse, left to eternall perdition, the iust punishment and reward of sin, if it had not bin re­moued by Christ. So as herein the author hath no co­lour of accusation against his hoggs and doggs, his ad­uersaries: but this first Position serueth onely as an vsher to lead in the rest, or as a harbinger to take vp the best rome in mens conceit for the rest of the traine [Page] by prepossessing the readers minde with an expectation of sutable doctrine in that which followeth. Num, 23.8. Where­in we shall finde, that he playes but the cheater, who showing one peece of good gold out of his purse would perswade his gull, that his purse is full of such, when all the rest is but counters, or counterfet gold double guilt.

For the second position: what Protestant Minister of the Church of England, of what ranke soeuer, bee he reckoned among his hoggs, or among his doggs, that holdeth not, and teacheth not, that the onely re­medy to remooue mans misery by sin is Iesus Christ, his death and passion, his obedience actiue and passiue, his whole righteousnesse freely imputed of God to e­uery true beleeuer? What Protestant, Diuine, or other, but holds iustification to be by fayth, freely without workes? And that those whom God iustifyeth, hee so acquiteth them in abolishing their sin, that hee remembreth it no more, but casts it behinde his backe, seeth it not any more, in asmuch as he doth graciously for his sonnes sake not impute it to them. So as what needes all that heaping vp of places of scripture? as if none but the Author tooke notice of them: or as if his doctrine were so vnknowne or doubted of, as it needed such a cloud of proofes.

Yet some particulars in this position would bee a little talked with all. As 1. where hee sayth, That all sins in the beleeuers are vtterly abolished out of Gods sight, by being not imputed. This is most true. Yet it puts mee in minde of that which I heard long agoe scattered abroad by this very Author, that God seeth no sin in his children. Which Aphorisme taken vp of the vulgar, may breede in them, that beleeue not, pre­sumptuous thoughts, and resolutions voyd of the con­science of sin. Therefore this poynt would be a little opened. True it is, God seeth no sin in his beleeuing [Page 15] children, for which hee inflicteth the curse, or any sa­tisfactory penalty vpon them. Thus when Balack would haue had Balaam to curse Gods people, hee answered, How shall I curse, where God hath not cur­sed? And v. 19. God is not as man, that hee should lye, or repent; hath he sayd, and shall hee not doe it? Behold I haue receiued commandement to blesse; and hee hath blessed, and I cannot reuerse it. And hee renders the reason: He hath not beheld iniquity in Iacob, neyther hath he seene preuersenesse in Israell; the Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a King is among them. Surely there is no inchantment against Iacob, nor diui­nation against Israell. For Christ hath borne Israels sin, in him hath God, the Iudge, fully punished it, his iustice is fully satisfed for all Israels debts. So that all being satisfied and discharged in our surety, Christs righte­ousnesse and satisfaction made ours, now God seeth not sin in his beleeuing children, as a iudge to punish them: yet he may be sayd to see as a father, to chas­tise them. Or when he chastiseth his childe, hee see­meth to see his sin, though done away in Christ, and pardoned in Gods Court, to the end his childe may come to see it, and so haue the euidence of pardon sea­led vnto him in the Court of his owne conscience, And this is that, which all sound Protestant Ministers teach and beleeue.

A second thing I note in his second position, is, if not an absurdity, yet an obscure speech: his words are, All my sins both of my person and workes are truely abolished, not out of me: that there may be place for fayth. Why? Are sins abolished actually by imputati­on, before fayth bee wrought, that the abolishing of sin makes way to fayth? True it is, Christ hath taken a­way our sins, and by death abolished death, before we haue fayth to apply it; for our fayth is from the merite and vertue of his death. Otherwise, I know not what sense [Page] to make of his words; vnlesse hee meane that fayth a­lone takes place in the beleeuer, working and doing all infallibly and freely, (as else where he expresseth himselfe) without the Law of the ten Commande­ments:

3 I note a falshood in it: for he sayth, All my workes are of vniust made iust before God. What these works are, I finde in other of his scatered pamphlets: to wit all naturall, ciuil, religious, sanctified actions, which being in themselues (as he sayth) foule and filthy, are made perfectly holy and righteous by free iustificati­on. Now this is a thing both imposible, and were also vniust, for God to doe it. It is impossible for God to make a worke, that is vniust to bee iust. Indeed Anti­christ arrogateth this omnipotent, or rather impotent power, as deriued from God, to make ex iniustitia iustitiam, righteousnesse of vnrighteousnesse: but Gods omnipotency stretcheth not to make an vniust worke to be iust. For then he might seeme to be both impro­uident, and vniust, in appointing his sonne to take away sin by the sacrifice of himselfe, in case God could haue made of sin no sin by his meere omnipotency. Indeede God can make a thing to cease to bee, or hee can make a thing to bee, which had not a being, as hee did all the world: but hee cannot so abolish a thing, as to cause the former being of it not to haue bene a being after it hath once actually bene. So of a wicked worke; God is so powerfull, so good, so iust, as that hee cannot make the wickednesse to bee good: for that implies a contradiction; but hee can and doth so a­bolish the wickednesse of our workes by Christ, by not imputing of them; as if it had neuer bin. But to say, our workes are of vniust made iust, this as it is a phrase not vsed in scripture, so in the Antinomians sense it tends to the bringing in of a heauenly state of perfection in this life. For he would inferre herevpon [Page 17] that a man once in Christ, iustified, is altogether with­out sin in Gods sight; abusing that place of Iohn, 1, Ioh. 3.6, 9. Where he concludes, that the iustified man not onely cannot sin, but also abstaineth from all appea­rance of euill. These are his very words. And hence is that cursed heresie of the Pelagians, and Pontifici­ans reuiued by the Antinomians, that there is such a prefection in this life, as a man may liue altogether without all sin: for all his sins of vniust are made iust, saith he. The nomination whereof is a sufficient con­futation. For in many things we sin all, Iam. 3.2. And if we say wee haue no sin, wee deceiue our selues and the trueth is not in vs. 1 Ioh. 1.8.

4 ^d I note another falsehood, where he sayth, By fayth onely with out workes, freely, I am perfectly holy and righteous from all spot of sin in the sight of God: (and why? (because only true faith seeth this, and only true fayth inioyes this. How? are we iustified by faith freely, because only true fayth seeth this? What if true fayth, while during the time of some temptation the exercise of it is suspended, do not see, nor inioy the fruite of iustification? must we therefore passe sentence vpon our selues, that we are not iustified? nay certainly we are therefore iustified from all sin, because God not imputing sin seeth no sin in vs: and not because we see and inioy our reconciliation and peace with God. For though God be continually pacified towards his faithfull children in Christ, yet doe not they allwayes by the act of fayth see and inioy Gods fauour towards them. This was Dauids case; and is, and may be the case of euery child of God. Yet whensoeuer wee doe see and enioy our iustification, by hauing peace with God through Christ, we doe by the eye and apprehen­sion of fayth see and enioy it. But our seeing and en­ioying is not the cause that wee are iustified, but the [Page 19] consequent effect and fruit of it, being apprehended by fayth.

3 ^ly For his 3 ^d Position, therein stand his Triarian forces; here his files are so doubled, and the rankes are so closse, that it seemes to be impregnable, impene­trable. But howsoeuer they stand thicke without, yet they are thin and hollow within, so that being but once by a wedge diuided, they are able no longer to abide the field. Therefore obseruing it well, I finde sundry aduantages to bee taken. First, from his com­mending of fayth in the efficacy of it, that it infallibly inflames the heart with true loue, making the true be­leeuer to breake off his former corrupt conuersation, &c. Secondly, that hee vseth one word twice, to wit, Declaratiue, obedience Declaratiue, and a free and cherefull walking in all Gods will, and Commande­ments declaratiuely to manward. Which may seeme to some to be eyther idle, or a riddle; but we shall de­clare the mystery of it by and by. In the meane time, all this hitherto in his 3 ^d position hath no other ap­pearance, but of sound and orthodox doctrine; agree­able to the Scriptures, and so to the doctrine of our Church, if there bee no more in it, then what the outer rinde makes show of. For what Protestant Church, or what one sound Protestant of our Church doth not teach, or beleeue, that that most noble and diuine La­dy grace of true sauing and liuing fayth, doth infallibly (to vse his owne word) inflame the heart with loue, which makes the true beleeuer to breake off from, and mortifie his former corrupt, and profane conuer­sation, and brings forth a declaratiue obedience, and redinesse to euery good worke, and a free and cheerfull walking in all Gods will and Commandements decla­ratiu [...] to manward, which is true sanctification. Here­in we all agree. Whereis the difference then? Yea but the author comes afterwards in the same position, [Page 18] and (although he protest these his positions to be the Protestant fayth, and the established doctrine of our Church) he proclaimes a defyance against the blind zealous, dead fayth, as meerely opposite to this his true liuely iustifying fayth, And this dead fayth, whose is it? by whom is it taught? by whom intertai­ned? Euen by the vniuersall bulke and body of our Church, which he deuides into two sides, the left side consisting of profane sensuall hoggs, and the right side of zealous Anabaptisticall Doggs, as he stiles them. Now if the case stand so, that all those protestants ge­nerally, whom he calls doggs, and hoggs doe hold the selfe-same doctrine in truth, as the author setts downe in words, and yet theirs is the blind zealous dead faith, and his the truely liuely iustifying faith: it concernes vs a little more narrowly to examine his words, to see whither some mysticall sense bee not couched in them; or whither hee hath dealt not so candidly, nor so in­geniously (as by his roauing and rauing language may iustly bee suspected) but hath kept vp some reser­uations as precious pearles; which if hee should vent among so many hoggs and doggs, as he liues amongst, hee might iustly feare, lest the one sort should, and that worthily, trample them vn­der their feete, and the other turne vpon him, and all to teare him. But now it being brought to the vpshot, whither hee, or we haue, the true liuing iusti­fying fayth: hee must permit vs perforce (we bring­ing our warrant from God) to mak [...] a priuy search, and to rifle his Cabbinet, to see whither hee haue this Pearle of the Kingdome, yea, or no. Nor are wee ingaged to doe this in regard onely of our faith towards God, as wee are Christans, but also of our fidelity and loyalty to our King the Lords Annoyn­ted, as wee are subiects, for asmuch as hee challen­geth all men, that hee that will bee a loyall subiect to [Page 20] his Protestant King, ought to embrace this doctrine of fayth, which he onely, the A per se Doctor, doth teach.

Wherein then is the maine difference betweene vs, that makes his the onely true liuely iustifying fayth, and ours the blinde, zealous, dead fayth? Surely in this; that his fayth is so liuely, actiue, vigorous, and potent, perfect, and compleat, that of it selfe it produceth all the fruites of sanctification, without hauing any thing to doe with the word of God, especially the morall law, as a rule of our actions, or as a glasse of our im­perfections: when as wee on the other side acknow­ledge, that our fayth at the best estate during this life, is not so perfect, and euery way compleat, but as a lampe it needeth the continuall supply of the holy oyle of Gods spirit of grace, to cause it to flame forth the more in the workes of sanctification, which grace of the spirit is ministred and supplyed vnto vs by the Mi­nistry of the word of God, as the Oyle-pipe through which it runneth: and for as much as in the state of grace and fayth, we know but in part, and prophesie in part, and consequently our fayth is imperfect, being mingled with much ignorance; therfore we haue need of the Morall law, wherof both the old and new Testa­ment are a large commentary, both as a rule whereby to frame our thoughts, words, and workes, and also as a glasse, wherein looking the face of our soules, and beholding our speckes and imperfections, we may get them washed in the fountaine of Christ blood, and may make straight pathes vnto our feete, Heb. 12, i3: least that which is lame be turned out of the way, but rather that it bee healed. This is that perfect law of liberty, wherein who so looketh, and continueth therein, hee being not a forgetfull hearer, but a doer of the worke this man shall be blessed in his deed: Iam. 1.25. This [Page 21] is that glasse, 2 Cor. 3.18. wherein wee beholding the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same Image from glory to glory, euen as by the spirit of the Lord. So farre are we from holding a state of perfection of faith in this life, as though our faith could doe all things of it selfe, and did not neede a dayly supply of grace, which must bee procured by the word of God, eyther preached, or read, or meditated and conferred vpon, and that also by the meanes of prayer, Lord increase our fayth. But this our Aduersary shutts out the law quite, as out of date to a true beleeuer, and of no vse at all, not so much as to be a rule of life and conuersation; his liuely faith doth all, and hath noe neede of the word of God to di­rect or assist it.

