I Begin a work whose hardest work is to begin; a work of the Sabbath: and the beginning of the Sabbath, which (like Fame) ‘—caput inter nubila condit, Virgil.’ must begin this Tract. A task intricate and obno­xious to many precipices; Davids curse I am sure to meet with, A way dark and slippery. I could indeed solace my self in this, that I walk not alone, and that on which side soever I fall, I shall have learned associates. But to erre for company, or for singu­larity, are to me alike odious. Truth I serve, and so farre as (that Primary light) Holy writ shall en­lighten me Truth will follow, not at all disanima­ted though the spark which should direct me to her seemeth to burn somewhat dimme, as being a porti­on of one of those three first chapters of Genesis, which were for their obscurity (with the Canticles, and some part of Ezechiel) by the Hebrews inter­dicted to be read of any under thirty years of age Orig. Pr [...] ­oem. H [...]. in Cant. Hieron. [...]pist. ad Paul. in bibl. Hier. Naz. orat. 7., and which hath set eminent Doctours, as well anci­ent as modern, at oddes. For whereas it is said, Gen. 2.3. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because [Page 2] that in it he rested from all his works which God created and made, it is by some supposed, that Moses re­garded not the time whereof, but wherein he wrote, by a Prolepsis, and that it was onely an intimation of the reason, why God imposed upon the Jews the sanctification of the seventh rather then of any other day; the subsequent of which glosse is the asserti­on, That the Sabbath was not, or commanded or observed, untill Moses his dayes; for the sustaining whereof they produce reasons specious, and autho­rity venerable.

1. Reason. B. White, pag. 46.First, There is (say they) no other means for us to understand what Gods will and act was Gen. 2.3. but onely divine revelation. But the holy Scripture neither maketh mention of any command of God given to Adam concerning resting upon the Sab­bath day, neither maketh any historicall narration of Adams, or any other the Patriarchs observation of the Sabbath day: now in cases of this nature Atha­nasius his rule is, Because the Scripture is altogether si­lent in this matter, we may be assured there was no such thing done.

2. Reason. Brerew p. 65.The Hebrew word [...] signifieth as well a pre­paration and destination, as actuall application to holinesse; as Exod. 19.10 Josh. 3.5. & 7.3. Jerem. 1.5.

3. Reason. B. White, ubi suprá.If God at that time whereof Moses wrote did give any command to Adam to sanctifie the Sab­bath, it must of necessity follow that the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise. But in Paradise there was no need of a Sabbath, where there should have been no toyl; no necessity of sanctifying any day to Gods worship, where every day should have been a [Page 3] day of rest, and the hole life a continuall Sab­bath.

God would not then impose the Sabbath as a law when he himself brake it, 4. Reason. D. Heilen. p. 9. for (according to Hie­rome and Catharinus) he formed Eve upon the seventh day, and so wrought upon it.

God imposed upon Adam in Paradise no other positive Law, 5. Reason. B. White, ubi suprá. then that of abstinence from the fruit of the tree of Knowledge.

It is probable that Jacob whilest he kept Labans sheep, 6. Reason. the Israelites while they were under the bon­dage of Pharaoh and his mercilesse taskmasters kept no Sabbath; but if it had been commanded sure it had been kept.

Lastly, it is said Nehem. 9. vers. 13, 14. 7. Reason. Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, &c. and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath.

The authorities they alledge are especially emer­gent from the Primitive Church.

Justin Martyr leadeth the way; Before Moses, Dialog. cum Tryphone. none of the Righteous observed the Sabbath.

Let them shew that the ancient Patriarchs did Sab­batize, is Tertullians adv. Judaeos challenge to the Jews.

All the Patriarchs before Moses were justified without the Sabbath, saith l. 4. c. 30. Ireneus

There was no observation of the Sabbath among the Patriarchs, as also none amongst us, so Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 4. Eusebius.

When there was no Scripture nor Law divinely in­spired the Sabbath was not consecrated to God, Fid. Orth. l 4. c. 24. Da­mascen.

Of late Adherers to this opinion the most emi­nent are Tostatus, Musculus and Gomarus.

[Page 4]In this array the arguments and authorities up­holding the Prolepsis are marshalled, yet is it not universally entertained: many there have been and are (and those of no mean note neither) who have applied themselves to the genuine and proper sense of the words, and from thence deduced the institu­tion of the Sabbath, from that very article of time whereof Moses wrote. And this interpretation I con­ceive most agreeable to the mind of Moses, for ma­ny reasons which shall exhibit themselves in their due place; for first I bend my self to encounter the objections formerly made, and to lay open where they are crazy or invalid.

Solut. of the 1. Reas.Divine revelation is indeed the best means to un­derstand Gods will and act: and though the Scripture doth not mention Gods expresse command to A­dam, though we reade it not said to him as after it was in the Law, Remember thou sanctifie the Sabbath day, yet a command we find; and there being then at that time whereof Moses wrote none on earth capa­ble of a command but Adam and Eve, it necessarily followeth that they received the command. For what is meant by Gods sanctifying of the seventh day, but the application of it to divine worship? Those things are said to be sanctified in the Law, which are applyed to sacred worship, saith 2 2 ae. qu. 22· a [...]t. 4. [...]la dicuntur in Lege sancti­ficari quae di­vino cultui applicantur. Aquinas: now if it was then applyed to sacred worship, sure it was by command.

Nor is the argument of force, The Scripture men­tioneth it not, Ergò It was not: many things were to the first Patriarchs commanded, which are not recorded. It is by farre the major part of learned [Page 5] men Athanas. de Sabb. & cir­cum. Genebrard. Chronol. l. 1. Zanch. de Ser. Bell. de v. Dei l. 4. c. 4. Pa [...]aeus Com. in Gen. 4. v. 3. Mercer. praelect. in Gen. Rawly Hist. l. 2. c. 4. S. 8. affirmed that God dictated and prescribed to Adam all circumstances of his worship, which by tradition past to his posteritie, and were in every se­verall family untill Moses observed; and it is in part evidently and infallibly confirmed by Scripture it self, for we reade that Cain sinned: but [...], Rom. 4.15. Where there is no law, there can be no transgression: for [...], Sinne is the transgression of the Law, 1. John 3.4. yet of this, or any other command concerning re­ligious duties, holy text hath not one syllable. Per­haps the command was not so solemn as after­ward, not vivâ voce, in an audible voyce, there being not the same reason; and yet a command there might be internall though not externall. God might by his guiding spirit direct Adam to sanctifie the seventh day, as he did both him and other Patri­archs to other observances, if Aquinas 1.2 ae. q 103. act. 1. Musculus in Gen. c. 4. v. 3. hath aimed right. It is credible, saith he, that the Patriarchs by divine instinct, as by an hidden and tacit law, were induced to worship God in a set and determinate form agreeable to the inward worship and signification of my­steries to be fulfilled in Christ.

The want of an Historicall narration of the praxis of those times, is also as weakly urged. You know Ab autoritate negativè nihil concluditur ex argumen­tis, Arguments drawn from silent authority con­clude nothing. An axiome never firmer then when applied to the history of the world, from the Crea­tion to the Law, the period of this discourse. There is no mention of Adams penitence after his fall, none of his sacrificing, of his performing any other pious [Page 6] exercises during his hole abode upon earth, none. What then shall we say? that he lived like an Athe­ist? never invoked, never praised God? We reade of no Parents that Melchisedech had: what shall we hold with the letter of S. Paul that he was [...] and [...], really whithout father or mother? [...] Heb. 7.23. He that in so compendious a story as th [...]s of Moses looketh for a full relation of every small circum­stance, is like to lose his longing, and may as wisely seek Pauls steeple in Hondius his map of the world. Abbridgements of stories are nets of a larger mash which onely inclose great fishes, [...], things worth mentioning; smaller fry, things of lesse con­sequence, escape them.

De Incarn. Verbi.Athanasius his rule is right enough it self, if it be not bowed by violence. Comparing the miracles of Christ with those of the Prophets, he demon­strateth the oddes to be this; Christ was born of a Virgin, so none of them; Christ made the lame to walk, the deaf to heare, the dumbe to speak, the blind to see, so did not they: For then (saith he) the Scripture would not have omitted it. Therefore be­cause the Scripture is altogether silent in the matter, it is sure there was no such thing done. The Father speaks of miracles, but I hope the observation of the Sab­bath was none, and therefore Athanasius stands you in little stead. My margent directs to the place omitted by the Bishop.

Solut. of the 2. Rea­son.The word [...] little also avails them: for be it granted that it signifies a preparation to holinesse; doth this preparation exclude application thereun­to? Nay doth not preparation imply application, are [Page 7] they not coordinate and coincident together? Exa­mine the places quoted, and see if they will not con­fesse as much. Exod. 19.10. Moses was commanded to sanctifie the Israelites the third day, that is, to prepare them, as you say: To prepare them? how? nothing but to have them in a readinesse, that they lasily wait the time or so? no there is more in it yet: application to holi­nesse you shall meet with positive, Let them wash their clothes, vers. 10. negative, Come not at your wives, vers. 15. A thing so clear as the very Hea­then were enlightned with it, and not onely in the generall decorum of it, which they couched under their Ite, missa est, or Procul ô procul este profani, Hence all prophane, before their sacrifices; but some glimpse they had even of those externall Mosaicall ceremonies I now mentioned: Preparatory lotions they had before they durst approch their sacred mysteries. Virg. Aen. 2. Aeneas would not so much as touch his Tutelary Gods, till he might rinse himself in foun­tain water. Abstinence also from the Nuptiall bed was at least for one night interdicted:

And though we reade in this Text onely of exter­nall preparatory rites enjoyned, yet must we know that they were but as significant Emblemes of that spirituall preparation, which should truly dispose the soul in a sanctified frame for the approching near that God which is clothed in majestie and honour. Apply that which I have now said for illustration of this portion of Exodus to those parallel places of [Page 8] Joshua, and there will onely remain that of Jeremie unanswered, where the Prophet is said to be san­ctified in his mothers womb; cap. 1. v. 5. which I confesse could no otherwayes be then in the preordination of God. But what? because the word signifieth Destination in Jeremy, must it needs inferre as much in Genesis? I see no such law imposed upon Interpreters: That of Jeremy could not without extreme violence be wrested to any other sense then that of Destination, which out of Gen. 2. is neither necessarily nor pro­bably emergent.

Solut. of the 3. Reas.I see no necessitie that the Institution, Genesis 2. must suppose it to be in Paradise, and before the fall, for it is not improbable (I determine nothing) that Adam sinned and was expelled out of Paradise the very day he was formed, as the Fathers almost universally have thought, from whose full consent in this point proceeded that Greek saying, [...], The same day he was created he fell.

Neither was Paradise (in my opinion) com­pounded of any such ingredients as would in no wise incorporate with a Sabbath: it was indeed a place exempted from the works both of toil and sinne, and therefore no otium to refresh the body, no Sabbath to sanctifie the soul, in respect either of the one or the other, necessary. And though the whole tract of time spent in that innocent condition might worthily seem a continued Sabbath, yet some parts and portion even of that time should (I conceive) have been allotted to a more solemn worship then others. For God imposed upon man a calling of husbandry: should he so incessantly [Page 9] have intended his tillage, as never to intermit, never to give over? should he have spared no time to exer­cise himself in the contemplation of his Crea­tour, the truest object of perfect beatitude? or could he simul & semel at one instant, intend both his vocati­on and Gods worship? God created in him the natu­rall appetite of food and sleep: Is it likely that Adam would have applied himself either to repast or re­pose, without some more then ordinary thanksgi­ving. It is by all confessed that in Adams heart the Law of nature was most perfectly implanted and imprinted; and as unanimously agreed, that to conse­crate some time to the worship of God was and is a member of that Law; nay more then so it must be certum aliquod tempus, some certain and determi­nate time, Tost. in Exod. 20. qu. 11. as the very Atlas of the Prolepsis Tostatus assureth us: which being granted it followeth that the state of innocency was no barre or obstacle to the seposing times, not onely occasionall, and pro renata, but set and constant, to the service of God.

That God framed Eve upon the seventh day, is a most horrible and grosse untruth, Solut. of the 4. Reas. and giveth the lie to Moses, or rather to the holy Ghost, who saith, Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, Gen. 2.1. and all the host of them, that is, all things visible and invisible, according to the Nicene Creed; and this was be­fore Gods rest on the seventh day: and evident it is that the hole second Chapter of Genesis, from the fourth verse to the twenty fifth, is but a larger nar­ration by way of [...], or postscript, of what was most remarkable in the third and sixth dayes work, and was for brevity sake omitted in the first chapter, [Page 10] but upon weighty cause mentioned in the second. For, as S. Hexaem. Hom. 11. Basil excellently, If Moses had onely said that God made man, thou mightest have thought that he made him after the same manner that he created brutes, plants, and herbs; therefore to denote to thee that thou oughtest to have nothing common with unreasonable creatures, the Scripture hath mentioned a peculiar and distinct work of God in framing thee.

Besides, it is most evident out of Genesis 1.27. that Adam and Eve were both created on the sixth day; Male and female created he them, not by Prolepsis (as they fancy) but really & truly upon that very day

That wherewith they would palliate this errour, is the second verse of Genesis 2. On the seventh day God ended his work: whence they collect that he wrought upon part of it (which meaning a learned Commentatour Mercer. in loc. acknowledgeth the Text will bear) and because Eve is the last work of creation whereof the Scripture maketh mention, they inferre that she must have been formed on the seventh day. But to uncase this foul errour, and to shew it in its proper deformities, is no hard task. What meaning the Text will bear, is many times not so considerable as what the Context Ex antece­dentibus & consequenti­bus colligitur verus Scri­pturae sensus, Aug. De doct. Christ. c. 31.: [...] or contradiction is for the Spirit of Truth no companion; nor will he own that sense which maketh him speak things re­pugnant. If in the end of the sixth day God beheld all that he had made, c. 1.31. and had finished the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, c. 2.1. what could be left for him to finish and actually to perfect on the seventh day? Well; but then there is an in­terfering, a jarring betwixt Scripture and Scripture, [Page 11] how shall they be reconciled? I answer, It is not amisse to acquaint you, that whereas the Hebrew readeth it, And on the seventh day God ended his work, the Septuagint and Samaritanes Seld. Marm. Arundell. render it, On the sixth day God ended his work: perhaps those copies which they followed expressed it so, or else their aim was to suppresse the seeming discord, which they knew not otherwise how to salve. A discord indeed I confesse there is, yet such an one as disturb­eth not the sacred harmony; yea, rather a discord elegantly gracefull. For you must know that in no operation the end is attained whilest the operation is in progression and untill it ceaseth In motu continuo quamdiu ali­quid potest mover [...] ulte­riùs non dici­tur motus per­fectus, A­quin. p. 1. qu. 73 art. 1.; rest being Per­ficientis perfectio & perfecti Scal. Exerc., The perfection of the perficient and of the thing perfected. Now because rest demonstrateth the motion consummated, there­fore God is said most properly to have perfected his work on the seventh day whereon he rested; so that the finishing and perfecting mentioned in this verse or period is no actuall operation, but a mere desisting à motu creationis. And indeed Moses giveth the ho­nour of the perfection of the world to both the sixth and the seventh day, not without great and weighty cause: to the sixth, to exclude all thought that God wrought upon the seventh; to the seventh, to assure us that he did not rest and give over on the sixth: For the end of the sixth day gave end to the work of creation and denihilation, and the begin­ning of the seventh gave beginning to Gods rest. Therefore it is said that On the seventh day God per­fected the work which he had made, viz. on the six dayes before; whence it is that Junius and Mercer In loc. render [Page 12] it in the preterpluperfect tense, Cùm absolvisset Deus, When God had now perfected his work, meaning that as soon as the seventh day arrived, it might be truly said, God had now perfected his work Ubi primùm dies septimus advenisset, verum erat de Deo dice­re, quòd jam complesset opus suam, Merc. in loc.: And per­fected it was undoubtedly on the sixth day; God did not abruptly break off till he had throughly perfect­ed all. I confesse the Jews tell us a pretty story Rabbi A­braham. au­tor libri Ze­ror Hammor (vel fascicu­lus myrrhae apud Bux­dors.) in Gen., How that God about the end of the sixth day was making Faunes, Satyres, and such imperfect creatures, and that the evening of the Sabbath overtook him so fast, that he was fain to leave them but half made up: and therefore on the Sabbath dayes these creatures usually hide them­selves in their kennels, not daring to look out. A per­fect Jewish fable, and by Mercer suspected to be ra­ther derived from Tradition and heare-say, then from any Hebrew Authour extant, because he could never in all his reading light upon him: for the satis­fying of the like doubt in others, I have troubled my margine with the Authours name as I find him cited by De Praestigiis lib. 1. c. 6. Sol. of the 5. Reason. Wierus.

That God gave but one positive law to Adam in Paradise, is neither in it self likely, nor in respect of repugnant Scripture credible: for is it not said that God put Adam into the garden to dresse it? was not this a command? Augustine De Gen. ad lit. l. 8. c. 8. holdeth clear it was so: if a command, then a law; for Lex dicitur à li­gando, A law is called a law because it bindeth Aqu. 1.2 ae. qu. 90., and every command is, so farre as it bindeth, a law. If then it was a law, it must be either merely naturall, or positive; if merely naturall, then immutable, still in force, and we must all, tag and rag, turn gardiners or plowmen: if it was positive, then their Prolepsis [Page 13] halteth on that foot. Consider the Law it self, and you shall see the positive accrue to the naturall by way of superfoetation; Man must be alwayes busie, alwayes in action, there is the naturall; his imploy­ment is limited to tilling of the garden, there is the positive law. But if Adams apostasie and fall was the same day he was formed, as many have thought, and is still disputable, this argument might well have been spared, because the command concern­ing sanctifying the Sabbath might have been given in his corrupt and vitiated estate.

If we should yield them, Solut. of the 6. Reas. what they fain would have, viz. that Jacob and the Israelites observed no Sabbath during their thraldome, yet shall they never be able to inferre from thence, that they had no command concerning it. For did they alwayes observe whatsoever was commanded them? Mo­ses said to Pharaoh in the person of God, Exod. 5. v. 1. Let my people go that they may hold a Feast to me in the wilder­nesse. Was not this Feast some solemn time conse­crated and commanded of God to be observed? no doubt it was; for will-worship is to God abo­minable: Did they keep this Feast? Certainly no. It is resolved by all Divines, ancient and modern, the Patriarchs before the Law were by God ap­pointed to offer sacrifice: Did the Israelites under Pharaoh keep this commandment? the Scripture answereth, No. God strictly injoyned that every male child eight dayes old should be circumcised: was this performed by the Israelites in the wilder­nesse? the Scripture answereth, No: there was not one circumcised all that while, and yet they [Page 14] abode there fourtie years. Now if they had upon such occasions a dispensation for not observing of other feasts, for not sacrificing, for not circumci­sing, might they not have one for the weekly Sab­bath also?

Solut. of the last Reason.To their last argument from Nehemiah, I say, The Sabbath was at the time of the law given made known to them, yet not then first, but in a more solemn manner then before. We have a saying, none more frequent: when the Sunne hath dispelled a cloud or mist, and sheweth it self in its brightnesse, we then say the Sunne shineth, and yet no man is so simple but knoweth it shined before, even while it was most befogged, though not with equall splen­dour: So the Sabbath is said to be made known to the Israelites upon mount Sinai, because it was then as it were revived, and proclai [...]d in more state and pomp then before. And if you restrain it strictly to mount Sinai, as the letter seemeth to import, you must of necessity offer violence to Exodus 16, where at the fall of Manna it is clear the Sabbath was made known before the Law pronounced on mount Sinai: And so the Prolepsis faileth in this her last refuge as in the former.

Having thus disarmed them of those Reasons wherewith they esteemed themselves sufficiently fortified, I now apply my self to their Authority, the Authority of men, many of them, singular both for learning and piety: But shall we without more adoe yield to bare Authority? Doth the end of dispute depend merely upon what they have said? May we not examine the matter yet a little further? [Page 15] May we not question whether these men spake as they meant, whether their arguments jumped to­gether? for did they alwayes so? No, if Hierome be of any credit; Veteres in­terdum co­guntur loqui, non quod sentiunt, sed quod necesse esse ducunt adversùs ea quae dicunt Gentiles. The Ancients are sometimes en­forced to speak, not so much what themselves think, as what they conceive may most non-plus the Gentiles. This was their policy against the Heathen, might not they use it also against the Jews, with whom they were in continuall conflict? If they spake as they thought, might not vehemency of dispute transport them to inconsiderate speeches in their heat, and through too eager opposition to one er­rour to incurre the contrary: The Ancients, Veteres dum unum erro­rem, omnium virium cona­tu, destruere adnituntur, saepe in alte­rum decide­runt. whilest might and main they endeavour to beat down one errour, many times fall into another. So Praefat. l. 3. Bibliothec. Sixtus Senensis. A thing too infallibly true; witnesse three of the foresaid Fathers, Justin, Ireneus, and Tertullian, who in their fierce bickerings with the Valentinians, Marcionites and Manichees, violently bare down their Chrysippean fate, and inevitable necessitie, but upon the ruines of that errour laid the founda­tion of the doctrine of Freewill, which afterwards was so augmented by the superstruction of Pelagius, and his Ape Arminius. If they writ in cool blood, did they throughly scanne and sift the point, did they ruminate upon what they delivered, or did it rather carelesly escape from them in passage? Quivis, vel doctissimus vir, aliter ha­bendus est cùm salurat quaestionem, & perstringit leviter; aliter cùm in ma­nus sumit, at (que) excu [...]it, Winton. Opusc. posth. de usuris. Every man though never so learned is one way to be esteemed when he onely glanceth upon the question, other­wise when he undertaketh to examine and discusse it throughly, saith our great Prelate. Lastly, it must be inquired, whether the question was started be­fore [Page 16] they delivered themselves thus; for if it was not, they are not so much to be regarded: For they often delivered things somewhat negligently, not doubting but what they writ was orthodox enough, because it had past once for currant till it came to the touch. Augustine hath no other shift to salve the Fathers aforesaid from Pelagianisme in the point of Originall sinne, and Freewill. Many things indeed go a while for granted, and without controul, which in tract of time are discovered to be of dangerous consequence, and then justly exploded; for men are wont, till they foresee the mischief which may ensue, to deliver things (as they took them) by way of frolick one from another, and so, in a plod­ding carelesnesse, Tacitus. Quò plures eunt, omnes sequuntur. Humanum est errare. which way most go all follow.

But all these exceptions laid aside, one there is from which no appeal will be admitted, It is natu­rall to man to erre. Men they were and might erre, yea and did (every one) in other things, why might they not in this? I speak not this to avile them, or abate any thing of the reverence we owe them; and if it be suspected that I bear them no good will, Of my self, (they were Epist. l. 2. Epist. ad Bez. Demeloquor deque meo ingenio, A communi Patrum con­sensu, nullâ cogente ne­cessitate, dis­sentire mihi summa est religio. Zanchy's words once, but shall now be mine) and mine own Genius I speak it, From the unanimous consent of the Fa­thers, where necessitie compelleth not, I am very scru­pulous to differ. No, my onely scope and intention is to tell you what Saint Augustine Epist. 19. hath told me, That humane authoritie, though never so learned, never so holy, is not to be trusted, unlesse it produ­ceth Canonicall Scripture to prove, or probable reason to demonstrate, what it saith. How farre the [Page 17] Fathers slipt in other things, is not cognoscible in this place; whether in the point in question they did yea or nay, is now to be debated: and that they did, I think it probable at least if not evident. For is it not said, God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it? What is this Blessing, but the dispen­sing a peculiar favour towards it? what this Sancti­fying, but a separation and consecration of it to ho­ly worship? If yea, what then shall hinder but that we think the Sabbath instituted in that very article of time whereof Moses wrote? shall this prodigi­ous Prolepsis? Nihil faci­liùs est quàm dicere, Tro­pus est, Figu­ra est, Modus quidam di­cendi est, Aug. de Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 10. o Nothing is easier then to cry out, O that is a Trope, a Figure, a peculiar manner of expres­sion. A strange wantonnesse in Expositours, to ap­ply Tropes devised upon necessity to places clear as the mid-day. That (according to Augustines Oratio fi­gurata est, quae proptiè intellecta, nec ad fidem, nec ad dile­ctionem, nec ad ullam aedi­ficationem accommoda­ri potest, ibid. rule) is a figurative speech, which being properly under­stood, can neither be applied to Faith, Charitie, nor Edi­fication. Somewhat fuller is that of Bellarmine; Oportet Scripturam intelligere secund [...]m verbor [...]m proptietatem, ubi non cogi­mur evidenti absurdo, De Bapt. l. 1. c. 4. The Scripture ought to be understood according to the true proprietie of the words, where we are not diverted by some manifest absurditie: and this he calleth, Commune axioma Theologorum, the universall tenet of all Di­vines; which I take to be granted on all parts, the rather because neither Chamier, Amesius nor any other (as farre as I have examined) hath accrimi­nated the Jesuite for it. Now lest we should mis­construe the word Absurd, he explaineth himself in another place thus, Nisi coga­mur ab ali­qua alia Scriptura, vel ab aliquo articulo fidei, aut certè à communi to­tius Ecclesiae explicatione, De Euch. lib. 1. c. 9. Vnlesse we be inforced by some other portion of Scripture, or other article of Faith, or the universall interpretation of the Church: Let this rule then judge us: I for my part compromise to [Page 18] be tried by it. God blessed the seventh day, and sancti­fied it, there is the Text: God did honour the seventh day, and consecrated it to his worship, there is the genuine and proper sense: and because in the tissure and series of divine story Moses hath inserted this sanctification of the Sabbath immediately next after the six dayes creation; why should we not con­clude that it was sanctified then, and in the same or­der of time whereof he wrote? why should we not take Moses his meaning as we find his words? Is there any portion of Scripture, any article of Faith, the generall explication of the hole Church repug­nant to it? Is there any absurdity compelleth us to think otherwise? Ostendant, let them shew it; which till they do, let them give us leave to hold our first opinion, to which the absurditie of the Pro­lepsis hath compelled us.

1. Absur­ditie.Absurd it is: for it is clear the Patriarchs had a Sabbath; and that they observed the seventh day Sabbath is evident from the reasons thereof com­mon to both times.

They had a Sabbath: For the Law of Nature instilleth this notion, Habet ve­nerationem [...] justam quic­quid excellit, Cic. De Nat. Deor. l. 1. That (as every thing else which excelleth, so especially) God Paramount and superlative in excellency is to be worshipped; as also, That to the performance of this worship, certain times are to be Aqu. 2.2 ae. q. 122. art. 4. deputed. Is it likely that the Patriarchs failed in so necessary a dutie? was Gods Church then so supinely governed, or indeed so not governed at all, that no time was set apart for solemn assemblies? There was a consecration of Materials for sacrifices, Gen. 7. [...]. whereof (beasts therefore [Page 19] distinguished by clean and unclean) a consecration of Persons, who; a consecration of Places, where: was there none of Times, when? assuredly yes; and therefore S. De Civ. Dei. l. 15. c. 7. Augustine hath put the Quando, as one of those circumstances wherein Cain might have been deficient: So a Sabbath they had.

The seventh day Sabbath they had. Look into the Essence, the body and soul of that Sabbath (as Part. 2. p. 67. Brerewood calleth them) what are they but Va­cation or Rest from bodily labour, and the Sancti­fication of that rest by dedicating the soul to Gods worship? Were the bodies both of man and beast before the Law of a more brassie and adamantine durablenesse then after? were they not conditio­ned, not attempered alike? was not the sweet re­pose of lucid intervalls equally necessary and wel­come to both? Did not devout sequestration to pious exercises as well sute and become the souls of them as of these? Look especially into the end peculiar to it, as the seventh from the Creation; what is it but to eternize the honour of the Creati­on in indeleble memory, and that whilest man is amused with admiration of so miraculous a stru­cture he may be excited to a gratefull recognition of the goodnesse of God, who created all these things for man, and onely man for himself? Is not this benefit of Creation common and universall? do not all participate of it, but the elect especially and inexplicably? Had not the Church before Moses as ample a share in the blessings which result from it, as that since? and ought it not then as freely, as frequently to celebrate its sacred Festivall? If then [Page 20] before and since the Law there were the same rea­sons, sure there was also the same thing observed, yea and the same commanded; for from the Rea­son to the Law, from the Cause to the Effect, from the End to the Means, is a solid argument, and never faileth but when that end may be acquired by a bet­ter means; and impossible it is to demonstrate how the tyred bodies both of man and beast could have been more charitably provided for, Gods solemn worship in a more sweet decorum performed, and the memory of the Creation better preserved from the immerging deluge of time, and profanenesse, by any day other then the weekly Sabbath, the day which God indigitated for the same purposes by his own example; an example equivalent to a Law: For though there had been no vocall, no verball institution of the Sabbath, yet Adam and the suc­ceeding Patriarchs (who had a view and clear no­tion of all Gods works, their orderly existencies, and exact consummation; but especially who were manuducted and guided by an inerring spirit) could not but collect from Gods example Omnis actio Dei nobis pi­etatis & vir­tutis est re­gula, Basil. Ascet. the analo­gicall equity for man to imploy six dayes in the works of his calling, and to interferiate the seventh, consecrating that to religious duties. And there­fore that main Argument from the want of a so­lemn Institution, is but like a ruffled arrow, that maketh a great noise in the aire, but falleth short of the mark: For the controversie is not de Modo, neither of the command, whether Internall or Ex­ternall, nor of the observation, whether voluntary or imposed by precept; but de Re, whether it was [Page 21] or observed or commanded yea or nay: that it was observed, the equity thereof common and agreeable to both times evinceth; and observed it could not be otherwise then in obedience to command, either prolated or tacitely inspired by the holy Ghost: for impute we must not to those sanctified men supersti­tious and will-worship. If then the Sabbath was both observed and commanded before the Law, why might not the command arise out of Gods blessing and sanctifying the seventh day, mentioned Gen. 2.3? why should we not rather embrace the proper and grammaticall sense of the words, then resort to a peerlesse and senselesse Prolepsis that hath neither fellow to associate, nor reason to strengthen it?

It hath not its match in the hole sacred volume, 2. Absur­dity. which is another note of its absurdity: There is not one Prolepsis (of such an Institution, Medul Theol. lib. 2. cap. 15. saith Amesius) of any Institution at all (so I, and yet I doubt not to find many seconds.) One place there is, I grant, which at the first blush seemeth to perswade the contrary: but upon more mature consideration it exhibiteth nothing lesse. The text is, Exod. 16.32. The words these, This is that which the Lord com­mandeth, fill an Omer thereof (viz. of the Manna) to be kept for your generations, &c. And as the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testi­mony to be kept. D. Heilen, part. 1. cap, 1. p. 10. Lo here (say they) an Institution of the Lords related by anticipation, as the former was: for how could Aaron lay up a pot of Manna to be kept before the Testimony, when as yet there was neither Ark nor Tabernacle, and so no Testimony before which to keep it.