Now that this is the summe of his doctrine concer­ning his liuely faith, yee may gather from his owne words, saying, fayth infallibly inflames the heart with true loue, making the true beleeuer to breake off his former corrupt conuersation &c. This word Infalli­bly, implies, that faith doth by a continued and vnin­terrupted act inflame the heart with loue to doe all workes of sanctification, and so it hath no neede of Gods word as a rule to bee guided by, but the spirit, is instead of the word. But you will say, So much is not expressed in the letter. True. But you must know that this is the doctrine, which he priuately instilleth into his Disciples. As in one of his scattered writings I find these words, that this fayth of free iustifica­tion doth cause vs to walke infallibly in the steps of the workes of our father Abraham, where­by like Abraham, freely without the law of the ten Commandements, wee walke holily, righteously, and soberly in all Gods Commandements declaratiuely to manward. Yea comming sometimes to contest with mee, and to charge mee for preaching the dead fayth, himselfe did vtter so much to mee by word of mouth, [Page] that after a man is once inlightned by fayth, the spirit guides him, so as he hath no need of the word, or of the Morall law for a rule to direct him. This Doctrine is so familiar among his Disciples, as they professe it, and are prowd of it, so farre are they from making scruple or dainety of it, as once to deny it. So that this is one of the markes and properties of his liuely fayth, that it hath no neede of the Morall Law to bee a rule vnto it in poynt of conuersation, or in the workes of sancti­fication; otherwise neyther is it the true liuely fayth, nor this the true sanctification.

A second property and prerogatiue of this his liue­ly fayth is this, that it oweth no obedience to the Morall Law in poynt of duty. Hee denyeth the works of sanctification to bee duties. What are they then? Fruits, sayth he. So say we too; fruits they bee, yet duties too. Here is the difference then. Because wee say the fruits of fayth are duties, therefore hee sayth ours is the dead fayth. Al this hee hath auouched, and that most vehemently (as his manner is) to my face. And howsoeuer he hath not in plaine words expressed so much in this his letter, as being more shy and cau­telous what hee publisheth abrode, hauing bene ham­pered by me and others, and puzzled with some argu­ments which hee could not answere, but sayd hee would answere them when they were written: Yet ye may easily gather so much out of his writing. For he cals the obedience of a beleeuer onely declaratiue, and to bee done declaratiuely to manward. Note it well. This declaratiuely to manward excludes all du­ty to Godward. For else what vse is there in this place eyther of Declaratiue, or much lesse, To manward? For all obedience in conuersation is declaratiue: and all declaratiue is to manward. So as all this mans obe­dience is to manward, in poynt of declaration, but none to Godward in poynt of duty. For if it bee of [Page 23] duty in obedience to Gods law, then his fayth also should be the dead fayth. But herein stands the prero­gatiue of his true liuely fayth, that as it doth not so much as reflect the eye vpon the morall Law, as to learne obedience from the rule thereof: so much lesse doth it acknowledge it oweth any obedience there­unto as a duty to God.

On the contrary we for holding and teaching, that the Morall Law, and so Gods word stands not onely for a rule of direction for sanctified obedience, but al­so requireth of the faythfull a cheerfull yet dutyfull conformity thereunto: we (I say) for this very cause must heare, Hoggs, or Doggs, Hogg-christians, or Dogg-christians, as holding the blind, zealous, dead fayth. So thus stands the state of the question be­tweene vs about the liuing and the dead fayth, and herein we come now to ioyne yssue.

First then wee are all agreed on both sides, that the true liuely fayth is no other, but that whith the scrip­tures teach and allow for the true liuely fayth, which promised, and granted, I argue thus.

That fayth, Proposition. which the Scriptures teach and allow for the true liuely iustifying fayth, that, and no other, is the true, liuely, iustifying fayth.

But the Scriptures teach and allow that, and no other, Assumption, for the true, liuely, iustifying fayth, which resting on­ly on Christ for iustification by the onely imputation of his righteousnesse, doth notwithstanding looke vp­on the Morall Law of God as a rule of Christian conuersation, and sanctification, acknowledging the conformity thereunto as a duty which God requireth of euery true beleeuer: according to that, Luk. 1.74.75. That we being deliuered from the hands of our ene­mies, should serue him, &c.

Therefore this fayth and none other is that, which [Page 24] the Scriptures teach and allow for the true liuely iu­stifying fayth.

The Proposition is vndeniable. The Assumption I proue. And first from the very giuing of the Morall law in mount Sinai. For it was giuen in, and by, and vn­der Christ the Redeemer. Deut. 18.18. As the Apostle sayth, It was giuen in the hand of a Mediator: which Mediator was personally Moses: but typically Christ, of whom Moses was a type and figure. And Christ was that heauenly Exo. 25.40. Heb. 8.5, Patterne or Antitype, according to which were all those things deliuered to Moses in the Mount; yea not onely the Ceremoniall Law, but also the Mo­rall Law giuen by Christ himselfe, where hee sayth, I am the Lord thy God, which hath brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage? where­vpon followes, Thou shalt haue none other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make &c. For these words (I am the Lord thy God, whicb brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,) are a preface to the whole Decalogue or ten Commandements, set­ting forth the Author of them vnto us, not onely by his name Iehouah, but by that neere relation of Con­federacy, or Couenant of grace made to vs in Christ, saying, Thy God. And that this is the very Couenant of grace made to vs in Christ, vnder which the Law is giuen, appeareth by this, that the words of the Preface containe not onely a history of that peoples tempo­rall deliuerance from the Egyptian bondage: but also, and especialy the mystery of the Redemption of all the true Israel of God by Christ, or their spirituall deli­uerance from the bondage of sin and Satan. This is a thing most cleare, though few obserue it. For was not the Paschall Lambe slaine, and the blood sprinck­led vpon all Israels doore posts, and the Angell passed ouer them, and Egypts first-borne were slaine, and Gods first-borne deliuered? And was not Christ pre­figured [Page 25] thereby, as the Lambe slaine from before the foundation of the world? Yea all those passages of Gods people from Egypt to Canaan came to them in Types, as the Apostle sayth. 1. Cor. 10: Besides other types, ob­serue here two notable ones, which ioyntly are preg­nant to our purpose: first of Christs ascension: second­ly, of sending the Holy Ghost. 1. the history in Exo­dus well obserued makes it plaine, that vpon the 40 ^th day after their comming out of Egypt, Moses, Aron, and Hur, went vp into the Mount, where Moses hands are by Aron and Hur supported, while Ioshuah with Gods people fight against Amaleck. Now Moses the Prophet, Aron the Priest and Hur signifieth a Prince, and he was of the family and tribe of Iuda. Hur the Prince (for so was his name by interpretation) all put together, were a type of Christ, who on the fortith day after his resurrection, ascended into the Mount of Heauen, where, as our Prophet, Priest, and Prince, hee holds vp the hands of his intercession for his Church mili­tant, while she fights with spirituall Amaleck, Sin, Sa­than, Antichrist, the World, the Flesh, &c. The other Type I note, was iust 10. dayes after, which from E­gypt makes 50. dayes, and that was the giuing of the Law in Mount Sina, Acts. 2, and therefore called the Iewes Pentecost, and we know, that on the day of Pentecost iust 50 daies after Christs Resurrection, and 10 daies after his Ascention, did the Father and Christ send downe the Holy Ghost in his manifold gifts and gra­ces, to lead his people into all truth, and to reueale fully the Law of Christ vnto them. Now therefore the as the type, & thing typed are (for their vse to the faythfull people of God) one and the same thing: So as the ancient Isralites did all eate the same spirituall meate, and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke, 1. Cor. 10.3.4. for they drank of that spirituall rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ: So that giuing of the Law in Mount Sina, being a type of the comming down of the holy Ghost bringing & reuealing the Law of Christ to his Church both of them in summe and vse are to the faithfull one [Page 26] and the same law; for though they differ in the manner of administration, and in the measure of manifestati­on, yet not in the matter it selfe, Christ being the summe and matter of both. And thus we clearely see, that the Morall Law giuen in Mount Sina, being giuen by Iehouah our God in Christ the Redeemer, and that vnder the couenant of grace, being giuen to the Israel of God in the old Testament, to which the comming downe of the Holy Ghost in the new Te­stament fully answereth; that it remaines as a perpe­tuall rule of a holy life to all Gods people to the end of the world. So that here, by the way an inuincible argument is hence drawne, to proue the perpetuall morality of the sabbath to the end of the world, a­gainst all Antisabbatarians, because it was giuen vnder the couenant of grace to be kept. But wee will reserue the further discussing of this poynt to the choise of all, least the intermingling of it here should interrupt the maine matters in hand.

Obiection. But the Apostle sayth, The law is not of fayth, How then comes the Law to bee giuen vnder fayth?

Answere. The Law, in that place, is to bee taken for the first Couenant, to wit, of workes, giuen to Adam in Paradise in the state of innocency; which hath no communion with fayth belonging to the se­cond couenant, namely, of grace. But the Law, as it was giuen in Mount Sina, the literall veile being re­mooued, was not deliuered as the first Couenant, but as a rule of conuersation to the faythfull vnder the se­cond Couenant.

Obiection. But the Apostle calls the giuing of the Law in Mount Sina the first Couenant in opposition to the second. as Agar to Sara, the bond-woman to the free, Sina to Sion and Hierusalem.

Answere. The Apostle compares it so onely in re­gard [Page 27] of the literall killing sense, to which the Car­nall Iew was captiuated, and thereby slaine, while not looking vnto Christ the Redeemer, that brought his people out of the spirituall Egypt and bondage, they sought to bee iustified by the workes of the Law, which Saint Paul beats downe the to ground in that Epistle to the Galatians. But to the belieuing Iewes the Morall Law was none other, but the sweete yoake and light burthen of Christ, while they behold him as it were on the top of Iacobs ladder a Redeemer of his people by his owne innocent blood, whereby hee expiated all their breaches of the Law, fulfilling the Law for them. And in no other regard doth the Law in Mount Sina, and that in Mount Sion stand opposite, but as the letter to the spirit, 2 Cor. 3.6. while the carnall Iewes could not diserne the pith of the spirit vnder the barke of the letter: or by way of compari­son, the one excelling the other in the manner and measure of mynifestation, as 2 Cor. 3.10. Wherevpon the learned and iudicious Caluin vpon those words, Gal. 4.24 fayth, that the Iewes liberty was hidden vn­der the vaile of ceremonies, and of the whole economy, or dispensation of the Law, by which they were then gouerned: So that in externall shew nothing but ser­uitude appeared. Yet the seruile generation of the Law hindred not, but that the godly fathers, who liued vnder the old Testament, had for their mother the spirituall Ierusalem, which is free. [...]o that it was partly the Iewes blindnesse, and partly the veile couering those Mosaicall mysteries, which made that Law in Sina seeme to bee no other, but the Coue­nant of workes made with Adam in his Inno­cency.

Question. But here by the way it may bee asked, wherein doth the first Couenant, and the second chiefly differ?

Answer. There are sundry opposite differences be­tweene the two Couenants.

1 The first Couenant was of mans works: the second of Gods grace, and these two in the poynt of iustification are opposite one to the other. Rom. 11.6.

2 ^ly The first couenant was made with Adam, and all his posterity vniuersally: the second onely with Abrahams seede, called the womans seede. Gen. 3.15. to wit, Christ, and all the Elect. so Rom. 4.1.

3 ^ly The first couenant stood vpon mans owne righteousnesse, the second stands vpon anothers righ­teousnesse, to wit, Christs rigteousnesse, made ours by imputation.

4 ^ly The first couenant stood vpon the mutability of mans will, so as it was quickly broken: but the second stands firme vpon the sure foundation of Gods immutable will, good pleasure, and eternall purpose in himselfe, so as it can neuer bee broken, being an euer­lasting Couenant.

5 ^ly The first was a couenant of iustice without mercy: the second a couenant of iustice and mercy to­gether, iustice fulfilled by Christ, and mercy extended in and for Christ to all the Elect.

6 The first Couenant had no other reward reuea­led to the first Adam (from the Earth earthy) but what was confined to the earthly Paradise: but the second hath the Kingdome of Heauen set open in Christ (the second Adam, the Lord from Heauen) vnto all the Elect.

These and the like differences betweene the first Couenant and the second well considered, and con­ferred together, will plainely shew, that the Law gi­uen vnder Christ the Redeemer in Mount Sina, was not that first Couenant of workes. For besides the [Page 29] fore alledged reasons, there is mention made of Gods mercie in the second Commandement; and of the promise of the land of the liuing, the Kingdome of Heauen tiped in Canaan, in the fifth Commande­ment. Which mercy and kingdome were not compre­hended in that first Couenant of workes. But so much of the first proofe of our Assumption, which was, that true iustifying fayth though it rests vpon Christs righteousnesse onely for iustification, yet it lookes vpon the Morall law as a rule of Christian conuersa­tion, and acknowledgeth the obedience thereunto as a duty, which God requireth of euery true belie­uer.

The second proofe is in Math. 5. Reade for this from the 16. verse to the end of the chapter. Where our Master Christ in his diuine sermon vpon the Mount, expound­deth to his disciples, and all faythfull hearers, and doth as it were giue them a Commentary vpon the Morall law, which the same Christ deliuered to Mo­ses in the Mount; which hee sets before his scholars as a rule of the duties of sanctification, and christi­an conuersation, Math. 5.20. in which their righteousnesse they must exceede the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pha­risees, otherwise they could not enter into the King­dome of Heauen. But how shall Christ escape the censure, as one that preacheth the dead fayth? sure­ly I know not, while his faythfull Ministers preach­ing the same doctrine, are censured as preaching the blinde, zealous, dead fayth, and are called doggs for their labour.

But because Christ preached and pressed the Morall Law as a rule of Christian obedience, and called that also their righteousnesse: therefore did he teach, or meane, that this was their righteousnesse in the sight of God? Nothing lesse. For he that said, Math. 5.20. Except your righ­teousnesse [Page 30] exceede the righteousnesse of the scribes and Pharises, yee shall not enter into the Kingdome of Hea­uen: sayd also, VVhen yee haue done all these things that are commanded you, say wee are vnprofitable ser­uants, we haue done that which was our duety to doe. Marke, he cals our obedience to the Law of God our duty: yet so, as wee are not thereby iustified. And yet wee preach the same doctrine of our Master Christ, must bee rated as Doggs, as preaching the dead fayth.

The 3 ^d proofe is from that exquisite forme of Prayer prescribed by Christ, in the fifth petition, Math. 6, 12. Forgiue vs our debts, as wee forgiue our debters. All sins are debts to God. All sins are breaches of the Morall Law: therefore the keeping of the Mo­rall Law is a debt that wee owe to God. The Proposi­tion is Christs. The Assumption is the Apostles. So as nothing remaines for the Aduersary to deny, but the Conclusion.

The fourth proofe is from the Apostles words, Gal. 5.6. (that which the aduersary also alledgeth for the proofe of his third position) In Iesus Christ, ney­ther circumcision auaileth anything, nor vncircumcision, but fayth which worketh by loue. Loue to God, and to our neighbour is a duty we owe to God, and to our neighbour. But the Morall Law is the rule of this loue. Therefore fayth working by loue lookes vpon the Morall law as a rule of those duties of loue we owe to God and our neighbour. That loue is a debt, the Apostle prooueth, Ro. 13.8. Owe no man any thing, but to loue one another; so that is a debt, that we owe one to another. And if loue be a debt to man, then much more to God. Againe, that the Morall Law is a rule of this loue, the same Apostle prooueth in the same chapter, v. 9. For this, Thou shalt not commit adulte­ry: [Page 31] Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steale: Thou shalt not beare false witnesse: Thou shalt not couet: and if there be any other Commandement: it is briefely com­prehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe. Loue worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore loue is the fulfilling of the Law So that the conclusion remaines firme, that fayth working by loue lookes vpon the Morall Law as a rule of those duties of loue we owe to God, and our neighbour.

The fifth proofe is from the Apostles words Rom. 12.1. &c. I beseech you therfore brethren, by the mercies of God, Proposition, that yee present your bodies a liuing sa­crifice, holy acceptable to God, which is your reasonable seruice: And bee not conformed to this world, Assumption, but bee transformed by the renewing of your minde, that yee may proue what is that good, and acceptable, Conclusion, and perfect will of God, &c. Now from this generall exhortati­on hee descendeth to particular duties, as so many branches springing from our reasonable seruice of God. From thence to the very end of the Epistle. Whence I argue thus.

All Christian duties of loue to God, and to man are branches of our reasonable seruice of God.

But the Morall Law containes all christian du­ties of our loue to God, and to our neighbours.

Therefore the keeping of the Morall Law is our rea­sonable seruice of God.

The Proposition is euident by the whole context of the Apostle in the foresayd part of his Epistle The Assumption is vndenyable, proued before.

The sixt proofe is from 1. Thes. 4, 1. &c. Further more then we beseech you brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Iesus, that as yee haue receiued of vs, how yee ought to walke, and to please God: so yee would abound more and more. For yee know what commandements wee [Page 32] gaue you by the Lord Iesus. For this is the will of God euen your sanctification, that yee should abstaine from fornication. The exhortation is very forcible, and full of waight. Hee presseth it by the authority of the Lord Iesus: he mindeth them of it, as one of those lessons he had deliuered formerly by word of mouth, and they had receiued: hee calls it a duty, How yee ought to walke: yea a duty to God, How yee ought to walke, and please God: hee calls it a speciall commande­ment which hee gaue them by the Lord Iesus as which the Lord Iesus gaue him in charge to deliuer to them: hee calls it the will of God: he calls it their san­ctification.

Now what is all this which the Apostle here aymeth at? What, but this: That yee abstaine from fornication? Whence I argue thus:

Proposition,Abstinence from fornication is a part of keeping of the Morall Law.

Assumption:But this abstinence from fornication is a duty accep­table to God, is a doctrine to be taught by the Mini­sters of Christ, to be receaued by the people of God, is a commandement of the Lord Iesus, it is the will of God, it is our sanctification, or a fruite and effect of it.

Conclusion.Therefore the keeping of the Morall Law is com­manded of God, of Christ, as a duty to all true belee­uers.

To what part of this Argument will the aduersary answere? To the Proposition? That hee dare not: for the Law sayth. Thou shalt not commit adultery. To the Assumption? That he cannot; for that is the Apo­stles, in the fore alledged place. Therefore I will con­clude with this conclusion, That the keeping of the Morall law is commanded of God and of Christ, as a duty to all true beleeuers. When I vrged this argu­ment, [Page 33] or the as rhis. What soeuer is Gods will we should doe, is our duty to doe: But the doing of Gods Law is Gods will wee Should doe, therefore it is our duety to doe Gods law, so farre as we are able. Now all this is plainely con­cluded by the Apostle. This is the will of God euen your sancti­fication, that ye should abstaine from fornication. To abstaine frō fornication is a part of kee­ping the Moral Law, and what is true of a part, is true of the whole, as Iam. 2.10, 11. like in forme syelogisticall, out of this very place of the Apostle, to this our aduersarie occasionally face to face, and had, to satisfie his demande repeated it o­uer twice or thrice: hee could not giue a present answere, but desired to haue it written downe. But I expect not an answere, because none can be giuen to this which is here written.

No, can he not in all his budget finde an answere? doth hee not (as I heare hee was wont to doe at least) carry his trunk-hose full farsed & stuffed with Protestant Authors, as Luther, Zanchee, Paraeus, with sundry others of good note, that with their graue authority and reuerend names he may the more easily impose vpon his credulous and ignorant Disciples, who admire that most, which they vnderstand least: cannot he out of all these beate out an answere to these things; For of these he braggs much in the conclusion of his letter. But till hee can bring some, I will content my selfe to bring his belweather Author, euen Luther, whose no lesse puissant, then elegant, and heauenly speech (wherewith I will for this time conclude this short discourse) shall run full butt vppon, and push downe all that he hath sayd for his pretended, counterfet, false, hereticall, scandalous, Anabaptisticall, libertine fayth: Luthers words are: Admittimus quidem Mosen legendum, & audiendum a nobis, vt predictorem & testem Christi. De­inde vt petamus ab eo exempla optimarum logum & morum Cetaerùm dominium in conscientiam nullo modo concedimus ei; ibi mortuus et sepultus esto; nemoque sciat vbi sepulchrum eius sit: we indeede admit of Moses to bee read & heard of vs as a Prophet & witnesse of Christ: Againe, that wee may fetch from him examples of good lawes and manners. But dominion ouer the conscience (to a man in the state of grace, as Rom. 6.10.) wee by no meanes yealde him; there, let him bee dead and buried; and let no man know where his sepulchre is. So Luther. And [Page 34] in his argument vpon the Galatians: Sum quidem pecca­tor, &c. I am indeed a sinner according to this present life, and the righteousnesse of it, as the son of Adam where the Law accuseth me, death raigneth and will deuoure mee: but aboue this life I haue another righteousnesse, another life, which is the Sonne of God, who knoweth not sin and death, but is righteousnesse and life eternall: for which al­so this dead body of mine shall be raysed vp againe, and freed from the bondage of the Law and of sin, and toge­ther with the spirit it shall bee sanctified. So both these remaine while we liue here, the flesh is accused, exercised, made sad and contrite with the actiue righteousnesse of the Law: but the spirit raigneth, reioyceth, and is saued by passiue righteousnesse; because it knoweth it hath the Lord sitting in heauen at the fathers right hand, who hath abolished the Law, Sin, Death, and hath t [...]ampled vnder feete all euill things, hath led them captiue, and tryum­phed ouer them all. So he.

Now God forbid, that I should glory, but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified vnto me, Gal. 6.14. and I vnto the world.

For in Christ neyther Circumcision auayleth any thing, nor vncircumcision, but a new creature.

15 And as many as walke according to this rule, peace bee on them, and mercy, and vpon the Israel of God.

I thought here should haue bin an end. But as the Pro­uerbe is, 16 One absurdity begets a thousand; as one of Lerna his 7 heads being cut off, 3 grew in the place there­of. Parua m [...]tu pri­mo, mox sese at­tollit in auras, Ingred túrque solo, et caput inter nubila condit. Mon­strum horren­dum ingens, &c. Virgil. Aenead. Such is the nature of heresie, which of a small seede growes to be an hiddeous monster, if it bee not strangled in the first conception. Like Fame, which for feare at first is small: but finding entertainment with Dame Credulity and loquacity, growes bold and big vpon it. Or like a small leprous spot in the beginnig, which quickly runneth ouer the whole body. Or like a drop of sweet poyson, which at first goes pleasantly downe, but in a short time insinua­teth [Page 35] it selfe to the infecting of the vitall spirits, and ceasseth not, till it hath wrought its mortall effect. Or like a Gangreene, or like a Canker, as the Apostle compares it. This Antinomian leprosie doth spread, and get strength, and boldnesse euery day, euen vnto impudency & madnes.

And the reason it finds so many disciples to imbrace it, because cutting off sanctification, denying it to be a du­ty, (as one of their Disciples saide, Away with this scuruy sanctification.) and putting all vpon an imaginary fayth, and perfection in Christ: it becommeth so much the more plausible to flesh and blood, which is so prone and ready to listen after any doctrine, that giues liberty to their vn­tamed lusts. So that when such Disciples heare their tea­chers say, Beleeue onely, and so be merry in Christ, sing care away to the duety of sanctification, away with mortificati­on, Repent no more, for yee are perfectly iustified, God seeth no sin in you, yee are perfectly saued, and the like: no mar­uell if being carnall, and they hypocriticall persons, they catch at such doctrines, as may nuzzle them in their car­nall lusts, as is too apparent by the fruite which groweth necessarily from such a roote of bitternesse, whereby many are defiled.