[Page 22]An Institution indeed I see here, but no Antici­pation, nor can I without your spectacles: I say, no Anticipation of the Institution. For might not (I pray) this command, this Institution, be dictated to Moses at the same time whereof he wrote? might not the precept be given now, though the executi­on of the precept was adjourned? nay, is it not most likely it was so? for where in the hole bible meet you with any injunction concerning it but here: touching the building of the Tabernacle, and the or­dering every thing else appertaining to it, God did exactly lesson Moses on the mount, but of the fil­ling the pot of Manna, and placing it before the Testimony, no hint at all was given there, nor any where else but here onely. And though we should grant that this command was given after the Taber­nacle finished, yet cannot the mentioning of it here be properly said to be by Prolepsis. This narration taken hole and together is (I confesse) mentioned by Prolepsis; not so the parts of it: Hole and Part have not things so common betwixt them, that what belongeth to the hole, Quicquid to­tius est, idem & partis. belongeth also to the part. A total Prolepsis of an entire story before another there may be, and yet no partial of one part of that story before another: the parts may be marshalled in their due order, though the hole be antedated. All that series of Divine story, from Genesis to Job, may be said to be related by Prolepsis; for it is the currant opinion that Job was comtemporary with Jacob and Joseph: but improper it were to say that the fall of Manna, the giving of the Law, the building of Solomons Temple, and such particulars, are, in re­spect [Page 23] of the history of Job, set down by way of Pro­lepsis. Prolepsis onely aimeth at what is next her; she beholdeth not things remote: So it is in this text; the verses from the 27 to the end of the chap­ter constitute a narration distinct, and in a canton by it self. For Moses having, in the former 26 verses, reported so much of the history of Manna, as was peculiar to that time whereof he wrote, thought it not amisse to superadde what else concerned it (though he delayed a while the ensuing occurrents, which should have been precedents to it) because it being not much he had to say, and that so homoge­neal with what went before, he was resolved to take now an ultimum vale of it: therefore he telleth you of an after ordinance of God, concerning the fil­ling an urn with Manna, the disposing of it before the Testimony, the execution of that command by Aaron, and lastly the duration of the use thereof by the Israelites fourty-yeare; which last is supposed to be the supplement of Joshua or Eleazar. If now you consider this digression, abstracted from the en­suing story, you will find the hole preposterously re­lated, and yet the parts not at all inordinate; and if you look wistly upon Calvines In Exod. words, you shall find him not repugnant to what I have here deli­vered.

Lastly, it is absurd: Last Ab­surdity. for there can no solid reason be given why Moses should by a Prolepsis of about 2670 years insert this Institution. Brerew. p. 66. It could not be to instruct the Israelites, that Gods resting from his works on the seventh day was the reason why he had selected and appointed by his commandment [Page 24] given to them that day rather then any other to be sanctified for his Sabbath. Indeed if the fourth com­mandment had onely mentioned the seventh day to be the Sabbath, without more ado, and had supprest the reason, Moses had had fit occasion to give them here this observation: But seeing that Reason was fully and with indeleble characters ingraven in the Decalogue, it had been mere supervacaneous and impertinent tautologie to recite it here; especially considering it is the most received opinion, that Mo­ses compiled the history of Genesis after the Law was promulgated on mount Sinai, and so this reason was no news to them.

If any, notwithstanding these grosse and palpable absurdities, seemeth desperately enamoured of this forlorn and despicable Prolepsis, enjoy her he shall without me his rival, I envy him not.

Come we now to survey that little which the Divine remembrancer hath afforded us of the actual observation of the Sabbath before the Law; where­of two onely examples are extant, the one for the observation notable, the other for the violation.

For the observation, we reade, Exod. 16.22. when the Israelites had on the sixth day gathered twice as much Manna as on any other day before, the Rulers of the Congregation came and told Moses, and he said to them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord: We do not find here that the Israelites were amused at the word Sabbath, that they expostulated with themselves (as before concerning Manna) what it should be; no, they knew well enough [Page 25] what it was, with the Rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord they had been long acquainted, it was no novelty to them; the new attendance, and long train of strict observances that now waited on it were the things so puzzled, so possest them with wonder of a How is it changed from what it was? Quantum mutatus ab illo? Their old wont was to dresse their necessary viands upon the Sab­bath, and being now interrupted, now disturbed in their accustomed practice, by an uncouth innovation of Bake that which you will bake to day, and seethe that which you will seethe, and that which remaineth over lay up to be kept untill the morning, well might they be in a study, well demand a reason of this change. And whereas it is by some stiffly affirmed, that the Jews did bake their Manna on the Sabbath day, an opini­on ascribed to Theophilus Brabourn, Heilen, p. 1. pag. 108. the first (as my Authour telleth me) that looked so near into Moses his meaning; he must know, that in Opticks, amongst other requisites to perfect discerning, justa distantia, Bacon. Persp. Dist. 8. a fit distance, is one; and M ^r Brabourn might perhaps by looking too near see to little: where the fault was, whether in this, or in some defect of the organe (his understanding) or through what other cause, I not dispute; sure I am that an hallucination, an errour of the sight there was, and that a grosse one. The pa­raphrase they give of this Text, Bake that which you will bake to day, &c. is this, As much as you conceive will be sufficient for this present day, that bake or boyl as you use to do, and for the rest lay it up to be baked or boyled to morrow: and to this interpre­tation they the rather betake them, because the Isra­elites laid it up as Moses bad, and it did not stink; [Page 26] now (say they) it had been no wonder at all, that it did neither breed worm, nor stink, had it been ba­ked the day before: Things of that nature, so pre­served, are farre enough from putrifying in so short a space.

Not to dwell long in discussing this point: They have mistaken both Gods miracle and Moses his meaning. Gods miracle; for the baking or boyling excludeth not the miracle of its not putrifying: things so dressed are indeed the lesse disposed to cor­rupt; therefore the putrefaction which Manna con­tracted by procrastination on other dayes, not­withstanding the same order taken for preservation of it by baking and boyling, was the greater miracle: and because it tainted against nature, and miraculous­ly reserved upon other dayes, Gods ceasing to work the same miracle upon the Sabbath might it self seem a miracle. The mind of Moses they have not reacht, whose words resolve themselves into this construction, What you mean to bake, bake to day, what to seethe, seethe to day, and what remaineth (not unbaked or unboyled but) of that which you have baked, or boyled, more then sufficient for this dayes food, lay up for you to eat to morrow: and therefore Hierome hath rendred it, Quodcun (que) ope­randum est facite, Whatsoever belongeth to the dres­sing of the Manna, dispatch it now. But to put it out of all doubt, that this errour may never read­vance, God himself, vers. 5. commanded Moses that the people should Prepare that which they bring in, and it should be twice as much as they ga­thered daily: what was this Preparing but dressing, [Page 27] but cooking of it? so the English will bear; and by a word of the same energy and signification it is ren­dred in, I am sure, most Translations; so the Septua­gint, so Hierome, so the Spanish, so the French: a thing so manifest, as the very Friday was thence de­nominated [...], the Preparation to the Sabbath.

For the violation of the Sabbath, we have it re­corded vers. 27. that there went out some of the people on the seventh day to gather, and they found none: this I conceive most likely to have reference to the chap. 18. v. 12.

Now, because it is held by some that the primum esse and first dawning of the Sabbath began at this fall of Manna, though I hope I have already suffici­ently proved the contrary, I would further know, why it should begin then, and but then: was it to chalk out to the Israelites the precise seventh day from the Creation, whereof they were at that time ignorant? It could not be; for of the seventh day whereon God rested they were not, they could not be ignorant: in some profane and irreligious houses it might perhaps have been lost, but in others more piously affected it was certainly preserved. For it is most undeniable, and irrefragably true what S ^r. Wal­ter Raleigh Hist. lib. 1. p. 1. c. 8. s. 6. hath delivered (and it is in substance affirmed by many others) That if the story of the Creation had not been written by divine inspiration, yet it is manifest, that the knowledge thereof might by Tradition (then used) be delivered unto Moses, by a more certain presumption, then any or all the testimonies which profane Antiquitie had preser­ved, and left to their successours. And this he pro­veth [Page 28] by the light which Moses might have, either by Cabala or letters: For that the most notable oc­currents of every severall age were transmitted downwards by tradition and heare-say, is without all controversie Basil Schol. in Psal. 77.2.; and for letters, it is so clear they had the benefit of them, as some have not set down content to believe that the prophesie of Enoch, men­tioned by S. Jude, was written; and that what Jose­phus relateth of the Pillars errected by the posterity of Seth, is true; but they conceive also that Adam and all the succeeding Patriarchs compiled the hi­stories of their own times. But how Moses attain­ed his knowledge, I leave to the disquisition of them who affect curiosities: yet this give me leave to note as received amongst the best Divines, That the holy Ghost was not so much an intelligencer, as a directer and guide to Moses in the framing the history of Genesis. For the omniscient Wisdome, foreseeing that it would not be alwayes safe to make Tradition the perpetuall depositary of so rare & choice a jewel as the story of his Primitive Church, which might either through carelesnesse loose part of what was betrusted to her, or under colour of sole possessing the Truth, vend counterfeit and sophisticate stuff, thought it necessary for the good of his Church, that a set and certain story of the first times should be compiled: to which purpose he selected Moses as his Amanuensis and Register, aiding him extraordi­narily with his holy Spirit, by whose assistance he was enabled to distinguish truth from fables, which had by surreption intruded; exactly to describe ma­ny minute circumstances of time, place, persons, [Page 29] names, &c. which memory was not able to com­prehend, and to digest it into that perfect order wherein we now see it. So that one way or other, either by tradition or letters, or both, the precise seventh day could not at that time have been lost or forgot, and consequently that no cause for the Sab­bath to begin at the fall of Manna. And was there any other? what? To be a preamble and preparati­on to the subsequent Sabbath? this would be pro­ved. A preparation to the after strictnesse of the Sabbath it was, that I confesse; not to the Sabbath it self, this I deny: an introduction it might be to the solemnity of the Sabbath, which began after, not so to the Sabbath it self, which was long before. For though it was but in its minority, but magni nominis umbra, a very shadow of the after celebrity, yet a Sabbath it was, and the seventh day Sabbath too; and this not my singu­lar assertion, but the consent of the most profound Doctours, as well ancient as modern. So the Fa­thers.

Origen, Quae in Le­ge post hac praecepta sunt de sabbato, haec nimirum anticipans Job, & ipse implevit, & filios implere docuit, Hom. sup. Job. c. 1. v. 5 What was afterward commanded in the Law concerning the Sabbath, the same Job both obser­ved himself, and taught his children to do the like.

Cyprian Septenarius hic numerus à conditione mundi autoritatem obtinuit, &c. De Spiritu sancto., This septenary number gained Authority from the creation of the world, because the first works of God were made in six dayes, and the seventh was dedica­ted to rest as sacred; it being honoured with the solemni­ty of a command, and entitled to the sanctifying Spirit.

[Page 30]Basil Per [...]ectae qu [...]e [...]s & re­missioni [...] pec­catorum si­gnum est se­ptimus à pri­mo [...]ciis ge­nerationis dies, Hexaem., The Sabbath, which was the seventh day from the first creation, is a type of our perfect Rest in the re­mission of our sinnes.

Nazianzen Creatio principium à die Dominico accepit; ideo liquet, quòd septimus ab ea dies Sab­batum effici­tur, nimirum cessationem ab operibus ferens, In Nov. Dom., The Creation began on the Lords day as is evident, because the seventh from it is made the Sab­bath bringing rest from labours.

Athanasius Quamdiu prior aetas & cr [...]atio vim su [...]m & efficaciam obtinebat, tam diu Sabbata suam observationem habuere, De Sabb. & Circum., As long as the first age or Creation was inforce, so long the Sabbath was observed.

Epiphanius Contra Ebionaos, p. 73. Tò [...]. mentioneth a twofold Sabbath un­der the old Law: the Naturall or Weekly, which was defined from the Creation; the Legall or Cere­moniall, which was enjoyned by the law of Moses.

At the heels of the Fathers follow the School­men, who busying themselves about nicer subtilties have left us little of their opinions concerning the Sabbath.

Alexander Halensis, Part. 3. quaest. 32. memb. 3. art. 1. the irrefragable Doctour, though he thinketh the Sabbath was not observed by virtue of any precept before the Law, yet he granteth that it was inspired as a thing meet and fit to be observed.

All these before Ambrose Catharine; Com. in [...] he then not the first that understood Moses according to the letter, nor yet the last, no not of his own Partie.

Genebrard, In Paradiso fuit Sabbati sanctificatio, quod & observatum toto Legis naturae tempore tradunt Hebraei & Lyranus in Gen. 7. Chron. ad annum Mundi. 1. The Sabbath was sanctified in Para­dise, which was also observed all the time till the Law [Page 31] promulgated, as the Hebrews and Lyranus upon Gen. 7. deliver. And in another place he telleth us out of Rabbi Abraham that Job did observe it.

Cornelius à lapide, Patet Sab­batum insti­tutum fuisse & sancitum primitus non à Mose, Exod. 20. sed longè an­ter [...]ùs, pu [...]à ab origine mundi. It is manifest that the Sab­bath was instituted and established, not first by Moses, Exod. 20. but long before, to wit, from the beginning of the world. Salianus also in his Ecclesiasticall An­nals, doth at large refute the Prolepsis as absurd.

As for Protestant writers, whether they be Lu­theranes, Calvinists, or our own English, we dare vie it with the Anticiparians, and give them oddes, two for one at least, and bate the preciser sort too.

Luther Sabbatum ab initio mundi desti­natum est ad cultum Dei, Com. in Gen. himself shall lead the van, The Sabbath was destined from the beginning of the world to religious worship. Baldwin, Sabbatum ab initio mundi ob­servatum est, Cas. Conscien. circa Fest. l. 2 c. 13. Cas. 2. The Sabbath was observed from the Creation. Calvin in Exod. apud Praelect. de Sabb. Prideaux.

Gualter, Non dubiū quin Patres ante legem diligenter observarint Sabbatum, in Matth. Doubtlesse the Fathers before the Law diligently observed the Sabbath.

P. Martyr, In Gen. 2. That people rest from labour one day in the week, did not onely appertain to Moses Law, but had beginning from Gen. 2.

Zanchy, Ego quidem non dubito, &c. De Creatio­ne Hominis, l. 1. I doubt not (mine own I relate without prejudice to others opinions) I doubt not, I say, but the Sonne of God in humane shape was all this seventh day busied in most holy colloquies with Adam; but he fully revealed himself to him and Eve, shewed him how and in what order he created all things, wisht him to medi­tate upon these works, and in them to praise and acknow­ledge the True God his Creatour, & taught him that after his example every seventh day, all labour set aside, he should spend in this exercise of Pietie, &c. What could modesty her self more modestly assever? he doth [Page 32] not imperiously obtrude for truth what he saith, he onely telleth you his own conceit; and it hath ever been permitted for men in such cases as this, both to think what they will, and speak what they think, as the Historian saith. Can any therefore but wonder that the bare delivery of a private opinion, so soberly without incrochment upon others liberties, should gain the Authour no better esteem then to be reckoned amongst lying Legendaries and fabulous Rabbines? What Zanchy was, his works speak him: a learned and good man, in that repute he lived, in that he died. I never heard him defamed for a Pa­lephatus or Tale-coyner till now, and I hope never shall again.

Catech. Part. 3. Ursin, The Sabbath was commanded from the be­ginning of the world by God unto all men.

Decad. 3. Serm. 5. le Sabbat. este observé, &c. Bullinger, The Sabbath was observed from the beginning of the world by a law naturall and divine.

Thes. 33. art. 2. Prae­ceptum Sab­bati sancitum fuit in ipsa mundi crea­tione, etiam ante hominis Lapsum. Beza, The Precept of the Sabbath was established in the very Creation of the world, even before mans fall; and elsewhere he saith that Job did sanctifie at least every seventh day. A saucy fellow to controul Justin Martyr his better; and therefore is taught manners by my Authour: D. Heilen. p. 1. pag. 58. Hence forward he must know his distance. Comparisons (Gentle Sir) the Proverb saith are odious; therefore this excur­sion might (no disparagement to your discretion) have been spared. Yet hath your luxuriancy erred not more in civilitie then moralitie: you impute this opinion to Beza as a device of his own, which were it true, yet your presumption exceedeth your knowledge: for how, I pray, is it possible for you [Page 33] to be assured of this, unlesse Beza had either me­diately or immediately revealed it to you? and if he did not, you were very rash, very ill advised, to father it on him, when as I have proved he might probably enough have derived the opinion from Origen, or R. Abraham, if not from others.

Junius, Deus insti­tutum Sabba­ti exemplo suo ac cessa­tione, &c. Anal. in Gen. 2. God gave Testimony of the Institution of the Sabbath by his own exemplary Rest, and by Instituting it in the Church, that Adam and Eve (then living) might acknowledge that day to be holy by the Ordinance of God.