For perswade a man once, that being in Christ, and so iustified from all his sins, Montanistae om­nem panitentiae virtutem è me­dio sustulerunt. Hieronead Mar­cellinam. Et lib. 2. adu [...]rsus Iouinianum. se Centuria: 2. c. 5. hee hath no more neede of re­pentance: and what a flood-gate is opened to all impiety, when there is noe more conscience of sin? Thus they reuiue the heresie of the Montanistes, who denied repentance to be needefull. This they ground vpon Heb. 6.11. Not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead works. Whence they conclude, that beleeuers haue no more to doe with repentances, where as the Apostle there speakes of the Doctrine, not of the practise of repentance, repro­uing those Hebrewes, that they were no better proficients i [...] Christs schoole, when instead of being able to teach o­thers, they were still A B C darians, hauing need to be ca­tichized [Page 36] in the very common rudiments & knowne Princi­ples of Religion, as Heb. 5.12. Againe they say, that they are as pure from all sin in Christ, and as perfect in righte­ousnesse and holinesse, as Christ himselfe is: alledging that in Iohn. 1 Iohn. 4.17. Herein is our loue made perfect, that we haue boldnesse in the day of iudgement: because as hee is, so are we in this world. Hence they conclude such abso­lute perfection to bee in the beleeuer, as in Christ now glorified in heauen. And therefore when they say, that a beleeuer is perfectly saued in this life, they expresse themselues in plaine words to meane, that a beleeuer is perfectly glorified in this life, and that there is noe diffe­rence betweene our state here and in heauen, but onely in our sense and apprehension. I should not (I confesse) haue beleeued, that euer any man, endued with common sense and reason, would haue so much as once conceiued, much lesse uttered such a senselesse and monstrous Paradox, had I not my selfe heard one of their Antinomian Ministers affirme so much to me and others together. For I asking him what difference there was betweene the state of grace here, and that of glory here after: hee answered, none at all, but in our sense and apprehension. And thereupon another Minister asking him, whither we were perfectly glorified in this life: he answered, wee were; whereupon I, abhor­ring such an insolent and Luciferian speech, presently a­uoyded his company and further speech. To this height of pride are they come, who teach the empty and windy faith of Iustification against Sanctification, the fruit of a true liuely fayth. But are wee perfectly glorified in this life, so as it differs not from that in heauen, but in our sense and apprehension? Then when a iustified man sinneth, it is but in his sense and apprehension, if that; or rather, they are in this poynt without sense & apprehension of sin. Then when wee are afflicted, diseased, and the like, it is not so indeede, but onely in our sense and apprehension; because a man perfectly glorified can neyther sin, nor suffer any sorrow, diseases, or death. Yea our fayth is no more the [Page] foundation of things hoped for, and the euidence of things not seene, we haue no longer hope of eternall life, but in our sense and apprehension; For wee are already possessed of the thing hoped for, we are already perfectly glorified. O senselesse stupidity! But they vrge, As he is, so are wee in this world; he is pure, perfect, vndefiled, therefore are we so to. Therefore, say they, wee are so perfect, as wee cannot be more. But St Paul sheweth plainely the mea­ning of St Iohn, saying: 2 Cor. 3, 8. But we all with open face beholding as in a glasse the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, euen as by the spirit of the Lord. Now though from hence they would inferre, that we haue the same image of Christs glory in full perfection: yet the next words (Frō glory to glory) plainely shew, that though the state of grace bee a glorious estate, as being an initia­tion of glory, being begun here in the soule: yet wee goe from one degree of glory and grace vnto another, and ne­uer attaine to full perfection, till this mortall shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption. 1 Cor, 15. Rom. 8.29. So that the image of Christ which wee beare vpon vs here, is a conformity vnto Christ our Head in the participation of his glorious graces, but in such a proportion, as here we are capable of, and as God hath distributed to euery man the measure of fayth. And the state of grace is in a perpe­tuall growth here, as 2. Pet. 3.18. Ephe. 4.12.13. Psal. 84.7 The path of the righteous being a perpetuall progresse, like to the morning light, shining more and more vnto the perfect day: Prou: 4..18. But why doe I spend arguments a­gainst such as deny vndeniable Principles?

But thus wee see, how a false and imaginary faith, where­of these men doe dreame, begets in them such damnable imaginations, & high presumptions, euen to the destructi­on of grace, while they would stretch it beyond the line. No maruaile therefore if they abolish quite any further vse of the morall law, syth they deny Sanctification it selfe, as a duty prescribed and commanded in the law. Exo. 19.5.6. So that if the Doctrines of these men might [Page 38] preuaile, what could bee expected, but a deluge of A­theisme and profanesse, and all lawlesse licentiousnes and dissolutenesse to ouerflow and drowne the world? For they cry downe and abolish all duties contained and commanded in the Morall Law, both towards God, and towards men. Doe we thinke these men can be good subiects to their Prince, who deny they owe him any ho­nour in the way of duety enioyned by the commande­ment, 1 Pet, 2, 17, Honour thy Father and Mother; whereof one maine branch is, Honour the King? And if they doe not of due­ty honour their King on earth, how shall they honour their King in heauen? To instance in the fourth comman­dement: they quite abrogate the Morall Law to beleeuers, and consequently the fourth commandement, which is the sanctification of the sabbath-day.

But they reply, that the Iewish Sabbath-day is abo­lished, and therefore Christians haue nothing to doe with the commandement, no more then the rest of the Deca­logue. I answere: It followeth not: for though the Iewes sabboth day be abolished, yet there remaines a sabboth to bee kept of Christians, seeing that the commandement of the sabboth is Morall, and so no lesse perpetuall, then all the rest. For if none of the rest of the commandements be abolished: then neither the fourth And so though the cere­moniall part of the Iewes sabboth be abrogated, yet not the morality of it.

Ob. But how, or wherein was the Iewes Sabbath day ceremoniall?

Answ. In two regards; first, because it was appoyn­ted them to bee a memoriall of their deliuerance out of Egypt, as Deut. 5.15. where the Lord sayth. And remem­ber that thou wast a seruant in the Land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arme: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keepe the Sabbath day. So that the Iewes were commaunded to keepe the sabbath day in a thankefull remembrance of their deliuerance [Page] from the Egyptian bondage; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keepe the Sabbath day.

Ob. But in Exo. 20.11. the Sabbath day hath relation to the Creation.

Answ. True, yet herein Deuteronomy Moses tells them, that euen then, when this commandement was giuen the Lord had a speciall respect to the deliuerance from Egypt; and therefore hee sayth, the Lord commanded thee, as re­ferring to the time past, when the Law was giuen. And in that respect the Sabboth day was to them ceremoniall. Secondly in regard of some ceremonies proper (as some say) to that Nation, being inhabitants of the Land of Ca­naan, a hot climate; as the not kindling of a fire on the Sabboth, as also the not dressing of their meat in that day, which was in remembrance of the Manna in the desert: whereof they gathered enough for the sabboth on the day before, God miraculously and plentifully prouiding it for them. But in very truth, & (so farre as I can yet conceiue, till I be conuinced otherwise by better reasons, then I haue yet seene) that obseruance of not kindling a fire, nor dres­sing of meate on the sabboth (which was lawfull & allow­ed vpon all other festiuall dayes) was not so much proper to that people in regard of their hot Country and climate, as in regard of that Mosaicall Pedagogie and dispensation, vnder which that onely people and Church was subiuga­ted and subiected, so as this not kindling a fire, & not dres­sing of meate, was a meere Ceremony Mosaicall, a type of the eternall sabbath, brought in by Christ in his resurrecti­on, which puts an end to all sabbaticall ceremonies, as these are, which typed the estate of the euerlasting sabbath, wherein is no need of bodily prouision. For in heauen, there shall bee neyther kindling of fire, nor dressing of meat, nor the like. Whereupon Isychius in leuit. lib. 6. cap. 19. speaking of the Omer of Manna, which euery one was to gather euery day, and two before the sabboth, An Omer (sayth he) was so much, as could feede one man. Here­by he would teach and instruct them of the intelligible rest, [Page 40] and end of the world, because then it was impossible to boyle, or worke, or gather. Some againe limit the not dressing of meate ro the time of their trauell in the Desart 40 yeares, during the Manna, and not to extend to the Land of Cana­an, where the Manna ceassed. And this lis not improbable, sith their iourney in the wildernesse was to type out the time of out heauenly Country, where all the prouision for the body should ceasse. Some also restrayne the not kind­ling of a fire to the worke of the Tabernacle onely (as Vatablus in Exod. 35.3.) but I see no probabillity hereof, seeing the Priests about the Tabernacle had liberty on the sabbath to performe their rites, as sacrificing, and the like. Yet (by the way) the abrogation of these cere­monies ought not Christians to turne into surquedry and excesse of feasting, (as too many doe) so abusing their christian liberty: but to bee vsed with all sobriety, such as may not hinder, but helpe the holy spirituall dueties of this day by a due refreshing of the body, for necessity, not for superfluity.

Now these Ceremonies dying together with the whole Mosaicall economy, which stood in types and Ceremonies, yet the Morality remaines a perpetuall suruiuer in, and with, and vnder the Gospell. For else, if the Morality of the Sabbath were antiquated and abolished, then also the whole Decalogue. But the Decalogue, or ten Commande­ments remaine still in force, not onely in their curse and full rigour to all transgressing Infidels, such as are out of Christ, but also as a rule of holy conuersation to all true beleeuers. And that the Morall Law still remaines as a rule of Christian obedience to euery true Israelite, appeareth by the very manner of giuing of it in Mount Sinai. For it was giuen by the Lawgiuer Christ the Redeemer of his peo­ple, who sayth, I am the Lord thy God, which haue brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: and thereupon inferreth, Thou shalt haue no other Gods be­fore me, &c. Now the deliuerance out of the Egyptian bondage what was it, but a type of our spiritual deliuerance [Page 41] from sin and sathan by Christ? And therefore by his owne argument it followeth, that the same Morall Law giuen by and vnder Christ to the Iewes in the old Testament, is propagated and perpetuated to all christians in the new Testament, and so consequently the Sabbath, as touching the morality of it.

Thus the Morall Law is no lesse a rule to beleeuing chri­stians then it was once to the beleeuing Iewes, all one ioynt spirituall seed of Abraham, to whose posterity this Law was giuen. And thus also by the selfe same reason, the fourth Commandement for the sanctification of the sabbath is still in force with the Christian Church, as well as the other 9. vnlesse (as the Papists haue by their sacrilegious practise nimmed away the second Commandement out of their vul­gar Catechisme, and by their corrupt glosses guelded the masculine sense of it in their Doway Bibles) wee will take their part in the polluting and profaining the Sabbath, by denying the perpetuall morality of it, and so leaue but two Commandements for God (according to the Popish acompt) in the first Table; or rather none at all, when by this meanes there is noe day allowed for his seruice, no nor mea­nes to teach vs the true worship of the onely true God, & the honour due vnto his name, which meanes is the publique Ministry of his word, together with publique and priuate inuocasion.

So that the whole worship and seruice of God, and his sauing knowledge for mans saluation (to speake nothing of bodily refreshing, and workes of Charity, for the reliefe of the poore) hauing a necessary dependance, as touching the externall meanes, vpon the due obseruation of the fourth Commandement in the Morality o [...] it: who can deny the kee­ping of the Sabbath to be Morall, but he must withall pro­cliame open enmity to Gods worship, and mans saluation;

Ob. But the Sabbath day of the Iewes being wholy ceas­sed, as being buried in Christs graue, wherein hee rested all that day, and so fully kept it: of what force is it with christians any longer? or what morality remaines of it [Page 42] to bee obserued by vs?

Answ. As the Iewes Sabbath day was a precise seauenth day, which no doubt was by successiue reuolution obserued by Adams generations from the seauenth day of the Creati­on, sanctified by Gods owne rest, (for we reade of it, in Exo. 16. which was before the giuing of the Law in Sinai,) but with all had an addition of a new relation to the typicall Redemption from Egypt, as we noted before, in which re­gard it was ceremoniall: So (as ceremoniall) it was subiect to be abrogated, and changed from a Legall, into an Euan­gelicall Sabbath, which the Scripture calleth the Lords day. Although some are bold to deny, that the Sabbath was at all obserued by the Old Church, vntill Moses time, and so till the Law was giuen in Sinai. But this seemes to bee a groundlesse opinion, if not also Godlesse. For though the Scripture makes no mention of the keeping of the Sabbath, vntil Exod. 16.5. &c. yet both that mention goes before the solemne bidding of it in Mount Sinai, and doth also suf­ficiently inferre, that the Sabbath was in vse before that time, as being fiist instituted in Paradise. For elfs, as a learned Diuine of our Church hath noted vpon this very occasion: It is absurd for any man to prepare a thing 2000 yeares, be­fore the vse thereof. And Exod, 20.11. the very reason and ground of mans obseruation of the Sabbath is there giuen to bee Gods owne institution of it, which was his actuall sanctifying and blessing of it by his owne resting on that day from the workes of Creation. Though otherwise the fourth Commandement, being a part of the Law written in Adams heart, needed not any expresse Commandement, more then the rest did; sauing that this hath a Memento set vpon it, as being most subiect to neglect and prophanati­on: and that the Lord himselfe was pleased to assigne his owne seuenth day for rest and sanctification to those former ages. But to proceed: Here it may be demanded, what is that morality of the fourth Commandement, which yet is in force with christians? For answere: None will question (but the Antinomian, who altogether denyeth the whole Morall [Page 43] Law to be in force, so much as a rule to beleeuers vnder the Gospell, the morality of the Sabbath to bee yet of force and vse with Christians. Onely some differ both about the manner of it, how it is imposed, and how exacted of christi­ans, and about the matter of it. For first, they denie that the fourth Commandement hath any thing to doe with the Lords day, which is the christian Sabbath. Againe they deny that the fourth Commandement reacheth further, then to masters of families, exempting seruants from imputation of sinne, in case they worke at their masters command. Third­ly they deny the Lords day is by any diuine institution, humane onely, and therefore not of the same force with the fourth Commandement. Fourthly, (for the matter) they deny that the vacation and abstinence from seruile labour, or the ordinary workes of a mans worldly calling, is any part of the morality of the fourth Commandement, but a meere ceremony, and so abrogated. Yea they goe further, and say, that howsoeuer the generality of that Commandement to keepe a Sabbath, wherein God might bee honoured, was Morall: Yet the speciality of it, namely to keepe, First, one day of seauen: Secondly, the seauenth: Thirdly, one whole day: Fourthly, with precise vacancy from all worke, was meerely ceremoniall, and so the specialities of the Comman­dement are vanished, though for the generality of it, it is a law of nature and remaineth. So they. Here then be sun­dry things, which offer themselues to bee scanned. And to make way, First where they call the bodily rest, obserued once by the Iewes, a poynt of exact and extreame vacation from euery kind of worke, & which christians haue nothing to doe with all: This is but a buggbeare, or scarcrow to fright Childish christians from so much as looking backe to the fourth Commandement, in the keeping of the Lords day. For first an extreame vacation was not exacted of the Church of the Iewes; as in case of extreamity, or vrgent ne­cessity, they might worke, yea for the sauing of a poore Asses life, by pulling him out of the pit on the Sabbath day; as our Sauiour conuinceth the carping Iewes.

How much more in extremities of more importance, as the quenching of a scath fire, or defending of their City, or Country, by repelling the inuading, or beleaguring enemy? yea in such cases not to bestirre themselues, and to vse their vtmost labour and skill, not onely turned into superstition, but many times proued their bane and ruine. Among sun­dry instances in this kinde, Iosephus Antiq. of the Ieases, lib. 12. c. 8 soli. 14. 8. this is one: that the Iewes on the Sabbath being assailed by their enemyes, would ney­ther make resistance, nor yet so much as close vp their caues mouth to defend themselues, and so their liues became a spoyle to their enemyes cruelty. So superstitiously obser­uant were they of the Sabbath, as if God had made it to be a snare for them, whensoeuer the crafty enemy should take that oppertunity to inuade them so as in case of extreme necessity, as to saue life, yea a beasts life, the Commande­ment was not strictly obligatory; much more in spirituall obseruance, touching Gods worship, as the Priests slaying of beasts for sacrifice, and the like. Extreame vacation then was not exacted of the Iewes in their keeping of their Sabbath.

Againe, we shewed before, how the prohibition to the Iewes of kindling a fire, and dressing of meate on the Sab­bath was peculiar to that Nation, or rather Church, and was a type and ceremony. Nor was it extreame, because they liued in an hot climate, wherein their was no extreame necessity of fire for one day, which they were to supply: by their spirituall fire of holy zeale in a due obseruation of the Sabbath. Though some are of opinion, that this prohi­bition of kindling a fire reached onely to such fires, as were vsed about seruile workes, and not about their ne­cessary food. But I will not blowe the coales of this con­trouersie in this poynt at this time, hauing shewed suffici­ent reason already of this restraint. Onely this I adde, if it were a burthen, layed vpon the shoulders of that Pedago­gy of Moses: it was to teach them and vs, to put a diffe­rence betweene that hard yoake of the Ceremoniall Law. Acts. 15.10, and that sweete yoake, and light bur­then [Page 45] of Christ, Matthew, 11.30.

In the next place, where they say, that one whole day for the Sabbath, or one seauenth day, or one day of seauen, was meerely Ceremoniall: I would aske them how the memoriall of the Commandement could bee kept, with­out a speciall time or day? vnlesse they will say, that the morality, being perpetuall, is not tyed to any one day. But seeing the Morall Law cannot be kept by the Church in this world, without time (for as the Preacher saith, Eccle 3.1. There is a time for euery purpose vnder the Sunne) and this time of kee­ping the fourth Commandement is limited by God to the 7 ^th day: how can this day be separated from the Sabbath, as being an inseparable circumstance of the substance of that Commandement? Yea, so inseparable by diuine appoynt­ment, as Gods wisedome did best know the Sabbath cannot be solemnely kept, vnlesse it be one of the seauen, I say not, one fixed day of seauen to last for euer from the Creation to the end of the world without alteration; for so it was ceremoniall in the old Testament: but the proportion of a seauenth part of our time decreed by Gods owne instituti­on and perpetually annexed to the morality. And the Lord who limited a seauenth day for rest, and to bee kept holy, hath noe where left it arbitrary to man, to allow what day or proportion of time liketh him for that purpose beyond the number of seauen. For as God hath reserued a tenth of our goods (though we owe him all that we haue) as sacred to himselfe, and by meanes whereof hee sanctifies all the 9 parts to our vse: so also a seauenth of our time (though- the whole time of our life is to be spent to his honour) for the sanctification of our whole life. And both these serue ioynt­ly for the more commodious, compleate, and solemne ad­ministration of his worship and seruice, which also redounledeth not onely to our temporall, but spirituall and eternall good. Nor is it now in mans power to alter the Lords day into any other seauenth day of the weeke, sith it is Christs owne Ordinance, and therefore vndispensable.

Inuij Praelect: in Gene 2.2 ‘The learned Iunius on Gen. 2.2. concerning the Sabbath thus speaketh: Haec lex, &c. This Law (of the Sabbath) is naturall, hauing a ceremoniall designation of one day affix­ed vnto it. This seauenth day, added of God, is not naturall, but positiue. A seauenth day is naturall, and remaineth, but the seauenth from the creation appoynted of God, is po­sitiue, instead whereof the Lords day succeedeth in the christian Church, called the first day of the weeke, and the Lords day, Reu. 1.10. celebrated, Acts. 20.7. &. 1, Cor, 16.2. Causa mutationis, &c. The cause of this mutation is Christs resurrection, and the benefit of restoring the Church in Christ: the commemoration of which benefit succeeded the memory of the creation, not by humane tra­dition, but by Christs owne obseruation and institution; who both on the day of his Resurrection, Et octauo quoque die, and on euery eight day, vntill his ascension into Hea­uen, appeared to his Disciples, and came into their assem­bly. And the same was done by the constant obseruation of the Apostles and Disciples, and of the Church of Christ, to which by the institution and example of Christ the Apo­stles deliuered the obseruation of the Lords day which is well set forth by Cyril. lib. 12. in Iohan. cap. 58. by Augustine ad Casulanum, Ep. 86. et ad Ianuarium Ep. 119. cap. 13. And therefore Chrysostome in his fift sermon of the Resurrection writteth, that of old in the Primitiue Church this day was called by three names, The Lords day, The day of bread, and the day of light. The Lords day, because in it, being a solemne memoriall of Christs resurrection, they attended to his word and worship: the day of bread, because in it the Sa­crament of the Lords supper was administred: and the day of light, because on it was obserued the administrati­on of Baptisme, For the ancients called Baptisme [...], illumination and the day of Baptisme diem [...], the day, of lights; and the Baptized were called [...], New illu­minates. Wherefore sith the Lords day by Christs Act, ex­ample, and institution, by the most constant obseruation of the Apostles and the auncient Church, and by the testimo­ny [Page 47] of Scripture, hath bene obserued, and put in the place of the Iewes Sabbath: ineptè faciunt, &c. They doe absurdly, who affirme that the obseruation of the Lords day contin­ues in the Church by Traditiō, and not by authority of the holy Scripture, that by these helpes they may (si Deo placet) support the Traditions of men.’ So he.

Thirdly, where they say, that the generality onely of kee­ping a Sabbath, was Morall: this generality or morality must either now bee quite lost: or else doth necessarily import some speciall day for christians, wherein solemly to keepe this morality (vnlesse we be bound euery moment or day of our life to keepe it) as well as for the Iewes of old, by Gods owne limitation.

But fourthly they say that the vacation and abstinence from seruile labour, or the ordinary workes of a manes worldly calling, is not any part of the morality of the fourth Commandement, but a meere ceremony, and so abrogated. This is a strange Paradox. For then the whole obseruation of the sabbath as touching the reast of it, was a Ceremony: and where is then the morality of it? stands not the mora­lity of it in corporall rest, and spirituall exercise? Or else tell us wherein? Nay certainely that cannot bee a meere cere­mony, which lasteth for euer. But vacation and rest from bodily labour lasteth for euer, euen in Heauen, in the keeping of the eternall Sabboth; as the. Apostle saith, Heb: 4.9.10. And Reuel: 14.13. And in heauen there is noe pleace for meere ceremonies. Therefore vacation from labour on the Sabboth is no meere ceremony, but one speciall part of the moralitie commanded in the Sabbath. So that to rest from labour is of the very essence of the Sabbath, which is therefore called Sabbath or rest, because one cheife part of the obseruation of it stands in rest.

Ob. But they obiect: That the Commandement of the Sabbath is not morall because it bindes not to all times and to euery day, as well as one in the weeke.

Answ. Though the externall solemne rest of it binds but for one day in the weeke, yet the due Sanctification of it is [Page 48] such, as it reatheth to the Sanctification of the whole time of our life, yea to the Sanctifying of our persons, acsions, affections, &c. by the right vse of the meanes, as the Word and Prayer. For (as wee sayd before) as God by reseruing and consecrating the tenth of our goods, thereby sanctifies all the 9 partes vnto vs: So by setting apart and hallowing the seauenth of our time to his seruice, he extendeth sancti­fication to euery day of our life, that therein wee might bee holy. Againe, affirmatiue precepts ceasse not to be morall, be­cause they bind not, ad semper, to all times: it sufficeth they binde semqer, all wayes, in their due time and place.

Fiftly, they deny, that the Lords day, the christians Sab­bath, hath any relation to the fourth Commandement, of the Sabbath day, as succeeding in the place of it. And their reason is, because (say they) the Lords day is not by any Diuine institution, but humane onely, and therefore not of the same force with the fourth Commandement. This assertion, & reason is noe lesse vnresonable and peremp­tory, then the former. How? The Lords day not of Diuine instiutiō, but humane onely? Ecclesiasticall they grant, though Apostolicall they name not; but in no case diuine; that they expressely and stiffely deny. First therefore wee will proue, that the Lords daye is of diuine institution: Secondly, that it succeeds in the place of the Sabbath, and so beitng of de­uine instituiton, hath the force of a Commandement. First, that it is of deuine institution, thouigh wee haue no expresse Word of Christ, yet we haue his Act, & worke for it, Which is euer as good as his word. We shewed before, how Gods Act in his resting in blessing and sanctfying the Sabbath or seauenth day, was his institution. For to what end did he blesse and sanctifie it? For, himselfe? what needed hee? No surely for man, for whom the Sabbath day was made to rest in, as well as the sixt to labour in. For the Sabbath was made for man, saith the Lord of the Sab­bath.