Pareus, Deus in pri­ma creatione Sabbati san­ctificationem sanxit, & haud dubiè in familiis sanctorum Patrum sedu­lò observata fuit, Com. in Gen. God sanctified the Sabbath in the very prime Creation, and doubtlesse that sanctification was observed in the Patriarchall families.

I could tire both the Reader and my self, should I amasse all foreiners, whose suffrage hath been gi­ven for this Patriarchall Sabbath; if any desireth fur­ther authorities, I transmit him to Rivet or Waleus, who can furnish him completely.

To come home and encounter Tostatus with one of our own, in dignitie of Order a Bishop, in that his Match, and for learning so beyond him, as (if I might use your libertie of comparison) I might say he is but another Didymus, a mere scribbler to this man. The beginning of the Sabbath, saith he, Winton. Cate­chist. Doct. in 4. praecept. was in Paradise before there was any sinne, and so before there needed any Saviour, and so before there was any ceremony or figure of a Saviour.

I could produce Perkins, Willet, Babington, Amesius, &c. all famous lights of our Church, and that most incomparable piece, the Practice of Pietie; but because it will perhaps be thought that their af­fection [Page 34] was better then their judgement, I forbear them, and the rather because also our most Ratio­nall adversaries begin to reel towards us: Brere­wood confesseth it to be instituted in Paradise, p. 63. which is as much as any ever affirmed; for accord­ing to the Canonists, Leges instituuntur cùm pro­mulgantur, Dist. 4. can. In istis tem­poralibus. Laws are then instituted when they are promulgated: and though he explaineth himself af­terward, denying the commandment to be then instituted, yet this he acknowledgeth that Gods resting from Creation (his Sabbath) and resting in himself (the sanctification of it) might be exem­plary, though not obligatory to men to observe the Sabbath then. Nor doth Praelect. de Sabbato. Prideaux vary much from him: which is enough, for if it be granted that Adam or the Patriarchs observed it, we shall soon discover a command.

Having thus laid down the Arguments which support the Prolepsis, and to every one fitted the proper solution, having also set before you those reasons which most seem to advantage the Gram­maticall sense, and having with Authoritie encoun­tred Authoritie, I desire now nothing more then a neutrall Judge, and that this difference may have the same decision which Aristippus Diog. Laert. in vit. Arist. advised in another case, Mitte ambas ad ignotos; Let disin­teressed Arbitratours end it. And thus I have fini­shed my first stage.

THe precedent discourse was spent in the discovery of a Sabbath before the Law; a time (for so much as concerneth Gods externall worship) nearest allied to Varro's [...] or uncertain time before the Ogygian flood. Apud Censo­rinum. Our next station must be under the Law, a time more enlightned with the ray of divine Story then the former: yet is not the light, even of this time, so uniform, so evenly diffused, but that some opake parts are therein discerned. For though we are not now (as before) at a losse for a Sabbath, yet doth not the Sabbath we discern shew it self in so perfect lineaments and just proportion, as excludeth all di­versitie of opinion concerning it. The questions in­deed which relate to it are neither very numerous, nor absolutely necessary to be discussed; yet as they are by accident subservient to my ensuing tract, an elucidation I must and will afford them, according to that order wherein method disposeth them, which I take to be this.

Some result from the precept, some again from the practice: from the precept, Quis, Quibus, Quid.

Quis, Who gave the precept? Who promul­gated it? And this question is not peculiar to the fourth precept distinctly taken, but onely as it is a member of the decalogue, whereof the question [Page 36] is especially made: for controverted it is, whether the ten Commandments were on mount Sinai promulgated by Gods immediate voyce, or the mi­nistery of his Angels, or one or more. And not un­worthily: for Moses seemeth to attribute it to God himself; but Stephen, Acts 7. vers. 38.53. and Paul, Gal. 3.19. and Heb. 2.2. to the Angels: in regard of which specious opposition, eminent and famous men have been diversly inclined: some to Moses are propense, for these reasons.

First it is said, Dixit Jehova Elohim, God spake these words, not an Angel create: and though the word Elohim is once (and but once) applied to the Angels in the plurall, but never in the singular num­ber, as Psalm 8. yet here it can have no such signi­fication: for the verb is Dixit, and the pronoun Ego, both singular.

Secondly, the person speaking saith, I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt; but an Angel create did not deliver them out of Egypt.

Lastly, Saint Paul himself saith, that it was the voyce of Christ which shook the earth, Heb. 12, 26. Therefore where it is said, Acts 7.38. that Moses was with the Angel in the wildernesse, the word Angel must not be understood of an Angel create, but of Christ, who is often called both an Angel and God in similary places, as Gen. 31. vers. 11, 13. and 48.15. Exod. 3.2. in all which places the word Angel can mean no other person then Christ. Thus farre Zanch. de tribus Elo­him. l. 2. c. 3. Zanchy; but short still of the full solution. For though Acts 7.38. the word is Angel in the [Page 37] singular number, yet in the other place it is Angels in the plurall, excluding utterly the application of it to Christ, or any single person. Where Zanchy brake off, the explication is continued and supplied by the thrice-excellent Parallel. l. 1. Junius, who resolveth it thus, At the delivering of the Law on Mount Sinai, God was attended with many Millions of Angels, (so both the state and service of their Lord, and the great busi­nesse in hand required) and from amidst this glorious host he spake unto the people, [...], inter Angelos, amidst the Mixtis penè hominibus atque Ange­lis, Sab. De Gub. Del, l. 1. Angels; all the Angels being witnesses to the Covenant, God proclaimed the Law: so he interpreteth it; a glosse rather new then absurd.

Others incline to Stephen and Paul, and conceive that God did not utter the Law himself, but by de­legation of his Angels: to which they are the ra­ther disposed, because in some places of Scripture the Angels use such a form of speech, as though God himself spake, and yet it is manifest that them­selves were the immediate utterers of those words as, Numb. 23.32.

If it be now demanded which interpretation I fa­vour; I answer, neither: The Scripture salved by both I see, but the mind of the holy Ghost is (I take it) atteined by neither. That which hath misled the whole stream of Expositours, is a conceit that Stephen and Paul spake of the pronouncing of the Law in Mount Sinai, whereas indeed their words onely aim at the delivering of the Tables of stone, called the Law also by a Metonymia subjecti, the con­teining by the name of the conteined; these being put into the hands of Moses by the Ministery of his [Page 38] Angels, as is evident, Gal. 3.19. For where is it said that the Angels pronounced the Law? that God did, we reade often. As Scripture saith not they did; so reason, that they did not: For how could the vocall prolation by many Angels but generate con­fusion of sound? or if God by extraordinary gui­dance of their voice might make them speak not onely one and the same thing but in one and the same articulate sound; yet seeing frustrà fit per plu­ra, it might full as well have been uttered by one, why should he imploy so many? No, out of all que­stion (if duly considered) it is that God did him­self, [...], in his own person, as Philo saith, speak the Law; and not onely for those reasons (yet solid enough) mentioned by Zanchy, but espe­cially because it is agreed by all the Ancients, not one (S. Augustine onely excepted) impugning. That God (the second person) did himself often appear to the Patriarchs, and bespake them vivâ voce, so Justin Dial. cum Tryph. Martyr, D. Trinit. Tertullian, Contr. Ari­um serm. 4. Athanasi­us, Hist. l. 1. c. 2. Eusebius and In Gal. 3. Hierome affirm; and that he did so expressely on Mount Sinai or Horeb, l. 4 c. 31. Ire­neus, Orat. 7. Nazianzen, Serm. de Je­jun. Basil and divers others have af­firmed. That immovable pillar of sound doctrine (as an Eastern [...], Jo. Euchait. Aet. editus. Bishop calleth him) qu. in Deut. Theodoret shall speak for all, treating of the narration of Moses. And further, saith he, he recounteth how the Word, the God of all things, exhibited himself openly to the Israe­lites, appearing through the fire, but not in any visible shape. And throughout the whole systeme or body of the old Testament, there are not so evident marks of Gods immediate presence, as in this Text: [Page 39] For first there is thunder, the voice of God, Psalme 29.8. and the concomitant of it, John 12.20. Se­condly, the words are very direct, very expresse, where Moses telleth the Israelites, The Lord spake unto you, Deut. 4.12 out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voyce of the words, but saw no similitude, one­ly ye heard a voyce. Now take it for a [...], an infallible token, of Gods immediate presence, where­soever in the Scripture he is said to speak (except in vision or so) and no visible shape is seen. Lastly, there are degrees of distance injoyned, the people not to approch nearer then the foot of the Mount; Aaron and Nadab, Abihu and the seventie Elders, up to the Mount; but Moses onely into the Cloud: from hence also note another certain argument of Gods immediate presence; which is alwayes con­comitant with such procession-bounds, as Exod. 3.5. Josh. 5.14.

For the full clearing then of this seeming repu­gnancy, I say, Acts 7.38. with Zanchy, The word Angel denoteth no Angel create, but the Angel Cre­atour, Christ, the second Person in the Trinity. For Stephen alluded to that of Malachy 4.1. where our Saviour is called Angelus Foederis, The Angel of the Covenant, viz. with whom the covenant was made, Exod. 24.7, 8. and Deut. 5.2. as also to that of the Prophet, or rather Evangelist, Hieron. Praefat. in Isaiam. Isaiah 63.9. where he is called the Angel of Gods presence. In the 53 vers. of the same chapter, the word Law intendeth not the Law promulgated, but engraven in the Aug. contr. F. Man. l. 15. diptykes or tables, which could not be delivered to Moses by God himself, seeing he assumed no sensible shape, [Page 40] nor was Moses admitted to so near an approch to God, as to receive them from him: therefore S. Paul saith, It was delivered by Angels into the hand of a Medi­atour, that is, not Christ, as Calvine and some others suppose, but Moses (as Basil De Spir. S. cap. 4.) who was the internun­cius betwixt God and the Israelites, Deut. 5.7. Last­ly, Vide sis Cl. vir. D Hein­si [...], Ex. Sacr. in loc. that place of Heb. 2.2. is merely mistaken: for neither in the text or context is there any, either ex­presse or implicite, mention of the law. And so much for the Quis.

The next is, Quibus. Disputed it is, whether the Law considered as delivered in Mount Sinai, and abstracted from the ratification which it derived from Christ and his Apostles, was onely given to the Jews, and so onely obliged them; or under them to the Gentiles also, who were to become the Church and people of God. Zanchie In Decalog., Dominicus à Soto Lib. 2. De justitia & ju­re, qu. 5. art 4., and some others are of opinion it was pe­culiar to the Jews onely, from these reasons.

1. Reason.First, laws onely bind them, to whom they are onely given: But the Decalogue was given onely to the Jews, as is manifest by the preface: Ergò, it one­ly bindeth them.

Answer.The Decalogue was indeed given to the Jews; but was it as Jews, or a Nation distinct by them­selves? No; rather as Covenantees, and the then select people of God, so that whosoever were after implanted in the Covenant, and inrolled Gods peo­ple, to them, as pòst nati, did and doth the Decalogue belong. Nor was the Preface prefixt to invest the Israelites with a sole propriety therein: for God, be­ing now to give them (as they were then his holy [Page 41] and chosen Church, which is alwayes formally though not materially the same) his morall and immutable laws, had here just reason to apply him­self first to them, as Jews, and to rowze their atten­tion by inculcating into their memory the recent and signall blessing lately conferred upon them, thereby to excite their more strict observance of what he was now to give them in charge. So that this introduction might, I confesse, be proper to the Jews onely, and yet the Decalogue it self have a lar­ger province and extent, and be spoken Irenaeus, l. 4. c. 31. omnibus si­militer, to all alike. Though, should I denie what I partly grant, I could vouch men of no mean note to rescue me from errour. In hac prae­fatione ità Deus Israe­lem compel­lat speciatim ut in eo ta­men omnes Gentes com­prehendar, Thes. 29. art. 5. In this preface God bespeaketh the Israelites more especially, but yet so as under them he comprehendeth all the Gentiles. So Beza. And for the Romane party, De Justif. l. 4. c. 6. Bellarmine.

Secondly, if the Law as given on Sinai obliged the Gentiles, then were they at that time, before, and now are since Christ, bound to observe the Sabbath: But they neither were, nor now are astricted to that observation: Ergò, &c.

That some Gentiles were thereto bound, the pel­lucid fountain of verity sheweth plainly; Answ. Isai. 56.3. Let not the sonne of the stranger that hath joyned himself to the Lord speak, saying, God hath utterly separated me from his people. If you say, that these were Israelites by cove­nant though not by seed; then why may not the Christian Gentiles, who are covenantees as well as the Jews, who are also the seed of Abraham, Gal. 3.28, 29. and heirs ac­cording to the promise, and united in Christ Jesus, why may not they observe it also? will you say, be­cause [Page 42] the day is abrogated and annulled? and can you demonstratively prove it so? The Jewish Sabbath was questionlesse indeed abolished, but was the Sab­bath of the fourth commandment so? If you say, Yea, for they were both one; I reply, it is with great­er facility said then proved. And now we arive at the last circumstance considerable in the precept, Quid.

Of this it is controverted, what day the precept enjoyneth, whether the Jewish Sabbath, the Satur­day, or any other particular and expresse day? Most hold the Jewish seventh from the creation to be the day directly prescribed there; but I think it no hard task to beat them, or from that hold or in it. For first I would gladly know where in expresse terms the Saturday-Sabbath or seventh from the creation is commanded in this precept; examine and dissect it throughly: Remember thou sanctifie the Sabbath day; The Sabbath day it is you see, not the seventh from the creation. Therfore in 4. Prae­cept. p. 657. Zanchie hath set a nota bene upon it, That God (not without cause) said not, Re­member thou sanctifie the seventh day, but, the day of rest; that is, saith he, Di [...]m quie­ti consecra­tum à Deo ipso v [...]l im [...]edi te p [...]r [...]e, v [...]l me­d [...]tēper Ec­clesi [...]m à Spiritu s [...]n­cto [...], quisquis ille sit. The day consecrated to rest by God, either immediately by himself or mediately by the Church directed by the holy Ghost, whatsoever day it be. Thus he; more circumspectly then what he deliver­ed three columnes before: where he saith that the word Sabbath here comprehendeth all the Jewish fe­stivalls. What hath moved him and other learned men to this fantasie, it much amuseth me: God tel­leth us distinctly what Sabbath he here meaneth, the weekly; of any other there is altum silentium, not a [Page 43] word. He saith, Sanctifie the Sabbath, in the singular, not Sabbaths in the plurall number: Non festo­rum observa­tio ibi prae­cipitur, sed unius festi dies, Jun. ani­maedv. in Bel. cont. 7. p. 1 [...]79. The observati­on, not of many festivals, but of one onely is there enjoyn­ed. And what necessity of bringing these feasts within the compasse and obligation of this precept, which have commands proper and peculiar to themselves? As therefore ancient Canons Conc. Ni­cenum Ancir. &c. said to pragmaticall Bishops, which invaded their jurisdi­ction, so I to these Jewish feasts, Let them keep their own home, their own stations, they have nothing to do here.