This institution was in Paradise. It stands indeede, Gen. 2.2. before the fall of Adam. But if Adam fell the same [Page 49] day of his Creation, being the sixt day, as the best Diuines thinke: then it is set by way of anticipation, or Hysteron Pro­teron; and so this seuenth day began next after the Fall. when the son of God incarnate was cleerely promised, in which respect the Sonne of man Christ, was Lord of the sabbath day being the Institutor of it, vnder whom Adam began his spirituall life in the obseruation or sanctification of the Sabbath. And then (I doubt not) he began to Sacrifice, as hee taught his sonnes afterwards, as wee see Gen. 4. it being not vnprobable, that those skins, wherewith God cloathed Adams shamefull nakednes, were of the Sacri­fices, which God taught him now vnder Christ to offer, as a type of Christ cloathing vs with the robe of his righ­teousnes imputed to vs, and merited for vs by the sacrifice of his death, which sacrificing shall wee deny to bee of diuine institution, because wee find it not there expressely comman­ded? Otherwise it had beene will-worship, and so abomi­nable, whereas God had respect to Abel and to his offering. And that he respected not Cain, it was on Cains parte for want of faith. Heb 11, 4 And why should not man then in the state of inocency haue a Sabbath to rest solemnly in, and to be vacant for Gods worship, as hee had a taske (though not toylesome) layed vpon him to dresse the garden, and so much the more, being now cast out, hauing a hard and sore toyle imposed on him to till the ground, whence hee must eate his bread with sowre or brackish sauce, to wit, the sweat of his face? Other wise, if hee had had no Sabbath to rest in, his state had bene most miserable, as attended with incessant toyle and trauell. And when (in most likelyhood) did Cain and Abell bring their sacrifices? Most likely on the Sabbath. For the text sayth Mikets iamim in the end of the dayes, which some referre to the end of the yeare, Gene. 4.3. as Ex. 22.16. and why not also may it be ment of the end of the weeke dayes? But I will not contend. Thus Adam no doubt, had the Sabbath, not onely before his fall, written in his heart, but after his fall a speciall day euen the seauenth assig­ned him vnder Christ the Redeemer, the Lord of the Sabbath [Page] And Gods owne act in resting from the worke of Creation, and in blessing and sanctifying the Sabbath day for mans vse and comfort, was warrant enough to make it of diuine institution, without any other expresse Commandement. The like wee say of the Lords day. That which gaue it a stampe of diuine institution, was the Lords owne Act in blessing and sanctifying this Lords day with his blessed and glorious Resurrection, when now hee ceassed from the worke of Redemption, a greater and more glorious worke then that of Creation; now beginning also, and consecrating the eternall Sabbath. So that this very act of Christ was a sufficient consecration of this day, as the Sabbath of our Redemption; and therefore iustly styled by the Holy Ghost, the Lords day, because consecrated not onely to him, but by him as the author of it. Therefore also is he rightly intitled Lord of the Sabbath day of the Iewes, as alone ha­uing a power to abrogate that, and to initiate this day. For in like manner the Sabbath is called Gods owne Holy­day, (Isay. 58.) and the Sabbath of the Lord our God, (Exod. 20.) which hath relation to Christ the Redeemer. Exod. 20.2. to shew, that hee is the Lord, and institutor of it. So that it belonged to him alone to cancell the old, and to consecrate a new Sabbath to Christians, in memoriall of a better Crea­tion, and as the entrance & iniatition to the eternall Sabbath. Againe, obserue how he honours this day. For the very day of his Resurrection, his Disciples being assembled, hee pre­sents himselfe personally vnto them, comforting and confir­ming them with the sensible euidence of his Resurrection, and breathing on them the gifts of the Holy Ghost. And, because they should take speciall notice further of this day, iust eight dayes after, when this day came about againe, hee appeared to them the second time where they were assem­bled, and standing in the midst of them, as Lord of his Church, salutes them with his peace, and shewes them ma­ny signes for the fuller confirmation of his Resurrection. And yet for the more abundant confirmation of the con­secration of this day, after his Ascention hee sends the Holy [Page 52] Ghost on this very day 50 dayes after his Resurrection, whose powerfull presence was an euident sanctification of this day by his manifold giftes & graces to his Church vnto the end of the world. And, it is specially to be noted, that on those dayes, wherein Christ appeared to his Disciples, and the Holy Ghost descended, they were all assembled so­lemnly together in a holy communion in prayer, and other sacred duties: So that Christs twice appearing vnto, and the Holy Ghost descending visibly vpon his Disciples when they were assembled, and all vpon this day, was warrant sufficient for the Apostles, and so for the succeeding Chur­ches, to continue the sanctification of this first day of the weeke by their holy assemblies, and exercises, as Prayer, Preaching, administring the Sacraments, Almes &c. They saw, that this was the speciall day selected and sealed by Christ, and the Holy Ghost ( For in the mouth of 2. or 3. witnesses shall euery word be established) for publique sacred assemblies, wherein they might expect Christs presence, by his spirits influence, in sanctifying his people in their ho­ly exercises on that day. Herevpon it grew a perpetuall Ordinance, not first constituted by Apostolicke authority, but seconded and followed by them in their practize, as Acts. 20.7. and 1 Cor. 16.2 vpon which place Master Per­kins iudiciously obserueth, that Paul commanded nothing as an ordinance to bee obserued by the Church, but what hee had from Christ. But to make collection for the poore euery Lords day, or first day of the weeke, as a consequent or concomi­tant fruite of other Sabbath-duties, as Preaching, Prayer, Sacraments, was (sayth he) a constitution Apostolicke, and so of diuine authority; and therefore no meere humane institu­tion. And wee say, that the ground and cause hereof was Christs Resurrection. So as it is a grosse Solecime in Diuinity to admit an Institution to be Apostolicke, & yet to denie it to be of diuine authority. Thus the first day of the weeke, the Lords day grew to be the day of holy assemblies for Chri­stians, from that first day of the weeke, wherein Christ rose againe, and appeared to his Disciples, as wee haue touched. [Page 52] And from this spring did the auncient Fathers deriue the sanctification of this day, as by so many continued streames of succession. Saint Augustine sayth, Dies Dominicus, &c. The Lords day was not to the Iewes, Aug: Ianuario Epis. 119. c 13. but to Christians declared by Christs Resurrection, and from that began to bee kept holy. And elsewhere Proepenitur dies Dominicus Sabbato, &c. The Lords day is preferred before the Sabbath, by the fayth of the Resurrection, Aug. Ca sulano Presbytero Ep. 86. not by the fashion of refection, or licentiousnes of drunken mirth. And againe, Domini Resurrectio, &c. The Lords resurrection hath promised us an eternall day, and con­secrated to vs the Lords day; And Ambros, Dominica nobis &c. De verbis Apost ser: 15- To vs the Lords day is so honourable and sacred, because in it the Sauiour, as the sun arising, dispelling infernall dark­nesse, hath shined forth in the light of his resurrection. And for this cause, Ambros: ser: 61: this day of the men of the world is called Sunday, because Christ the Sunne of righteousnesse arising, did enlighten it. But what neede we seeke a cloud of witnesses, of men, when we haue diuine Sarrs in Scriptures (though shining in a darke place, till the day did dawne) which may giue vs sufficient light to direct vs to this day? For first it is ap­parent that the seauenth day which was commanded the Israelites of the old Testament to celebrate for the Sabbath, was giuen them in memoriall of their deliuerance from the Egyptian bondage, as we noted before out of Deu. 5, 15, And thus it was ceremoniall and subiect to be changed into another day, to wit, the Lords day, which should succeede in memoriall of our Redemption and deliuerance from our spirituall bondage, whereof that corporall was a type, which Redemption and deliuerance was finished in Christs Resur­rection; and therefore who should haue power, but Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, to change the Sabbath into the Lords day?

Againe, another remarkeable place we finde in Leu. 23.10, &c. where the sheafe of the first fruits was to bee waued by the Priest before the Lord the day after the Sabbath. This sheafe of the fruits was a pregnant type of Christs rising againe, 2 Cor: 15, 20. Leui: 23.11. the first fruits from the dead. This sheafe [Page 53] was to bee waued the next day after the Sabbath, and not else. This was fulfilled in Christs resurrection, wh [...]ch was the day after the Sabbath, and because this Sabbath was chiefely ment of the Passeouer, which was a high Sabbath, to be sure, it was a double Sabbath, (the Sabbath of the Passeouer concurring together) wherein Christ rested in the graue. The very next morning was Christ, the first fruites, waued before the Lord, when in the Earthquake hee rose from the dead the first fruites of them that sleepe. This was the sheafe of the first fruites, which was accepted for vs, Rom: 4, 25 Rom: 11.19. for he rose againe for our iustification? And if the first fruites be holy, the lumpe is also holy. And the meate offring of this day was twice as much, as vpon any other day, euen two tenth deales; whereas the rest had but one, which is a matter worthy of heedefull obseruation. This typed and signi­fyed some thing extraordinary as touching this dayes oblation. And the offering was made by fire vnto the Lord for a sauour of Rest, as the Hebrew hath it. This pre­figured the Rest of this day of the sheafe of first fruites, of Christs resurrection. And this rest had relation not onely to Christ, who now had finished the worke of Redemption: but also to all the Redeemed. For from this very day of the sheafe of first fruites, they were (Leuit. 23.15.16.) to reckon 7 Sabbaths or weekes compleate, which inclusiuely containeth 50 dayes, and so the seauenth first day of the weeke next af­ter the Sabbath, they must offer a new meate offering vnto the Lord. This was the feast of Pentecost, which being fully come ( Act. 2.) the Holy Ghost came downe visibly vpon the Church, so fulfilling that typicall prophesie, Leuit. 23.17: or Propheti­call type. And this meate offring of loaues, and the like, being called also a first fruites vnto the Lord, signifyed and prefi­gured that First fruits of the Church of the new Testa­ment, offered, consecrated, and sanctified vnto God that very day, wherein the Holy Ghost descended. For behold two waue loaues, moulded vp of so many graines, the one of the Iewes, the other of the Gentiles, both one offering, [Page 54] being a collection of all the Nations vnder Heauen, euen the Catholike Church representatiue, were the first fruites vnto God, and vnto the Lambe, sanctified in Christ the first fruites. These are those waue-loaues, Isychius Praes­byt, Hirrosol. in Leuit 23, Planius ergo Legislator suam demon­stran volens men­tem ab altero die Sabbati nume­rari praecipit 50 dies, Dominicum Diem procul­dubio volens in­telligi. Hic enim est altera Dies Sabbati. that are holy to the Lord, for Christ eur High Priest: Leuit. 23.20. and this offering be­came a sauour of rest, v. 18. as wee shewed v. 13. no­ting still the rest of this day. So as this selfe same day is so­lemnely proclaimed to bee an holy Conuocation; Therein no seruile worke is to bee done: & this to stand as a statute vn­repealable. Hereupon Isychius saith: Therefore the Law­giuer willing more plainely to expresse his minde, commanded them to reckon from the next day of the Sabbath 50 dayes, thereby willing without doubt the Lords day to be vnderstood. For this is that next day after the Sabbath. For which cause (sayth he) the Holy Ghost came not downe in any other day of the weeke, but in that day of the Resurrection, wherein the sheafe of first-fruits was waued before the Lord. Thus we see how the day of Christs Resurrection, is made solemne and sacred not onely by Christ himselfe, but by the Holy Ghost sent downe from heauen, sanctifying this day for holy Conuoca­tions, or publicke assemblies of Gods people for his pub­lique seruice, and this to stand as a perpetuall statute to the end of the world; hauing also euident and ample testimony from the Mosaicall Law, and those Euangelicall types. whence we conclude with M. Perkins his argument, in his Cases of conscience, pag. 113. That which is prefigured, is prescribed. But the Lords day was prefigured, Leuit. 23.10. therefore it is prescribed and instituted of God.