Well, the Sabbath must be sanctified, but what day that should be is not yet explained: in the sub­sequent words indeed there is some hint of it, six dayes shalt thou labour; there is one character by which we may know it: Six dayes are at our own dispose, but we must not hold over our term; The seventh is the Sabbath, it is as Philosophers say Ter­minus minimus quod sic, the least proposition of time we must allow God: in a narrower limitati­on his worship will not subsist, a seventh day he will have. The seventh is the Sabbath: The seventh? what seventh? he saith not, the seventh from the crea­tion, he nameth no day; if he had, it would have restrained the Law to that day: but because he meant the day should change, and yet the Law con­tinue, he saith onely the seventh, that is, the seventh after six, or one in a week Jun. Pol. Moses c. 8.. For Suarez, De dieb. festis, c. 1 Deputa [...]e sep­timum diem in hebdoma­de, est forma­liter deputa­re septimum diem, li­cèt materi­aliter non idem dies semper fuerit deputatu [...], Episcopus Brech. in E­pist. dedic. praefix. artic. Per [...]h. To depute one day in a week, is formally to depute the seventh day, though materially one and the same day be not alwayes deputed. Well; but will one in a week serve the turn? is there nothing else required? is the determination of this [Page 44] one in seven in our power? No, there is a proviso for that; it must be the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, that is, which he hath already, or should declare to his Church to be his Sabbath: and this is another character of the Sabbath, It must be of Gods own choice. But still not one word of the Jewish Sab­bath, no discovery of it yet; but we have not done with the precept, perhaps we shall find it in what remaineth: It followeth then, For in six dayes the Lord made Heaven and Earth, and all that therein is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it: Here, I confesse, the precept seemeth very apposite, very full, so full as we are accused for no lesse then high treason against the holy Ghost, in daring to affirm the contrary. [...] These Dogmatists, saith one, are not affraid to make the holy Ghost a liar, who teacheth in most clear and expresse terms, That God Almightie blessed the very seventh day on which himself rested. An heavie charge, did we not plead, not guiltie. That God blessed the very seventh day whereon he rested, we not deny; but whether he did expresly command the observation of that day by this or any other member of the fourth precept, that is the thing whereof we de­mand clear demonstration. Nor yet should we call this into dispute, had we not just cause to appeal from the old Translation, which hath herein imbra­ced a strange singularitie; for where it readeth, God blessed the seventh day, the Geneva, Spanish, that of Hierome, all that I have perused (the Sep­tuagint onely excepted) render it, God blessed the Sabbath day, as our most correct and new translation [Page 45] hath it: indeed the very fountain it self, the Hebrew giveth it so; which being true, can what we have said deserve so loud an outcry as hath been made? let any neutrally affected judge.

Secondly, the defect of direct and expresse com­mand is not the onely, the principall motive it is, I grant, which allureth us to think the Jewish Sab­bath in especiall manner not injoyned here: ano­ther argument there is accessory to it. For if God had here expresly commanded the observation of the seventh from the Creation, or Jewish Sabbath, the fourth precept would have been in relation to that particular ceremoniall, and by consequent changeable: but I think it was and is in all parts in­tirely morall, and perpetuall; and my opinion is founded upon two not very defeasable reasons.

First, it is marshalled in the Decalogue amongst the morall and immutable laws, which were nota­bly distinguished from the ceremoniall by many circumstances; The Morall uttered by God himself, (proved page 39.) in the presence of the whole multi­tude, written by Gods own finger, given without re­straint to time, how long; or place, where: Contrary­wise the Ceremoniall given to Moses onely, and by him declared to the people, called Ceremonies, Judgements, Ordinances, and limited onely to the land of H [...]oker. Eccl. Pol. l. 3▪ §. 11. Jury: Now it could not be agreeable to the wisdome of the God of Order to shuffle and misplace a Ceremo­niall amongst his Morall laws.

Secondly, if you cast your eye upon the Sabbath of the fourth precept, you shall behold it quite de­plumed and stript of all legall observances: for those [Page 46] things which are all urged as ceremoniall, and seve­rall of the Jews, touching the Sabbath, are all, eve­ry one, Postscripts and By-laws, not one emergent from the fourth precept. It was a signe betwixt God and his people, Exod. 31.17. Ezech. 20.20. It was injoyned with extreme rigour, No meat to be drest, Exod. 17.5. no fire to be kindled, Exod. 35.3. These were all peculiar to the Jews: if the commandment of the Sabbath was so too, how cometh it to passe they are thus discriminated, thus severed? Very suspicious it is then that they were not uniform pre­cepts, not all of a piece.

Object.But you will say that Deut. 5.15. the observa­tion of the Sabbath is inserted in the fourth precept, as peculiar to the Jews, in regard it was a comme­morative of their strange deliverance out of Egypt.

Answ.I answer, True: But there is a great diversitie be­twixt the Decalogue given on Mount Sinai, and that described in Deuteronomie; That appertaining to Gods Church indefinitely taken, this to the Jews onely: And this is evident from the due considera­tion of Deuteronomy: for though there be many things in it which may of common right belong to the hole Church, yet certain it is that book was especially penned for the Jews, it being [...], an explanation of that Law (whether Morall, Ceremoniall, or Judiciall) which Moses received on the Mount, and application of it to the particular state and condition of that people: So that this ob­jection doth not onely not evert but establish my assertion, it being a manifest argument that the Sab­bath of the Decalogue ingraven in the Tables was [Page 47] of larger extent then that mentioned in Deuterono­mie: for else why should the reason of one be uni­versall, viz. as a monument of the creation; of the other, particular, as a memoriall of the redemption out of Egypt: and consequently it may perswade that the Sabbath of the one was Morall, of the other Ceremoniall. U [...]rùm prae­ceptum de sanctificatio­ne Sabbat [...], convenienter trad [...]tur in­ter praecepta Decalogi? And therefore when Aquinas had framed this question, Whether the commandment concerning sanctifying the Sabbath was fitly delivered in the Decalogue? he found no evasion but this; Ponitur in­ter praecepta Decalogi in quantum praeceptum morale, non in quantum est caeremo­niale, 2. 2 ae. q. 122. art. 4. It is placed, saith he, in the Decalogue as it was a Morall pre­cept, not as Ceremoniall. Which is in effect but one and the same thing with what I maintain: For I di­stinguish betwixt those precepts of the Sabbath which occurre elsewhere, and the fourth Com­mandment, and therefore I apply what is Ceremo­niall in the Sabbath to them, what is Morall I re­strain to this. So much for the Quid, and indeed for the precept.

Survey we now the practice and observation thereof, wherein the circumstances which offer themselves to our consideration are these, Quando, Quomodo.

By the Quando I understand the Terminus à quo and beginning of the Sabbath, which some derive from the evening preceding the artificiall day, and deduce it from Levit. 23.22. Others Perkins, Cas. consc. l. 2. c. 15. q. 3. again sup­pose it commenced in the morning; and are indu­ced thereto by the two Evangelists, Matth. 28.1. In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week; Mark 16.1, 2. When the Sab­bath was past, very early in the morning, the first day of [Page 48] the week: and therefore the Leviticall Law they conceived onely concerned the Passeover, and such solemn feasts.

But I rather imbrace the more received opinion, that the Sabbath began at eve, and suppose Beza, Ca­saub. & al [...]i. that the Evangelists respected the manner of the Gen­tiles, whose day commenced from midnight: For me thinks the restriction of that ordinance in Levi­ticus to the solemn feasts onely, is more nice then solid; and the contrary is very probably indigitated in both the old and new Covenant. In the old, Ne­hemiah saith, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, c. 13. v. 19. he commanded they should be shut, and not be opened till after the Sabbath: whence I inferre that the Sabbath began at twi­light; for else why should the gates be shut up so soon? In the new Testament also Luke saith, that the women when they had bought their spices rested the Sabbath according to the com­mandment; c. 23 v. 56. which seemeth to insinuate that the Sabbath presently succeeded the buying of those spices. And (though it be [...]) give me leave to note to you that by Saint Luke here it is evi­dent the spices were bought on friday towards evening, not on munday morning, not penitus exacto Sabbato, as Exerc. 16. c. 113. Casaubon affirmeth. Saint Mark Cap 16 v. 1 indeed, whom he citeth, seemeth to re­late it otherwise: But I say first with judicious Calvine, that Marcus duas res divers [...]s e­odem con­textu referens tempora mi­nùs accuratè quam Lucas distinguit; nam quod priùs actum [...]rat unà cum profectione miscet, Calv. H [...]m Evang. Mark relating two divers things in one and the same context, did not so exactly di­stinguish their times as Saint Luke; for what was acted before (viz. the buying of the spices) he ming­leth [Page 49] with the setting out and going forth of the women. And in truth S. Mark minded more the substance then circumstance of the story (a thing so familiar in Scripture as it hath begot a proverb, Non est pri­us & posteri­us in Scrip­turâ saciâ. There is not alwayes an orderly disposition of first and last in holy Scripture:) Nor doth it reflect at all to the debasing and disparagement of the divine History, for a small diversitie touching circumstance is nothing ad sum­mam narrationis, to the substance of the narration, as the same Casaubon hath well observed. Secondly, Annot. in loc. it is very probable what Beza hath applied by way of salve to this of Mark (though it relisheth not well (and perhaps the worse because Beza's) with the learned Heinsius) that there is a dislocation of the words by some unwary Scribe, Exercit. in loc. who hath put them out of joynt: for the latter part of this verse ought, as he conceiveth, to conclude the preceding chapter: as though the words had been thus ordered, And Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jesus beheld where he was laid, and bought spices that they might come and annoint him; and that which maketh it seem still to him more probable is an ancient co­py, reading it, [...], i. e. They went and bought spices, without repeating the name of any woman.

The Quando I have briefly dispatched; and the dispatch of that giveth me accesse to the Quomodo, the manner of observing the Sabbath, that is, what holy duties were performed that day. And from this arise two questions: First whether the Law was read publickly every Sabbath, or onely in the yeare of release at the feast of Tabernacles; and [Page 50] this question is limited too, to the period from the Law given to the captivitie. The other quaere is, what Law, whether the hole Pentateuch, or Deu­teronomie onely, was read in that yeare of Re­lease.

As concerning the First; they which hold the negative ground their opinion on these reasons:

B. White, p 144.First, that there should be any publick or solemn reading of the Law upon Sabbath dayes, is not ex­pressely required and commanded in the Penta­teuch.

Secondly, It appeareth not by any relation of sacred History, that before the Babylonish captivitie there was any weekly reading or expounding the Law upon the Sabbath.

Lastly, it is a thing to be admired, that if the reading of the Law had been in continuall use among the Jews every Sabbath day, there should be found in the dayes of King Josiah one copy onely or book of the Law, and that Hilkiah should present this book to the King, as a great raritie, 2. King. 22.8, 9.

But the unsoundnesse of the foundation argueth the assertion erroneous: for,

First, will nothing but expresse Text satisfie you? suppose we find it not [...], not verbatim com­manded thus, Reade the Law publickly every Sab­bath day; is not, I pray you, necessary and inevi­table deduction out of Text Scripture with you? if yea, then we need not travel farre for a command, no farther then the fourth precept, and not farre into that, but to Remember thou keep holy or sanctifie the Sabbath day. I told you before that things are then [Page 51] said to be sanctified, when they are applied to holy worship; now holy worship is the exhibiting to God his due and just honour: and that is performed two wayes, either by reverent attention to what he offereth us in his word, or an humble presentment of what we preferre to him in our prayers. For Hearing of the word & Adoration are the two hands of religion; the one we extend to receive what God communicateth to us, the other to represent what in mercy he accepteth from us: so as they are in­deed the proper instruments of mutuall commerce betwixt him and us; and though I allow them a parity of honour, yet hath the one a precedency of order before the other, and this belongeth to hear­ing of the word: For the first of religious offices where­with we publickly honour God on earth (saith that worthy Eccl. pol. l. 5 §. 18. Hooker) is the receiving that knowledge which he imparteth to us in his word. The reason is evident; for, prius est nosse Deum, consequens Lactant. Inst. l. 4. colere: or rather according to that golden chain, How Rom. 10 14. shall men invoke him in whom they have not believed, how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they heare without a preacher? Hence it is that the Primitive Church had ever the Sermon before the Service, to intimate that none ought to be admitted to pray with the Church, before they have been inlightned in saving doctrine: All, tag and rag had free accesse to the Sermon; to the service onely the faithfull, and Catechumeni. Episcopus nullum pro­hi [...]eat i [...]gre­di ad Ecclesi­am & audire verbum Dei, sive Genti­lem, sive Hae­reticum, sive Judaeum, us­que ad mis­sam Catechu­menotum, Concil. 4. Can. 85. Let the Bishop interdict none, neither Gentile, nor Heretick, nor Jew, to enter into the Church and heare the word of God, untill the Service of the Catechumeni, saith the Councel of [Page 52] Carthage. For the clear understanding of which Canon, you must know that Missa Catechumenorum signifieth here not the dismission of the Catechume­ni, but the service so called; which began at the in­troitus, and ended at the offertory. If then the san­ctification of the Sabbath be the application of it to Gods worship, the consequence must and will be, That all sacred actions tending to this worship as parts thereof (but the hearing of the Law read most especially, it being of the essence of that worship) were commanded in and under the word sanctifie.

B. White, pag. 146.But you'l say that many Doctours of note main­tain that the letter of the fourth commandment im­posed upon the Jews no other externall form of sanctifying the weekly Sabbath, but resting from bodily labour.

I answer, The literall sense of the fourth Com­mandment imposed upon the Jews the sanctification of the Sabbath, viz. by all such religious actions as are proper to holy worship; the specialties whereof it not determineth, least it should be thought to ex­clude any. It also imposed rest and cessation from secular businesse; but that it commanded it as any at all, much lesse the onely externall form of sancti­fying the Sabbath, pardon me, I cannot believe. For what honour could accrue to God through an idle and lazie rest? what worship could man perform waking more then a sleep? How could the day be lesse sanctified by beasts then men? Rest was injoyn­ed as necessary indeed necessitate medii, as a fit means; but not necessitate causae, as a necessary cause constitu­ting sacred worship. Against these Doctours of [Page 53] note, I will oppose a Doctour of note too, and of such note as his Dictates never any of the Primitive Church durst call into question Hieron. a­pud Aquin. pag. 1. qu. 61. art. 3., Athanasius the Great, who in refutation of this Jewish fancie hath amongst others this invincible argument, Si otium sanctificet, ergò sequitur ut negotium contaminet, De Sabb. & Circumcis. If rest sanctifieth, then by consequence labour polluteth: for, Contrariorum eadem est ratio: yea, the Father maketh the knowledge of God to be the chief end of the Sabbath, Because knowledge is more necessary then rest Quia cogni­tio magìs est necessaria quàm otium, Idem, ibid.. And therefore the beam of truth hath extorted from them this confession, That some other religious acti­ons were intended by God as the end of the precept, but no other were formally commanded B. White, p. 146.. What I pray, did God intend those religious actions as the end of the precept? how come you to know Gods intention? hath he any where revealed it? if yea, then tell me, is not that overture, that declaration of his intendment equipollent to a command? Besides, when and where did God open this his mind? in this precept, and at the giving of the Law? If now, and here, then these religious actions and rest were coor­dinate together, both imposed at one and the same time, the thing you deny: If after, then God im­posed, and man observed rest to no end and purpose all that while, untill the manifestation of his intenti­ons concerning the end of that rest came forth. But God and nature do nothing in vain Aristot. de Coelo. lib. 1. cap. 4.; even Philo­sophy could tell you so, and sure Divinity much more.

Their second Argument is upon the old haunt still, The want of expresse narration; which were it true, yet is it no [...], no demonstration of what [Page 54] they affirm, as I have proved before, pag. 5. Be­sides, the contrary may be probably collected with­out detorting Scripture against reason: For first, when the Shunamite desired to go to the Prophet Elisha to acquaint him with the death of her sonne, and to see if he could afford her any comfort, her husband expostulated with her, saying, Why wilt thou go to day? it is neither New-moon, nor Sabbath day: which had been an impertinent question, if they had not accustomed to resort to the Prophets on those dayes, to heare the word expounded. That this was their practice scarce any Expositour upon the place but assureth us.

Though here is onely mention of the New-moon and Sabbath, yet as we need not doubt but that they practiced the same upon other festivalls al­so, so I conceive it to be implyed in both or either words, which are often in Scripture taken in a gene­rall notion, not denoting any certain or particular but an indefinite feast. The word Sabbath especially, this so frequently as no meanly lettered man is such a novice to whom it is a novelty: The New-moon more sparingly, yet when mated with Sabbath sel­dome retaineth it any other signification. Examples whereof are first this text of the Kings, then that of Isaiah 66.23. From one New-moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. Again, that of Ezech. 46.3. The people of the land shall worship at the doore of this gate before the Lord in the Sabbaths and in the New-moons. Lastly, that of Amos, 8.5. When will the New-moon be gone that we may sell our corn? and the Sabbath that we [Page 55] may set forth wheat? In all these portions of Scri­ture Sabbaths & New-moons, by the figure [...], that is, when one thing is expressed by two words, are onely put for solemn feasts generally not particular­ly accepted. Nor is the word New-moon taken thus onely when linked with the Sabbath, but some­while also when single and alone, as 1. Kings 12.33. For where in our translation (as in I am sure most, if not all others) it is said that Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth moneth, the Hebrew word for that feast is [...], which signifieth the New-moon; Seld. Marm. Arundel. pag. 134. but to speak properly the New-moon it could not be, for the Moon was then in her full, it being the 15 day: and the feast is thought by learned men to be devised by Jeroboam in imitation (indeed to suppresse it in ob­livion) of the feast of Tabernacles which was to be on the 15 of the seventh moneth. Hospin. de origine Fest. pag. 24.