A third place wee haue Psal, 118.24: where the Prophet speaking ( v. 22.23) of Christs Resurrection, he addeth, This is the day, which the Lord hath made, we will reioyce, and be glad in it. This is a plane Propheticall institution of this day to bee solemnized vnder the new Testament. For first, the Lord hath made it, that is, appointed, and set it a part, by marking it out with a glorious worke. And secon­dly, it is so taken of the Church of God, who saith, We will reioyce and be glad in it, which sheweth the festiuity, & grate­full [Page 55] solemnity of the Lords day. And although many take this day for the whole time under the Gospell (as 2. Cor. 6.2:) yet none doe exclude or deny the particular acception of it for the Lords day. S ^t. Ambrose vnderstands this to be the Lords day, the day of the Lords Resurrection; which day (saith hee on Psal: 47, Titneus) hath its holines from the Lords Resur­rection. What shall I say of Circumcision, which was limited to the eighth day; loking vpon Christs Resurrection, which was the eighth day; Circumcision, being a singe of that holli­nes Christ brought vnto vs in the day of his Resurrection, who rose againe for our Iustification. But let this suffice. Thus hath the Lords day not onely reall institution by Christ himselfe, but also testimony from the Law and the Prophets. And thus, as Hugo saith, The fathers of the old Testament obserued the sep­tenary number, or the seuenth of Dayes, Wekes Moneths: Yeares wee of the New, the octonary number, or the eight day, to wit the Lords day, for the reuerence of the Lords resurrection, and of the sending of the Holy Ghost, Hugo in Psal. 1 [...]9.

Ob. But here it is obiected, that the Lords day hath noe diuine institution, but meerely an hamane and Ec­clesiasticall. For else how came it to bee instituted by Con­stantine the Great, who made a Law, and prescribed limits for the keeping of it? The like also did other Emperours, Princes, and States, Councels, and Synods in seuerall ages.

Answ. This is no good argument, that because pious Princes make Lawes for the keeping of the Lords day, ther­fore it is not of diuine institution. For so good Princes make Lawes against Adultery, &c. Therfore the forbidding of these sinnes is it not of diuine institution? King Darius makes a decree, that in euery Nation of his Kingdome men tremble before the God of Daniell, &c. therefore is not this Law of diuine institutiō: Thou shalt worsbip the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serue? And because Tyberius Caesar would haue the Romane Senate passe a Decree for the deify­ing of Christ, or ranking him among their Gods, therefor Christ was not God? whereupon sayth Tertullian, Ergo [Page 56] nisi homini placucurit, Deus non erit Deus: therefore if it doe not please man, God shall not be God.

But it became Christian Princes, when they saw how sub­iect the Lords day was to bee profaned with all licencious­nesse, and how prone carnall men were to leape ouer all the bankes and bounds, which God had set to keepe them in: for to helpe to make vp the breaches againe, and to strengthen the diuine ordinance by their humane and pe­nall constitutions, as wee see our noble Kings of England haue done, by name, our pious King Charles, whose raigne hath bene honoured with a religious Law for the better keeping of the Lords day, if lawes were as well kept, as they haue bene wisely, piously, and iustly enacted by our Progenitors.

Yet because, notwithstanding all Lawes, diuine and humane, this holy day of the Lord is for the generality of men little regarded, as not requiring the like sanctification of vs, which the Sabbath did of the Iewes: let vs further shew what a reuerend esteeme the ancient holy men in for­mer ages had, and what pious rules they gaue, concerning the religious keeping of this day. Wee haue noted some of their excellent sayings a little before: wee will adde a few more. And first wee obserue, that they euer did vse to call the Lords day, by the name of the Sabbath, Obseruamus sabbatum, Aug, Contra A­damantum. c. 15 hoc est Dominicam, in signum nempe aeterni sabbati: We obserue the Sabbath, that is the Lords day, for a signe of the eternall Sabbath. The same Augustine in his 95 sermon de Tempore, sayth, They which in the obseruation of the Sab­bath, doe not apply themselues to good works and prayer, which is to sanctifie the Sabbath, (and sanctification is where the Holy Ghost is) are like to the small flies bred of the mud, which disquieted the Egyptians. And elsewhere (vpon those words, Aug de Conseusu Euang. lib: 1. c. 77. Math. 24.20) Pray that your slight be not in the win­ter, nor on the Sabbath day, hee sayth, by winter is signified the cares of this life, and by the Sabbath gluttony and drunk­ennesse; which euil is therefore signifyed by the name of Sab­bath, because this was, as now it is, the wicked custome of the [Page 57] Iewes on that day to swimme in delicacies, while they are ig­norant of the spirituall Sabbath, For the Iewes doe seruilely obserue the Sabbath day vnto ryotousnesse. and drunkennesse. How much better were it for their women to spin, then on that day to daunce. And thus while they carnally kept the Sabbath, they knew it not, sayth hee. And Melius tota die foderent, &c. The men were better to digg all that day, then to tread is out in daunces and measures, Againe, the Sabbath (to wit, the Lords day) is more commaunded vs, then the Iewes. They celebrate the Sabbath seruilely, but we spiritually? And how spiritualy not in chambering & wantonnesse, not in gluttony & drūkennesse. For these are forbidden Christians any day, much more on the Lords day, For it were better to plough & harrow, to spin & card wooll, which in themselues are lawfull, then to doe those things on the Sabbath or Lords day, which christians should blush at, and be ashamed of to do at any time, as to dance, to reuell, to heare playes, to goe to masking and mumning, and the like, which are exercises fitter for heathen, then christians, for Bacchanalls, then such as celebrate the Lords Festiuall. How then is this day of the Lords to be kept? Neyther as the En­eratites, Aeriancs, and Aerians, who fasted all the Lords day but madly reueld on other festiuals. These are extreames and therefore to bee auoyded. How then? As the christi­ans did in Iustin Martyrs dayes of old, who sayth, Die solis, &c. On the Sunday, or Lords day, Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. are the christians assemblies of Citizens and Countrmen, where the writings of the A­postles and Prophets are first reade; then when the Reader hath done, the Master of the assembly the chiefe Minister vseth words of exortation, his inuiting them to the imitation of things honest. The richer sorte, who are willing, do contribute to the reliefe of the poorer, euery man according to his mind and meanes, and the Collecta, or collections are deposited with the chiefe Minister; he therewith succoureth the Orphans and poore &c. This is that day, wherein God created the world, and Christ rose againe from the dead. So hee. And Saint Chri­sostom vpon the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 16.1, Behold (sayth [Page 58] he) How fitly the Apostle rayseth his exhortation from the con­sideration of this day of the weeke, as being the fittest day, wherin to exhort vnto almes; as if the Apostle had sayd, Re­member what things yee haue obtained this day, vnutterable good things, yea the very roote and spring of our life stands in it. Not that it is a fit day onely for giuing of almes, but that it hath a rest, and is free from worldly affaires, and the mind being vacant from molestations is the apter & more inclinable to mercy, and it brings with it a great efficacy in the vse of the celestiall Ordinances. And Saint Augustine: Omni Die Dominico, &c. Euery Lords day come to the Church, and spend not the day in pleading, and brabbles, and idle chat, but with silence hearken to the word of God, and pray for the peace of the Church, and for the pardon of your sinnes, &c. And Bernard sayth. out of Esay. 58.13. He calleth the Sabbath (sayth hee) not onely a delight, but he addeth, holy and glo­ryous to the Lord. Nor let the Sabbath slipt away with sloth, but in thy Sabbath worke the workes of God. And in the Syno­dal Epistle of the second synod of Matiscon, wee haue these words: Custodite Diem Dominicum, &c. Keepe the Lords day, which hath a new brought you forth, and hath freed you from all sinnes; as being that day wherein Christ rose for our iustification. Let none of you bee vacant to minister fewell for suites in Law, let none plead causes, let none draw vpon himselfe such a necessity, as to compell the cattell to beare the yoake.. Be all of you taken vp with hymmes in pray­sing of God, being content in minde and body. Let euery one ha­sten to the next Church, & their humble himselfe on the Lords day with prayers and teares. Let your eyes and hands be all that day open to God. For that is a perpetual day of rest, that is made knowne in the law & the Prophets, being insinuated vnto vs by the shadow of the seauenth day. Iust it is therefore that wee doe vnanimously celebrate this day, by which wee are made that which before wee were not. Let vs performe to the Lord a free seruice, &c. Not that the Lord requires of vs, that wee should celebrate the Lords day with bodily ab­stinence; [Page 59] but hee requireth our obedience, by which, tram­pling all terrene actions vnder our feete, hee may mercifully lift vs vp euen vnto Heauen. If therefore any of you shall slight or contemne this our wholesome exhortation, let him know that for the quality of his demerit hee shall bee puni­shed of the Lord, and henceforth implacably vnder the sacer­dotall indignation. If hee bee a Lawyer, hee shall bee dis­missed of his pleading without recouery; if a Country­man or seruant, hee shall bee sore beaten with clubs: if a Clearke, or so, hee shall bee suspended six months from his Fraternity, &c. And in the Councell of Dingelfing On the Lords day let men bee vacant for diuine rest, and abstayne from worldly and profane businesse. Hee that this day shall doe any worke about the Cart, or other­wise, let his oxen bee confiscate. If he shall proceed on obsti­nately, let him be made a bondslaue. And Charles the great in his constitutions forbiddeth markets to be kept any where on the Lords day; nor any seruile workes to be done therein. We might bee infinite in such like instances of pious constituti­ons for the solemne and sacred keeping of the Lords day; but let these suffice by the way.

Onely one thing remaines to bee resolued, whether the fourth Commandement reach vnto seruants, as well as vn­to Masters of Families, some would restraine the Comman­dement onely to Masters excluding seruants thus farr, that in case a Master command his seruant any servill worke on the Sabbath, or Lords day, the seruant therein obeying his Master, is not answerable to God, as a trangressour of Gods Commandement, but his Master onely is in the transgres­sion for so commanding. This is a strange piece of Logicke: A Master in commanding his seruant transgresseth Gods Commandement: and yet the seruant obeying his Master therein, transgresseth not. Doth not the case hold a like in other relations, as betweene Prince and subiect, spirituall Pastours and People? yes say they. But how? Thus: God [Page 60] (say they) hath commanded all men to honour their Parents, & the Parents of their Country stands in the first, ranke-True who denies it? But what followes there vpon? This, say they: ‘The Sonne of God hath commanded all Christians to heare the Church, and vnder forfeiture of communion of Saints; but they that deny the Canons of the Church, or E­dict of the Prince, heare not the one, honour not the other: therefore they that transgresse eyther of these Constituti­ons, transgresse also consequently, though not immediate­ly, the commandements of God, yet neyther of both are transgressed by seruants, if they worke by their Masters commission, and not of their owne electon; for neyther doth the one Law, or the other, neyther the Canons of the Church, nor Edicts of Princes giue liberty and warrant to seruants to bee rebellious to their Masters touching poynt of seruice that day, more then others.’ To this purpose they argue, that deny the keeping of the Lords day to haue any de­pendance vpon the morality of the fourth Commandement. Here be prege reasons, which would not lightly be passed ouer. Therefore a little to examine the mettle of these mens reasons: first we must remember, that not only on the Lords day; seruants obying their Masters, in deoing seruile worke therein, are guiltles (for so they haue euation for it, by de­nying the Lords day to bee of diuine institution, and rest therein to be any morall duty) but they deny also, that the fourth Commandement did binde any Iewes, but onely Masters of familyes, and not those vnder them. For (say they) the Commandement was giuen onely to masters, and not to seruants standing in relation to their masters, in case they should impusote any seruile labour vpon them. It is true the Commandement was giuen principally and immediately to masters, that not onely themselues should keepe it, but they should looke their whole family kept it. Yet in case the Master should neglect his duty herein, and instead of commanding his family to keepe the Sabbath, should in­ioyne them seruile worke: doth not the Commandement take hold of the seruant? What? Is the seruant an Asse, or [Page 61] sott, to yeald blinde obedience to his master commanding against God? Or is he such a slaue, as hee hath not a soule to answere for to God, as well as his master? Or being his Masters seruant, is hee thereby, exempted from being Gods seruant? sayth not the Apostle, Hee that is called in the Lord being a seruant, is the Lords freeman? Likewise also hee that it called being free, is Christs seruant? Indeede the Masters sin is double, not onely in permitting, and communing but compelling, or commanding his seruant to worke, when God commands to rest: but yet the seruant obeying his master herein vniustly commanding, committes a single sin at least against God, if not also double, while he preferreth his earthly, masters Commandement, before his heauenly masters. But this (say they) is Petitio Principij, if Gods Commandement reach not to seruants. But we shew it doth, if seruants be not vnreasonable beasts, or blinde Asses. Nor ought the Masters Commandement to bee of force, yea it hath a meere nullity, if it bee contrary to Gods expresse Commandement. So that in such a case for a seruant to obey his Master, is against and aboue God to set vp an Idoll, which is nothing in the world, and such seruants slauishly obseruing Sabbatum Asinorum the Sabbath of Asses, do iust­ly deserue the whip for the Asses backe: or that censure forementioned in the second synod of Matiscon, If a seruant or rusticke doe breake the Sabbath, let him be soundly dry basted with clubs. But (say they) the sonne of God hath com­manded all christians to heare the Church, not to despise hir Canons, or Princes Edicts.