But not to expatiate too farre in collaterall trans­cursions; the reading of the Law may (not absurdly) be expiscated out of Acts 15.21. where James giving definitive sentence in the Councel of Hierusalem, saith, Moses of old time hath in every citie them that preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. But against this place they except, viz. that [...] is used in Scripture of many things not very ancient, as Matth. 5.21, 27, 33. Acts 15.7. But this objection is easily repelled: the question is not what sense the like phrase hath, Matth. 5.21, &c. but what it meaneth here; and that it is to be taken in the construction we make of it, an eminent Bishop Winto [...]. Serm. Pen­tec. 1. witnesseth, The sound of the Spirit (viz. preaching) all the Law-long sounded in them, by whom Moses was [Page 56] preached every Sabbath day. So he upon this very text. But in defence of the contrary interpretation, it may be objected, That the text speaketh of Synagogues, which came not into use untill the captivitie. To which I say, that the most and best Divines Hosp. de orig. Templi è C. Bertramo hold it probable that Synagogues had their beginning from the plantation of the land of Canaan, when the priestly and propheticall offices ceased in the first-born, and masters of families, but were supplyed, the first, by the Leviticall priests; the second, by the seventy Elders, as some suppose Genebrard. Chron. p. 102., but more certain­ly by the Prophets, whose ordinary calling was to reade and expound the Law. The numerous provisi­on of which sacred preachers maketh it incredible that they were destitute of places (no matter how, or Colledges, or Synagogues, or otherwise deno­minated) destinate to that and such like holy-duties.

Their last argument is not compounded of much better stuff. For first the finding of the book of the Law by Hilkiah, and presenting of it to Josiah, is no infallible signe, Quod alioqui nulli ejus essent alii codi­ces, That there were besides no other books there­of, not to Genebrard Chron. in ann. 3526. I am sure: and it may well be controverted. For if in times of harder pressures, when the Temple and the authentick books in it were burnt, when utter havock was made of all, and the people of God led captives into Babylon; even in the extremitie of that desolation, if some copies were no doubt preserved in private mens hands, as Daniels, Ezechiels, Bell. de verb. Dei, l. 2. c. 1. & Jun. anim. adv. in eum. Jeremies, &c. (For how otherwise could Esdras restore the Sacred volume to its first integrity, then by comparing divers ex­emplaries [Page 57] then extant together, and so reforming what errours had been committed by negligent penmen) if I say, some copies escaped the fire at that time, probable it is that all perished not before Josiahs reign. But be it granted that all were lost, not one to be found before Hilkiah chanced to light upon that, yet are you short still; your argument is not ad idem: for the question is of a duty, part of Gods publick and solemn worship, and your in­stance is of a time under persecution, when the en­signe of the Church was the Crosse, when there was no solemn worship of the true God publickly tole­rated; and you may as well upon this instance in­ferre that there was no Sabbath observed, as deny the observation of it by this dutie of Reading and Hearing the Law. No man (for ought I know) contendeth that the solemn reading of the Law al­wayes every Sabbath, and that in times of distresse, was practiced: and that it was at other times, even Cajetan Cajet. in locum. himself (who holdeth that that book which Hilkiah found was of all other the onely rem­nant) acknowledgeth: Tanto tem­pore neglecta erant divina tempore Ma­nassis, ut li­ber Legis tan­quam res no­viter inventa scribatur. Holy exercises (as reading and expounding the Law) during Manasses his wicked reign were so long neglected; (and neglect I hope in­sinuateth a dutie formerly practiced) that the book of the Law is related as a thing new discovered. So he. True it is, he mentioneth not the Sabbath day, as whereon these neglecta divina ought to have been performed; but seeing the words seem to referre to duties which ought to have been publickly per­formed, their publick performance ought to have regard to both times and places destinate thereto. [Page 58] This point I prosecute no further: enough I hope (if not too much) hath been said to perswade that the Law was read on the weekly Sabbath, as well as on the annuall of Tabernacles in the septennuall of Release.

I passe then to the last question. In this as brief I shall be, as in the former I was tedious.

At the end of every seven years, in the solemnitie of the year of Release, in the feast of Tabernacles, thou shalt reade the Law before Israel in their hearing, saith the text: Upon which words Tostatus thus, Accipitur specialiter LEX pro Deuterono­mio, Tostat. in Matth. 5. q. 91. The Law, saith he, is meant especially of Deuteronomy. And B. White D. Heilen. others since have imbraced the same opinion, but none have thought us worthy to be privy to the reasons inducing that opinion, nor indeed can any be devised.

For who knoweth not that the word Law impor­teth the whole Pentateuch of Moses: of (I believe) an hundred of instances, I will produce but one; and that (of any) the likeliest to make for their pur­pose.

Deut. 17. v. 17.God injoyneth the future King should write him a copy of this Law in a book: Now I pray, tell me, is Deuteronomy onely understood by this Law? No, it is not: all Expositours take it for the hole five books; and yet for this there may be some colour, because the 70. render it [...], Hierome, Deu­teronomium legis hujus. But to return to the first text of Moses; we need no other Expositour then himself: what Law he appointed then to be re [...]d, he telleth us in the immediate precedent verse, it was that Law which he delivered to the Levites; Cap. 31.9, & 26. [Page 59] that Law which he commanded them to put in the side of the Ark. Now if they can prove that onely Deuteronomy was delivered to the Levites and laid up there, they shall gain my subscription.

Having thus proceeded as farre as my first in­tendment bounded me, lest this discourse should jut too farre into that insuing, of the Sabbath under the Gospel, now no more.

WE have at last shaked off those remora's which retarded our arrivall at the Chri­stian Sabbath, at Gods Sabbath under the Gospel. For a Sabbath God hath still, but not the Jewish, not the seventh from the creation: No; Finitur sep­timus, Do­minus sepul­tus; reditur ad primum, Dominus resuscitatus, Aug. de ver­bis Apost. Serm. 15. The seventh day is vanisht, our Lord is buried; the first now dawneth, our Lord is risen, and his Resurrection hath consecrated to us a new Sab­bath: for a Sabbath God must have by the immuta­ble Law of the fourth precept, Remember thou san­ctifie the Sabbath day, that is, that day which for the time being God hath marked out and appointed for his own, [...]. For if this Commandment in­joyneth now no particular and set time under the Gospel, then is the Law an Ennealogue, not a De­calogue, and so God hath lost one of his ten words; but he payeth no tithe out of his Commandments, his full Denary he must and will have.

[Page 60] Object.If you say the Morall equitie, viz. to yield God a competent and convenient time for his worship remaineth still, and so the Commandment is not lost.

Solut.I answer, This Fundamentall Law is tacitly im­plyed in this precept, but so it was also in the institu­tion of all other ceremoniall festivals, the Passeover, Pentecost, &c. to which we may as well resort as to the fourth precept for it. And if this morall or naturall Law be the onely reliques of that Com­mandment: I would fain learn what was in the Sab­bath extraordinary more then in other Feasts, which might intitle it to a roome amongst the morall Laws of the Decalogue, when as the other Feasts were excluded. Besides, if this morall law of Festos dies coles maketh a distinct precept by it self, I see no reason but there should be another for going to Church, another for allowing God a convenient portion of our substance (for these are also morall equities) and so there will be an even dozen. Last­ly, how cometh this morall equitie to be a peculiar of the Gospel onely? God had from the Creation to the Law, from the Law to Christ, a day appro­priated (and that by himself) to his worship: what? hath he lesse reason to require it under the Gospel? hath he left the Christian Church to that liberty that every man may serve him as the toy taketh him, and so God stand to our courtesie to be wor­shipped when we list? B. White p. 121. You will say Nay; we are not left at that libertie: The observation of the Holy dayes appointed by the Church, is reduced to the fourth Commandment, as a speciall to a generall: viz. Gods [Page 61] people must observe holy times, because the equitie of the fourth Commandment obligeth thereunto: But Easter and Christmasse day, and Sunday, &c. are holy dayes lawfully appointed by the Governours of the Church, and subordinate to the equitie of the fourth Commandment; therefore Christian people are bound to observe these Ho­ly dayes, in obedience to the equitie of the fourth Com­mandment.

I answer, The Church hath a power indeed to ordain festivals; but is the observation of her con­stitutions concerning them, a fulfilling; the diso­bedience, a breach of the fourth Commandment? How can this be? First, what needs an Obligation be derived from the last precept of the first Table, when the first of the latter is alsufficient? Se­condly, is it not a mere non sequitur? The fourth Commandment bindeth us to yield God a conve­nient time for his worship: Ergò It obligeth us to observe the festivals of the Church? Where learned you this Logick? Suppose I pray, the Church should injoyn but one day in a moneth, doth he I pray who observeth her order that one day, and not once more in the interim serve God perform his dutie which God in this Commandment requireth? or doth he who plieth God with frequent addresses, who strictly observeth canonicall houres, yet onely perhaps faileth that one day which the Church in­joyneth; doth he, I say, violate the morall law of this precept, which saith not, Set apart such times for pious exercises as thy Governours prescribe, but, such as thou thy self thinkest meet. In short, to make this more evident, Every Law positive is [Page 62] built upon some morall, as upon a foundation; now it is manifest that the foundation may stand, and yet the superstructure fall, as may be demonstrated in an example familiar to us: The equitie of State re­quireth that particular persons be not inriched any way which reflecteth to the damage of a communi­tie; upon this sociable equitie, there is a positive, a Statute law 5. Ed. 6. c. 14. inacted, that None shall buy or con­tract for any victualls or wares before they come to the Market, Fair, or Port. But in some parts of this Realm, especially in Norfolk, such plentie of corn there is growing in most Towns, as maketh every of them a kind of Market, so as few men need go out of their own Villages to be supplied with materialls either for bread or beer; yea the super­fluitie is such, as many Towns vend a thousand quar­ters of grain, over and besides what supplieth their families and lands; by reason of which great plenty little or none is sold in many Markets: and the usu­all practice hath been, and is, for Merchants to buy, not in open Market, but at the Barn doore great quantity thereof, and export it into other parts of the kingdome where scarcitie is. This act of theirs some Merchants have by smart experience lately found to be illegall, but yet no violation of the foresaid equity: for who complaineth that they are damnified thereby? Not the Norfolcians, they are eased; not the Shires deficient, they are relieved: either part desireth it: one, ut impleatur, that it may be stored; the other, ut depleatur, that it may be dis­burthened.

Nor doth the fourth Commandment onely inferre [Page 63] out of these words, Remember thou sanctifie the Sab­bath, that God must have a Sabbath in a speciall manner; but it declareth also his will concerning the quotient and limitation thereof, Six dayes shalt thou labour and do all that thou hast to do, but the Se­venth is the Sabbath, so that one in a week he must have.

If you say, the limitation of one in a week was ce­remoniall, Object. and so abrogated.

I answer, prove you it ceremoniall, Solut. and I will yield it abrogated: but there hath not yet been any argument or reason shewn us whereby we might be perswaded to conceive it ceremoniall, nor hath it so much as one Character of a ceremony in it.

For first, it was not typicall; it did not prenote any thing to ensue or be accomplisht under the Go­spel. If that fancy of the Jewish Cabala be true, that the world shall continue but six thousand years, and then the day of judgement shall follow, it might prefigure that, and yet no ceremony proved; for that time is not yet elapsed, and the type must con­tinue till the thing typified be fulfilled: so that this rather evinceth the duration then abrogation of this limitation.

Secondly, it had no particular relation to the land of Canaan, the proper place of ceremonies; nor yet to the Jews, upon whom it was not imposed as Jews, as a mark of difference to distinguish them from the Gentiles. If you object, Exod. 31.13. & 17. Ezech. 20.12, & 20. where the Sabbath is called a signe betwixt God and them; I say, the Sabbath was at that time a mark of difference and separation [Page 64] betwixt the Jews and Gentiles, that is confest; but was it so as a seventh day? No; that which caused the distinction was the sanctification of them on that day, not any thing in the number of seven. Gods seposing of a certain time for their, and onely their (for, God worthily neglected those of whom he was not worshipped Eos à quibus non coleb [...] ­tur meritò neglexit, Au­gust. De Civ. Dei, l. 2. c. 14.) Sanctification was an argument that he had an especiall care of them above others, and that they were his onely people.

It was not imposed as an heavy burthen upon the 3 Jews. If the sequestring one day in a week had been burthensome to them, it would be also a grievance now to us Christians, who observe the same: But we are under the law of grace and liberty, exempted from such pressures, and if it were in any respect onerous, we would and might renounce it; so that it being not to us heavy, it is consequently probable, that it was to them tolerable. Exod. 23.12. And indeed in the explanation of the law, or rather application of it to the state of the Jews, it is rather recited as an ordi­nance of comfort, and refreshing, as of mercy and and favour, then of rigour, or severity, then of de­pression and of servitude.

4 Lastly, it was not commanded in recognition of any speciall favour conferred upon the Jews: It was a memoriall of Gods creating the world in six dayes, and his resting on the seventh; but this being a benefit wherein all mankind inter common, the Jews can claim no property therein several to them­selves. And so in respect of this Character, as of the three preceding, no tidings of a ceremony yet, and so no cause of abolition: for you will [Page 65] not have more abrogated then was ceremoniall, will you?

If you say, it was and must be ceremoniall: Object. for mo­rall it was not, and therefore positive; and because positive, ceremoniall.

I answer, Sol. denying that positive either necessarily implyeth ceremoniall, or excludeth morall. Nay more: disputable it is whether positive may be admit­ted here or no. Sure I am a great Prelate In divinis non datur jus Positivum, Winton. Op. posth. Determ de decimis. hath re­solved it, In Divine constitutions Positive law hath no place; and so Aqu. 1.2 ae. qu. 99. art. 3. Schoolmen and Civilians use to speak: but in regard the propriety of the word signifieth the imposing of what before was in its nature arbi­trary, whether the imposition be Divine or Humane, it constituteth (in my opinion) a Law positive deno­minated accordingly. Be it then Positive: is it there­fore ceremoniall, or not morall? Let the definition of either word end the strife. Morall is derived from mores or mos, and may be defined as Lirinensis Contr. Haer. cap. 3. doth Catholick, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omni­bus, That which hath been observed every where, alwayes, and of all men. And though in its remo­test latitude of signification it is synonymall with what Civilians call Jus Gentium, or the Law of Na­tions, yet may it not unfitly be restrained to lesser societies, as to Gods Church; and so what hath been alwayes observed in his Church, may not unfitly be called morall; and then the observation of a weekly day will become so too; yet with this restriction and difference, that one is morall by Naturall infusi­on, the other by externall Imposition Halens. 3. qu. 32. memb. 5..

But suppose it granted that Positive were a pri­vative [Page 66] of Morall, yet can you never prove that it must inevitably inferre ceremoniall: for ceremonies are in their very nature changeable, to last but a while; their etymologie giveth them that definition, [...] (therefore they who write cere­monie do ill deduce it from Ceres) whereas Positive laws may be, and are some of them, immutable. The prohibition of incestuous matches within cer­tain degrees, decimation and tithing, were Positive; and yet I hope you will yield unchangeable: The last, I am sure, you demand by virtue of the first in­junction. Nor doth the tenth content you, you are (you think) defrauded of your right, unlesse we al­low it as due jure Divino, the truth whereof is here not to be discussed; and though I as yet rather in­cline to the affirmative, yet this for undeniable veri­tie I dare and do averre, that to evince a jus Divi­num, there is farre, infinitely farre clearer evidence and demonstration in the Scripture for the Lords day then for Tithes. But I digresse. All Laws Di­vine derive their firmnesse or mutability two wayes: either from that which giveth them their first consti­tution, Reason; ( Qualis Ratio Praecepti tale Praeceptum, as the Reason is permanent or moveable, so is the Law; for the form of all laws is the reason, as that which diversifieth all things is the form) or from the subject, or matter about which they are conversant; for if that be constant, the law must also be the same. For those Laws Divine, which belong, whether naturally or supernaturally, to men as men, or to men as they live in Politick society, or to men as they are of that politick society which is the Church, without any further [Page 67] respect had to any such variable accident as the state of men, and of societies of men, and of the Church it self is subject to in this world; all Laws that so belong unto men, they belong for ever, although they be positive laws, un­lesse being positive, God himself that made them altereth them, saith Hooker. Eccl. Pol. l. 1. §. 15.

Now no man will deny the reason of command­ing a weekly day in memory of the creation to be immutable; therefore the Law it self for that cause also, though at first positive, must be so. And that it was imposed on Gods Church, without respect had to any particular Place, People, Time, or the like variable occasion, is so clear as none can solidly refute: and for this cause also it must continue so long as that society the Church, for which it was first given, shall abide. Therefore we may conclude this point with Leo, Cessantibus significationi­bus & pera­ctis figuris, &c. De Jeju­nio decimi mensis, serm. 6 The shadows being dispelled by the presence of the verity, those things which tending ei­ther to morality or the pure worship of God for piety sake were instituted, do still continue in the same form with us wherein they were at first framed, and what was agree­able to both Testaments, is by no change altered.

They Heilen. p. 2. pag. 184. to whom positive-immulable seemeth so prodigious a thing, may now spare their wonder at Amesius, and bestow it upon their own ignorance: what he taught in this point he might and did learn (no doubt) in England, and not onely of the Puri­tanes. For what say you

To Whitgift? Defen. of the Answ. to the Adm. p. 553. No man doubteth the meaning of these words, Six dayes shalt thou labour, &c. to be this, That seeing God hath permitted to us six dayes to do our own works in, we ought in the seventh wholly to serve him.

[Page 68]To Hooker Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. §. 70.? We are to account the sanctification of one day in a week, a duty which Gods immutable Law doth exact for ever.

To Donne Epist to S. H. Goodier.? God seposed a seventh of our time for his exteriour worship.

To Andrews Serm. [...]. of the P. treas. vide etiam Catech. doct. pag 237.? The numbers of seven and ten are not without their weight: the seventh the Sabbath, the tenth Gods part; the Sabbath and Tenth both sacred to God.

To Bacon Adv. of Learn. p. 309? God demandeth a tenth of our sub­stance, and which is more strict a seventh of our time.

What say you to these? But what if Amesius had been born and lived an alien to this Kingdome, had he then escaped the contagion of this errour? Is England in this assertion divided from the continent of other Christian Churches? assuredly no. Those two lights of the reforming age, Bucer and his A­chates P. Martyr, as in other things their judgements concurred with a rare and happy identity Bucer. Epist. P. Martyr. de Euch., so in this they differed not.

Our God hath sanctified one day in seven for the pro­moving of our faith, and consequently of eternall life, Bucer Deus noster è septem die­bus unum in­staur [...]ndae fi­dei nostrae atque adeò vitae aeternae sanctificavit, De re [...]n. Christ lib. 1. c 11..

That someone day in a week men attend Divine wor­ship is no humane device, Martyr Ut aliq [...]o die in heb [...]o­made homi­nes cult [...] di­vino v [...]ent non est humanum commentum, Loc. com. c 7..

It is a morall precept as it biddeth us dedicate one day in a week for the externall service of God, so Zan­chie. Morale est quatenus [...] diebus ut [...]m consecremus externo [...]ultui divino, in 4 praecept..

God therefore sanctified the seventh day, that man might know that in the weekly circuit one day is to be [Page 69] bestowed upon the publick worship of God, Pareus Ideo Deus diem septi­mum sancti­ficavit, ut ho­mo sciret in circulo heb­domadico di­em unum esse di [...]ino cultui publico tri­buendum, Com. in Ge [...]. c. 2. vers. 3.

It is a naturall law that every seventh day be sacred to God, Junius Naturale est, diem sep­timumquem­que D [...]o s [...] ­crum esse, In Gen..

That enemy of God, K. J. declar. adv. Vorst. Arminius, Morale est ut ex septem diebus unus cultui divino consecretur, Disp. 77. §. 10. It is morall to set apart one day of seven for Gods service.

The Lutherane Churches dissent not: Conradus Dietericus, as my Authour Heilen. p. 2 pag. informeth me.

Baldwin, Morale est sanctificare unum ex sep­tem diebus, Cas. consc. circa Fesla, l. 2. c. 13. Cas. [...]. It is morall to sanctifie one day of seven.

And to make up the harmony complete, the Pa­pists themselves are in this reconciled with us.

God would have at least one day in a week to be allowed him, saith Fenus Voluit de­us ad minus unum diem in hebdomade sibi impendi, in Gen..

To depute every seventh day in a week, is formally to depute the seventh day, though materially the same day be not alwayes deputed, so Suarez Deputare septimum quemque diem in hebdomade, est deputare septimum diem, licèt idem dies non semper fuerit de­putatus, De diebus F [...]stis, c 1..

The Divine Law required that one day in a week should be sequestred for holy worship, so Bellarmine Jus divinum requirebat ut unus dies in hebdomade di­caretur cultui divino, De cultu sanct. l. 3. c. 11.. Nor is the opinion an upstart: I appeal to Chryso­stome Hom. 5 in Math., who calleth it [...], an immoveable Law, [...], to sepose one day in a week for religious actions.

And thus I have proved that one day in seven he must have by the perpetuall ordinance of the fourth Commandment.

Nor will the allowance of one in seven satisfie him, unlesse he have the designation and determi­nation of that one. Di [...] quieti consecra­tus à Deo ipso, vel immediatè per se, vel mediatè per Ecclesiam a Spi [...]itu sancto guberna­tam, quisquis ille sit. It must be the day consecrated by God, either immediately by himself, or mediately by his [Page 70] Church directed by the holy Ghost, whatsoever the Day be, as I told you before out of Zanchy; so that the Day must be of Divine Institution.

And this is evident: First de Jure; Christ calleth himself Lord of the Sabbath: his dominion was not onely over the old Sabbath, to abrogate that; but over the new also, to surrogate that as succen­turiate to the other. Secondly, de Facto; For Gods own act is the best interpreter of his will, and if he had meant the Church should have had her libertie, her Conge d' Eslier, leave to chuse, he would not have anticipated her with his own act of instituting the Evangelicall Sabbath, whereof (as well as of the Legall) he was not onely the efficient but the ex­emplary cause, by finishing the work of our re­demption on that day.

Object.But here it is demanded, B [...]erewood, p. 3 [...]. Is the old Sabbath transla­ted into the Lords day? If yea; by whom? By any commandment of Christ, where is it? Produce one pre­cept or one word of God out of the old Testament, that it should be translated, or out of the new commanding it to be translated, or intimating that by Christs commandment it was translated.

Solution.Take both, or which you will, either the old or new Covenant, and withall the best and ancientest Interpreters thereof, and then I dare presume you will soon discry a Translation. For the first, it was adumbrated in their Circumcision on the eight day, It was a type of that eight day whereon our Lord rose again for our justification. So saith Cyprian Sacramen­tum hoc fuit diei illius octavi, quo Dominus resurrexit ad justificationem nostram, Cypr. Epist. ad Fidum. l. 3. c. 10.; and [Page 71] with him Augustine, Sanctos Pa­tres plenos Spiritu Pro­pherico non lateret Do­minicus dies, nam PRO OCTAVO Psalmus in­scribitur, & octavo die circumcide­bantur Infan­tes, Aug. de Celebratione Paschae. The Lords day could not but be known to the holy Prophets, for there is a Psalme entitu­led FOR THE EIGHT DAY, and on the Eight day Children were circumcised, and the like elsewhere.

It was Prophecied in the title of the Psalmes, the sixth and eleventh, In finem pro octavo. So Igna­tius Ep. ad Magn., Nazianzene De Nov. Domin., & Augustine. Prophecied in the It is the 102 in our Trans­lation. 101. Psalme, Scribatur illa in generationem novam, This shall be written for the Generation to come, vers. 18. so Athanasius. In the In our Translation, 110. v. 3. 109. for so Basil un­derstandeth diem virtutis, the day of Power: but above all prophecied in the 118. vers. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made. So all the Fathers who have saluted and cited that place.

For the second or new Covenant, we need search no higher then to the practice of our Saviour, and his Apostles from the Resurrection downwards, to warrant and assure us of this Translation; I say, from the Resurrection: for this their practice did not, as some suppose, begin in long wast of time. There was no interregnum, no vacancy at all, no cessation of a Sabbath; No, not the first week: No sooner was the old Sabbath abolished then the new established and installed. The Jewish Sabbath, that slept (we all know) its last in the grave with our Saviour: Its ghost (according to Countrey dialect) or the shadow of that shadow walked indeed a while after, but it self, the old Sabbath, expired then, and immediately entered the Lords day. Immediately, when Christ himself was but newly up, from that very day whereon he arose, doth S. Augustine Epist. ad Jan. 119. c. 13. de­rive the primum esse of the Lords day. The Lords [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [...] [Page 72] Day was by the Resurrection of Christ declared to be the Christians Day, Christi Re­surrectione declaratus est, & ex illo coepit habe [...]e festivitatem suam. and from that very time (of Christs Resurrection) it began to be celebrated as the Christian mans Festivall. So hath a profound Winton O­pusc de Sp. c. Trask. Bishop render­ed him; and truly, unlesse ex illo relateth to Christ, which I believe you will difficultly grant, though it be lesse monstrous then to marry it with Resurrectione, in despight of Priscian. Nor is Au­gustines opinion utterly of truth abandoned. For (though we reade not of any Sabbath-duties expres­ly performed on that very day of Christs Resurre­ction by the Apostles, yet) this we find, that when Christ appeared to them on that day, they were [...], Assembled on that day; and the place is thought by learned men to be the coenaculum, John 20.19. Meade Churches, p. 9. in which Christ celebrated the last Passeover, and from thence derived a perpetuall consecration: nor is it likely that he would inspire them in an ordinary place. If then they were assembled, and in a Church, we may safely collect they were busied in sacred exercises. The first day of our Saviours appearing to his Disciples, this, and the first Christian Sab­bath he honoured with his beatificall presence. The next was the next: [...], saith S. John. What? on some indefinite time after eight dayes, as you Heilen, p. 2. pag. 13. would have it? A word with you, Sir. Saint Mark telleth us that our Saviour should cap. 8.31. [...], will you therefore have our Lords Re­surrection to be on some one day after three expi­red? you will not sure, nay (though I think you dare as much as another, yet this) you dare not. No, by after eight dayes is meant the eighth day af­ter, [Page 73] which was the next Sunday. So the Aug. ad Cas. Epist. 86. Chrysost. ser. 5 De Resurr. Fathers agree: It is necessary that that day should be the Lords day, saith Cyrill Domini­cum diem esse necesse est, In John l. 12. c. 58., and he thence deriveth the equity of Assemblies upon that day. Nay more, this very day is so farre honoured by Nazianzene Orat. 43. as he made an Homily on purpose for it, as he hath entitled it, [...], Nova Dominica, because the first Lords day solemnized in the weekly revolution after the Resurrection, or rather because it was the encenium of the Resurrection: for betwixt the day of the Re­surrection and this he thus distinguisheth; That was, saith he, salutifera, this, salutis natale, That the day that brought forth salvation into the world, this the commemorative Festivall of that day.

Though this be the last first day mentioned in ho­ly writ, which our Saviour hallowed in his assem­bling with the Apostles, yet probable it is that he practiced the same even till his Apoge and Ascensi­on. But conjecturall arguments we will not urge, when demonstrative are so hardly obtained.

Well; our Saviour is ascended: Let us now be­hold what honour the Spirit of Comfort (which in his late valediction he promised to send his Apo­stles) hath conferred on this Day. Our Saviour is ascended, and the holy Ghost descendeth; but on what day? the first of the week? Not expresly, yet consequently and by deduction, yes: for it was when Pentecost was arrived, and this fell that yeare on the Sunday. Acts 2. The Allwise God so dispo­sing that the Gospel should every way parallel the Law: The one given on mount Sinai, on the day of Pentecost, the then Legall Sabbath; the other on [Page 74] mount Sion, on the day of Pentecost, the then E­vangelicall Sabbath. Heilen p. 1. pag. 14. But some are of opinion the Lords day need not brag of this honour, it being more then was meant it; for it was, say they, a ca­suall thing that Pentecost should fall on the Sunday: which I confesse seemeth to me a prodigy in Divi­nitie. For those things onely are casuall, which hap­pen, praeter intentionem operantis, contrary to the ex­pectation of the agent: But here God was the agent, whose omniscience nothing could escape, who is privie to all events as the disposer of them. True it is, that necessarium and contingens necessary and con­tingent are terms which Theology can endure well enough, when they are spoken with regard to in­termediate and second causes (For those Effects which are the emanations of such Causes as can in nature produce no other, are said to be necessary; and those which proceed from such as are in their own nature not determined to certain and definite effects, are called contingent) but when they are re­ferred to the supreme and paramount Cause of all, they are then, and must be called, Necessary. Nor could the falling of Pentecost on the Sunday be a contingent thing in respect of the second Causes, which were all (no doubt thereof is made) necessa­ry. For Scaliger hath informed you right, that the Pentecost's terminus à quo was [...], or the morrow after the Passeover: so ever; no contingency there: and the Passeover it self ever as certain, alwayes upon the fifteenth day, or the full Moon following upon or next after the vernall Ae­quinox: and so none there.

[Page 75]There were certainly other reasons which indu­ced the holy Ghost to make choice of this day and time; yet seeing all Antiquitie hath accounted his descent upon the Apostles amongst those titles of honour which have been dispensed upon this day, I see no reason why it should be now denied it. And though no glory at all (the thing by some over ea­gerly desired) should accrue to it thereby, yet this is most legible, that on this day the Apostles were solemnly though closely assembled in prayer and holy duties. But so, you will say, they were on other dayes; which I grant, with this distinction of aequè and aequaliter: for some dayes amongst them were doubtlesse dignified with a more solemn ob­servancy then others, in respect whereof they were especially reputed, if not denominated, Holy-dayes. For how else can our Church Hom. of time and place of Prayer. Simi­liter Brer. pag. 37. be understood, where she saith that The Christian people, immediate­ly after the Ascension, began to chuse them a standing day of the week to come together in: so that both the preferring one day before another, and the time of that choice, viz. immediately after the Ascension, she indigitateth to us.

The next mention of Apostolicall observation of this day occurreth, Acts 20. vers. 7. The first day of the week, the Disciples being come together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.

Against this Text two exceptions lie: First that by Breaking of bread is onely meant their ordinary repast, Heilen, p. 2. p. 23. no sacred Duties or celebration of the Eu­charist; and this they seem to make good by Saint Chrysostome and Lyra, as also by the English [Page 76] Bible, which paralleleth this place with Acts 2. verse 46.