True. But is Christs command absolute, and without limitation, namely to obey Superiours actiuely, whatsoeuer they command right or wrong, for or against God? what if the Canons of the Church doe by mans Traditions dis­anull the Commandement of God, as of old the Iewish Sy­nagogue, and of latter times the Romish? Are such Ca­nons to be obeyed against Gods expresse Commandement? If the Pharisees and chiefe Priests make a Canon to punish with Excommunication, or Suspention, those that shall confesse Christ, or professe or preach his truth and fayth [Page 62] frely & faithfully: is it not disobedience to God herein to obey them, and through slauish feare rather to renounce Christ, then not submit to such wicked Canons.

The Iewes Corban freed Children fom honouring their Parents: and doe not they as well make voyd Gods Com­mandement, who in binding seruants to obey their masters commanding against Gods Commandement, doe thereby free them from Gods Commandement? And for Princes Edicts we all reuerence, and willingly imbrace and obey them. But without limitation? what if they command against God? what if they shall forbid by publicke Edict the free preaching of the word of God in any part of it, as such and such points of fayth and saluation not to bee handled, such and such heresies not to bee medled with by way of confutation? Are we not to answere in such a case, as the Apostle did, Whether it be meete in the sight of God to obey you, rather than God, iudge you; for we cannot but speake the thinges wbich we haue seene and heard? And Peter tels the Rulers boldly and plainely, Wee ought rather to obey God, then men. What? because Nebuchadnezzer erected his Image, and commanded all to worship it, and forbad to pray to any God, but to the King onely, for thirty dayes: must this Edict therefore bee obeyed? Noe surely. And why? Because it was against God; and therefore it ought to haue beene of no force to exact obedience of any. But what (will you say?) Must we be rebels, in disobeying our su­periours? No, it is one thing not obey, & another to bee re­bellious; superiours ought not to bee obeyed, if they com­mand against God; Yet this is no rebellion, where men are ready to yeald passiue obedience to their vniust cruelty, by not resisting it, though they derect and deny actiue obedi­ence to their vniust commands. Thus Daniel, thus the three Children did; the one desires rather to bee cast into the Lyons denne, the other into the hott fiery fornace, then to dishonour God, by bowing to the Kings Image. Thus all Gods true bred children haue, and will doe; they [Page 63] neyther dare obey vniust command contrary to Gods word, and a good conscience; nor yet rebelliously resist vniust pun­nishments; in both which they obey God.

But enough of this poynt, at least in this place, where we haue as it were by the way occasio­nally met with it, not purposely minded throughly to handle it, but onely as a branch of that morality of the Law of God, the whole bulke and body whereof is hewed at by the Antinomians, to cut it downe by the very rootes.

Onely let vs adde here a few reasons and motiues, Reasons why the Lords day is to bee sanct­fied. the more to strengthen, and prouoke vs to the more diligent obseruation of this great holy day of the Lord. One rea­son may bee taken from the comparison betweene christi­ans vnder the new Testament, and the Iewes vnder the Old.

How exactly were the Iewes bound to keepe the Sab­bath, as a memoriall of their deliuerance from Egypt, in token of their perpetuall thankefulnesse? How much more then are we thus bound to sanctifie the Lords day, in a per­petuall thankefull remembrance of our spirituall deliue­rance from the bondage of sin, sathan, and hell, ouer which Christ triumphed manifestly in the day of his Resurrecti­on? Secondly, Exod: 31.16.17. as the Sabbath day was giuen to the Iewes as a signe and meanes of their sanctification. So the Lords day in the due sanctifying of it in the vse of the meanes is a pregnant occasion of our sanctification, and that not only in regard of the same Ordinances attending vpon it, but as it is a perpetuall memoriall of Christs Resurrection and in the faith and fact whereof is begun here not onely our sanctifi­cation, but also our glorification and eternall Sabbath.

Ob. But if the Eternall Sabbath began in Christs Resur­rection, then what further vse is there of a seauenth day weekely to keepe Sabbath in? Euery day now, yea our whole life time is a Sabbath vnto vs; therefore to keepe a seauenth day still, is against the nature of the eternall Sab­bath [Page 64] hath begun in Christs Resurrection. And thus to keepe a seauenth still is to goe backe to the Iewish ceremony againe, which is abolished in Christs Resurrection.

Answ. Though the Eternall Sabbath began in Christs Resurrection, and is now eternally kept of Christ and of the Church triumphant: yet during the time of this life, which is measured by times and dayes, and in regard of the many corporall necessitys of it must bee maintained by the labours of euery mans particular calling in which regard the externall condition of christians differeth not from that of Gods people in the former Testament: our solemne keeping of the Sabbath is no lesse limited to certaine circumstances of time, as one day of seauen, then theirs was. Nor is this a complying with Iewish ceremonies againe. For their Sab­bath was in part typicall: but ours is now the true eternall Sabbath, kept of christians according to Christs owne Or­dinance, attempering it to the condition of our present ne­cessity, who must as well worke for the good of our bo­dies, Exod: 31.13.7. as solemnely rest for our soules good. And therefore Christs wisedome, being the same with his Fathers and his owne in the first institution of a seauenth day keeps still the same proportion, not altering the Commandement which sayth, Six dayes shalt thou labour, Only he hath altered the day because the typicall Sabbath must giue place to the true and eternall Sabbath which we now solemnly keepe on the first day, of the weeke, as it were the first fruites of our eternall Sabbatisme, in heauen with Christ, though our whole life otherwise is the true Sabbatisme begun.

Againe it is the market day of our soules, wherein wee come to Gods house the market place, Esay 55.2: to buy the Wine and Milke of the word without money, or money worth.

How is that? By hearing and harekning to Gods word, that truth whereby wee are sanctified, Iohn. 17.17. and to pray vnto him; thus by the Word and Prayer weare sancti­fied. Esay. 55.32: Harken diligently to me, and eate that which is good, and let your soule delight it selfe in fatnes; Incline your eares, and [Page 65] come vnto me, & heare, & your soule shall liue, & I will make an euerlasting couenant with you, euen the sure mercies of Dauid. Loe, the sanctifying of the Sabbath, or Lords day in a diligent vse of Gods Ordinances, is the meanes where­by the mercies of Dauid are made sure vnto vs. And it is remarkeable, how the Holy Ghost doth poynt out Christs Resurrection, by alledging and applying this place of the Prophet, Act. 13.34. as thereby not obscurely insinua­ting the sanctification of the day of the Lords resurrection by a diligent harkning to the word of God, and reuerend v­vsing of other diuine Ordinances & duties of that day. And were it not, that the Lords day did succeede in place of the Sabbath, the Sabbath day of the Iewes being abolished: what time for the meanes of our sanctification & saluation were left vnto vs? were it not for the Lords day, we should bee in a far worse case, then the Iewes of old, as being left without opportunity & meanes of sanctification, all which the Lords day ministreth vnto vs; without this, wee should haue no market day for our spirituall prouision, & merchan­dize of our soules, wherein to buy the pearle of the kingdome, and to supply all our spirituall wants. And therefore the not well imploying and improuing our prouidence and dili­gence vpon this market day, doth expose vs to that censure, Why stand ye idle in the market place all the day long? Such are they, that eyther idle or trifle out the Lords day imperti­nently, or such as prophane it with carnall pleasures, as fea­sting and banketing (a too common abuse especially among our greater Citizens) also reuelling and ryoting, playes and enterludes, idle chat and communication, dicing, carding, & many such vnchristianlike prophane pastimes, which Chri­stians should beware of & avoid all the dayes of the weeke, yea all the dayes of their life, much more on the Lords day, wherein the foot of our carnall affections should be turned a­way from doing our pleasure on the Lords holy day, calling the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord honourably, honouring him, not doing our owne wayes, nor finding of our own pleasure, nor speaking our own words. This is to delight our selues in the Lord, and so shall he cause vs to ride vpon the high places of the Earth, & feede vs with the heritage of Iacob; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

Otherwise, if the due sanctification of this day be neglected, farewell all true christianity. If the spirituall prouision of this day be not carefully lookt after, and brought in, and locked vp, and fitly disposed and distributed for all the weeke, we shall with the Prodigall bring our soules to feed one empty huskes. And for men to heare the word that day, and when they haue done, to goe home, and not ruminate and conferre of it, but to spend the rest of this day in idle, or godlesse exercises: what is this, but as if a man should buy prouision at the market to serue himselfe and his family, all the weeke, and goe presently the same day, and calling idle companions together, spend and squander all vpon them at one sitting, and so come empty home? What shall we say then of the Papists, that allow of their profaine markets this day, and for spirituall commodities they haue none, but such as are painted, or giue an empty sound, as their long La­tine Matiens and Masses, whereby they haue quite shoulde­red out the preaching of the word of God; a faire pretence by long prayers to keep out preaching, that scarce Sermons may take place in the forenoone, muchlesse any at all in the af­ternoone, least there should not bee time enough to make vp a Sabbath for Sathan, which they consecrate to him in all kind of exorbitances and profuse carnality; that soe they may be vacant for theaters, and dancing as Aug, speaks; or for Cards, Tables and reuelings, as Leo speakes, which is to keep the Sabbath of the golden Asse, as Aug. cals it, yea Sabbatum Satana, Satans Sabbath, for if it be not lawfull to doe the workes of our calling, which on the sixe dayes are lawfull: With what warrant can we do those things, which are sinfull, and therefore on noe day lawfull, as not comming within the compasse of any Calling at all? And if wee do any thing, to which wee haue not a lawfull calling, we are out of Gods Protection, according to that Ps. 91.11. who cōmands his Angels to keepe his Saints in all their lawfull wayes: but if men goe astray in the by paths of carnall and vnchristian courses, then Gods Angell is as ready with his sword drawn to cut them off; as Ex. 4.24. Num. 22.23.

A third reason and motiue to stirre vs vp to the more carefull and diligent sanctification of the Lords day, may bee taken from the evill fruits and consequents, which we see do grow from the neglect thereof. For it is easie to obserue, and it is an obseruation infallible, that where the greatest profanation of the Lords day raigneth, there all kinde of iniquity and impiety doth most abound among such a peo­ple. Now where is this profanation greater, then when Prayer, together with the powerfull Ministery and prea­ching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments are most neglected, and scanted? what maruell then, if in such places, where the bankes of the publike Ordinances, toge­ther with the fruite thereof, to wit priuate familie-duties are wanting an vniuersall deluge of all licentiousnes doe not ouerflow al? whereas on the contrary, where the Lords day is most duely and dutifully obserued and sanctified in a con­scionable frequenting the holy assemblies in publick prayer, hearing the word faythfully preached, the Sacra­ments duely administred, and the like: there is not onely a- beautifull face, but a sound body of religion to bee seene. Especially where a good Ministry and Magistracy are the ioynt pillars of the Corporation. So as from the right sancti­fication of the Lords day doth spring all holynes, and power of religion, where by God is honoured, the commonwealth it selfe is made glorious, as being established and combined with the most firme bonds of pure religion, the Crowne and security of Kings and Kingdomes.

I might hereunto adde many more motiues, which though they bee necessary for these licentious times (if as well the remedies could bee indured, as the maladies can­not) yet I forbeare at this time, as not so sutable to this short discourse, wherein I feare already I haue bene too tedious; though occasioned, if not rather inforced by the inportunate Antinomians, the enemyes of all true piety.

But to shut vp all in a word, let mee here giue the Rea­der one summary view of their absurd and impious Tenets.