I answer, some have indeed interpreted this Text of bodily repast; yet the major part take it for the mysticall breaking of bread in the Communion: And for our Church, So. contra Tr. B. Andrews out of this very place affirmeth positively that the Apostles were assembled, [...], to preach, to pray, to break bread on this day; pag. 211. and B. White averreth as much. And as to that Text of Acts 2. vers. 46. whether the margent of our English Testament transmitteth us, I say, that it is not inevitably, not evidently to be understood of common food. For Ecce verax Evangelista testatur sub Apostolis fi­deles quoti­die oras [...]e, & panem fre­gisse: Et vos, qui e [...]tis, qui dicitis duo­bus tantùm diebus heb­domadae Missam fieri debere per­fectam? con­tra lib. Ni­cet. ap. Cas­sand. liturg. cap. 30. Humbertus taketh it for the Eucharist, Behold the true Evange­list testifieth that the faithfull in the Apostolicall times assembled every day in Prayer and breaking of bread: what are you then who say that full Masse (that is, the celebrating of the Eucharist) ought to be per­formed onely twice a week? And though the words [...] may seem to boulster out the contrary opi­nion, yet if you take them, as they are both by the Syriack and Arabick, and our own margent render­ed, for At home, the meaning may very conso­nant to truth be (as my learned Mead. Churches▪ pag. 13. Tutour conceiveth) That when they had performed their dayly devo­tions in the Temple, at the accustomed times of Prayer there, they used to resort to this Coenaculum immediately, and there having celebrated the my­sticall banquet of the holy Eucharist, afterward took their ordinary repast with gladnesse and sin­glenesse of heart. In which interpretation there is enough to reconcile both parts, something for il­lustration [Page 77] being super-added. For the holy Ghost doth here (so I take it) regard the practice of the Christians in their Love-feasts Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11. Hom. 27. (and happily from hence they took their commencement) which consisting of divers viands provided by a common purse and collation, their fashion was to take so much thereof as they thought sufficient for the Communicants, and so to celebrate the Lords Sup­per together; which done they presently fell to their spare and slender chear, entertaining and so­lacing themselves with spirituall and divine collo­quies. So that the fraction of bread here might have reference to their mysticall repast in the blessed Eucharist, which was the first course or part of their Agape; and the latter part of the verse might look at the other part thereof, viz. corporall refection.

Their next cavill is, that this [...] deno­teth not the first, but some one day of the week, wherein as they are become Separatists from our Church in her most absolute Translation, so them and her I leave to end the quarrel.

We meet with it also, 1. Cor. 16.1. and there an ordinance of the Apostles, that their oblations should be upon that day. Now I would gladly learn why this day rather then any other should be appointed for an Almes-day, had it not been obser­ved Holy in those times.

Lastly, we meet with it Apoc. 1.10. but not now as formerly styled the First day of the week, but appa­relled in a Christian name, and called the Lords-day; which certainly the holy Ghost would not have done, had it not passed for currant amongst Christi­ans [Page 78] by that name: and how could it obtain that name, had it not been destined then to religious actions as a weekly holy-day?

Laying all these premised evidences of Aposto­lick practice together, do they not clearly demon­strate the translation of the Sabbath into the Lords day? For why should the Christian Church, even in those times when every day was sanctified with devout exercises and seemed an holy Sabbath, select any one distinct and peculiar day to be kept holy? and why one in a week, rather then in a moneth or yeare? and why not in the weekly circuit, the old Sabbath rather then the Lords day, had not God some way made known his will to them, that he would still have a Sabbath exempted from the com­mon condition of other dayes, & that Sabbath to be weekly, and that weekly, not the old Jewish, but the new Christian, to be the first of the week, as dignified by the Resurrection of our Saviour, Baptismo fla­minis die Pentecost. and the Anaba­ptisme of the Apostles. Vtrum (que) mysterium nostrum, utrumque utilitas nostrae, as Hierome Serm. de Nat. Dom. T. 2. in another case: Dispensers both of inestimable benefits upon his Church; the one of her justification, the other of her sanctification: and so this day a fit memoriall of both.

But here it will be demanded, By whom this translation was made? and to clear this doubt, Hic labor, hoc opus est.

Athanasius the great hath resolutely affirmed that Christ was the authour thereof; Homil. de Se­mente. [...], The Lord translated the Sabbath into the Lords day. But some have found (as they [Page 79] think) an evasion for this, Heilen. p. [...]. pag. 9. viz. That Christ was not the authour by any mandate of his, but onely the occasion of the translation: which unparalleled glosse suggests to my memory that of Augustine, Facilè est cuiquam vi­deri respon­disse qui tace­re noluerit, De Civit. Dei, lib. 5. cap. 27. It is easie with every man to reply who can not hold his tongue. But let us look upon the colour or fucus wherewith this interpretation (as false as new) is dawbed over, and see if it will not with great facility wash off. If Christ himself translated it, then the Father thwarteth what he said before De Sabb. & Circumcis., where he tells us that the Lords day was ta­ken up as a voluntary usage, [...], we ho­nour the Lords day; he mentions no command, whereas of the Sabbath he saith, [...], he command­ed it to be kept. This indeed were something to de­cline our objection out of the Father, if we were not assured otherwise of his mind; for apparent it is that the Father neither regarded in his [...] volun­tary usage, nor in his [...] imposed command; for do we not meet in him the same in effect counter-changed? Doth he not elswhere say as much of the Sabbath, as here of the Lords day? That when God had finished the prime creation he rested, and therefore men did OBSERVE the Sabbath in those dayes while the first creation was especially in force Sabbatum in die illo OBSERVA­BANT ho­mines istius generationis.. He mentions here no command; was therefore their observation of the Sabbath a voluntary usage? Nay, saith he not as much of the Lords day, as of the Sabbath? Cùm crea­turam intra sex dies con­ditam reno­vatione inter­polasset, ideo diem illam huic instau­rationi con­secratam vo­luit, quam in Psalmo Spi­ritus praenun­ciat, Haec est dies quam fecit Domi­nus. When God had renewed and restored man by finishing the work of redemption, he willed that the same day should be dedi­cated to that Restauration which the holy Ghost fore­shewed by the Prophet, saying, This is the day which the Lord hath made. And again, Deus Domi­nicum diem certum de­cla [...]a [...]úmque esse veluit, ut finem praete­riti sentites. Gods will was that the [Page 80] Lords day should be manifest and declared, that thou mayest know the end of the first generation to be accom­plished. What say you now, Sir? will your ingenuity descend to recant, or your pregnant invention afford you another refuge.

Now there be many wayes by which Christ may be said to be the Translatour of the Sabbath: Either by immediate institution, and example, as Junius In Gen. 2.; or by ratifying and approving the Translation already made by the Apostles, as Maldonate In Iohn cap. 28. v. 24.; or by giving them direct and expresse commission to do it; or lastly, by revealing his will to them by the holy Ghost after his Ascension. To render mine own opinion, and beyond opinion I will not adventure, Furiosares est in tenebris impetus, it is madnesse to run too boldly in the dark; where the Scripture is silent, it is never safe dogmatically to determine any thing: to render (I say) mine own opinion, the first way seems to me the more probable, considering our Sa­viours apparition, the assembling of the Apostles upon that day, whilest he abode with them, and the testimony of Athanasius, Nazianzene, and Augu­stine; but especially, because Clemens a contempo­rary of the Apostles, in his genuine epistle to the Corinthians, saith, Dominus oblationes & Liturgias non t [...]me [...]è, vel inordinatè voluit fieri, sed statutis temporibus, Pag. 52. Our Saviours pleasure was that oblations and publick service of the Church should not be inordinately and uncertainly performed but at times appointed. Which if it were true, we need not then doubt but that Christ himself made the Lords day a weekly holyday, it being the principall day we reade of, destined to sacred duties in the Apostoli­call age. But the matter is not much, by which, so [Page 81] we be able to prove that at least by one of these waies he did it. And this is a thing very feasable. For (to take a short and speeding course) the most embraced and popular opinion is, that the Apostles instituted and translated the Sabbath into the Lords-day: this is agreed upon by all, ancient and modern.

Augustine, Dominicum diem Apo­stoli & Apo­stolici viri religiosâ so­lemnitate ha­bendum san­xerunt, De Temp. serm. 251. The Apostles and Apostolick men or­dained the Lords day to be celebrated with religious so­lemnity.

The Authour De Spir. S. cap. 27. of that Tract (or at least of that Chapter) falsely ascribed to Basil, affirmeth the sta­tion and custome of standing upon the Lords day to be an Apostolicall Tradition; if so, then the day it self much more.

Isichius Nos illo­rum (Aposto­lorum) se­quentes Tra­ditionem, Dominicum diem divinis conventibus sequestram u [...] in Levit. c. 9., We following the Tradition of them (that is, the Apostles) sequestre the Lords day for holy meet­ings.

Epiphanius De Fide Cath. l. 11. c. 22. saith that the Apostles ordained the Synaxes to be held [...], on the Wednesday, Friday, and Lords day. I keep the originall word Synaxes, because of the diverse sense whereof it is capable Casaub. Ex­erc. p. 537..

The same is affirmed by Zanchy, in quartum prae­ceptum, pag. 669. Melancth. tom. 2. fol. 363. Bucer, Ratio Can. Examin. Mercer, in Gen. Beza, in Apoc. Pareus also ascribeth the Translation of the day, A­postolicae Ecclesiae, to the Apostolick Church; onely of the time when they translated it he leaveth, as he findeth, doubtfull: Quando autem facta sit haec muta­tio in sacris literis non apparet. And so [...] his words in two severall editions I have perused, that in quarto, and the other in folio: which I note the rather to [Page 82] whisper to you D. Heilens fidelity, who in his also two severall editions hath by a new transsubstantia­tion converted Quando into Quomodo; Heilen, p. 2. Cap. 6. §. 7. and to make it apparent he did it de industria, he descants on it and renders it, How, by what authority. Ursin, Catech. p. 3. in Decalogum, is of the same mind: and so Juni­us in Gen. Baldwin Cas. pag. 474. Alsted. catech. in praecept. 4. Bellarm. De cultu Sanctor. l. 3. c. 11. and infinite others: indeed what needs more? it is con­fest by our very Antagonists themselves, Brere­wood Pag. 44., B. White Pag. 189., Heilen Part. 2 p. 32, who all [...], with one mind acknowledge the Apostles to be the insti­tuters of the Lords day.

This foundation of Apostolicall institution be­ing thus laid, I advance forward to enquire whether this act of the Apostles did flow onely from the ge­nerall authority delegated to them by Christ, or some definite and expresse command to that effect; or rather (in clear terms) I proceed to discusse that great question, Whether the Lords day be esta­blished Jure Divino. Great I call it, not for any ab­struse and perplexed intricacy in it, no; Learned and eminent maintainers it hath got, and therefore great: but it is not her great Patronage shall advantage er­rour, Magna est veritas & praevalebit, Truth is great and will prevail: yea, but that is the question, whose Truth is. It is so, and come then for the decision of this question, Rationem veritatis, quae nec mea nec tua est, sed utrique no­strûm ad contemplan­dum proposi­ta, sine per­vicaciae cali­gine, serena­tis mentibus attendamus, Aug. contra Man. l. un. To that truth which is neither mine nor thine but the equall object of us both let us give attention, our clear and [...] judgements not beclouded with pee­vish stubbornnesse.

To entitle a command Divine, it is not onely requi­red, [Page 83] saith (that thus farre judiciously learned) Brere­wood, Brerew. p. 2. pag. 63. that the Authority be so whereby it is originally warranted (for there may be Divine authority for hu­mane decrees) but that the Authour also by whom it is established be Divine. Because Divine commandments are not so much evidences of Gods authority, as they are declarations of his will and pleasure. Which being without controversie true, that which we are to make good is, That this Act of the Apostles was but the execution of a particular and severall com­mand to that purpose; which can no sooner render it self manifest, then by surveying the Apostolicall both Mission and Commission. As for their Missi­on, it was with all the grace and honour that might be, nothing wanting that might any way enhance it; As my Father sent me, so send I you, John 20.21. He that heareth you, heareth me, Luke 10.16. where our Saviour maketh them a kind of letter of Atturney, to receive what obedience himself might claim. And having dignified their embassage with these previous expressions, Go, saith he, Matth. 28.19. there is their Mission and Legation; and teach, there is their Commission. But what? to teach what themselves think fit? no, there is a limitation, a re­striction, Vers. 20. it must be onely the observation of what thin [...]s I have commanded you; and lest through frail­ty of their memories any thing should perish which was essentiall to their message, Christ himself will have an eye to them, I am with you alway even to the end of the world, saith he. With them? how? Matth. ult. in cor­poreall presence? that could not be, for he was now ready to leave them. No, he was with them in Spi­rit [Page 84] by the Comforter, whom he promised to send them, John 15.26. And this Comforter had his Commission too, To bring all things to their remem­brance, whatsoever Christ had formerly said to them, John 14. [...]6. And though this Comforter is called the Spirit of Truth, and so impossible it is that he should inspire any thing lesse then truth; yet when Christ telleth his Apostles that this Comforter should guide them into all truth, he presently saith withall, That he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoe­ver he shall heare that he shall speak: He shall receive of mine, and shew it to you: which denoteth to us that the doctrine of the Gospel is in a more especiall man­ner to be ascribed to Christ, then to the holy Ghost, who was but our Saviours delegate and Commit­tee; therefore S. Paul saith that Christ spake in him, 2. Cor. 13.3.

It being then indisputably clear, that the Apostles were inspired by the holy Ghost, and that that Di­vine enthusiasme was but the revelation of Christs will, there is nothing else now desiderable, but one­ly to prove, that in this very act of instituting the Lords day or Sabbath of the new Covenant, they were [...], or prompted by that guiding Spirit; a thing little lesse visible then the former: for shall we say that the Spirit seised upon them onely at certain tides and fits? That he assisted them in their office, both of writing and preaching the Gospel is most certain: but did he onely then? was every act of their superintendency a spell to drive him away? did he onely wait upon them in the publication of the Go­spel, and abandon them in the moderation of the [Page 85] Church? was the doctrine they taught inspired from above, and were their constitutions Ecclesiasticall an humane device? Certainly no; the voyce of truth it self soundeth the contrary. For in their first councel we reade of a Visum est Spiritui sancto & nobis, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us. But that was a businesse of great weight, and so might require a more then ordinary assistance: let us behold more triviall and petty matters. 1 Cor. 7 [...] S. Paul was to give his resolution concerning a question, which (amongst others) the Corinthians put to him of Digamy, whether it was lawfull for a widow to marry again after the death of her first husband, and he determineth affirmatively, yes; but rather com­mendeth her containing her self in her widowhood. Did S. Paul deliver herein his own opinion? certain­ly no. [...], 1. Cor. 7.40. I think I have the Spirit of God, evinceth the contrary: and I hope no man will affirm this to be a businesse of importance comparable to the instituting of the Lords day. To dispatch without more ado; there is a question (the first hint whereof Aerius the heretick is suppo­sed to have given, and Hierome is not altogether dissenting from him) whether the Episcopacy be jure Divino. Much hath been said either way, yet not enough to end the bickering; and though the conflict be still on foot, yet both the one and the other side grant the hole controversie to move upon Aposto­licall Institution: that which the one to prove, the other to disprove, do equally eagerly labour, is one­ly Apostolicall Institution, the decision whereof endeth the dispute. King James ascendeth no higher, [Page 86] That Bishops ought to be in the Church, Epist. Prae­mon. Winton. Opusc. Posth. Athanas. ad Dracont. De diversis grad Eccl. cap. 23. I ever main­tained as an Apostolicall Institution, and so the Ordi­nance of God. Beza for the other part yieldeth as much, If I could (saith he) be assured that this superiori­tie of a Bishop over the rest of his Clergie hath proceeded from the Apostles, I would not doubt to attribute it holly to divine Institution. Now if Episcopacy can con­tract Jus divinum, divine Right, from Apostolicall Institution, why may not also the Lords Day (which I am sure can shew as good cards for her descent) do so too? and then with what face can it be gain-said by any that either is or would be a Bishop? yet so it hath come to passe that they, who have most cried down the paritie of Clergy, have most cried up the paritie of dayes. But let any (be he what he will) that maligneth the honour of this glo­rious day, mutter his pleasure; yet nor he, nor all the learning of the world, shall be able to produce one solid argument, sufficient to withstand this ine­vitable inference of divine Right from Apostolicall Institution. It being by all learned men agreed up­on, that whatsoever the Apostles (as Apostles and in their Apostolicall function) or did, or spake, or writ, is simply without modification Juris divini; the Reason being evident, because they were not sui Juris, Cantuar. c. Fish. p. 81. Junius ani­madv. in Bel. c. 1. l. 3. not [...], they had no power of them­selves to speak, or act any thing either in teaching or governing the Church, but all was suggested by the spirit, who could embreath nothing not divi [...]e.

With this Argument our adversaries are hard be­set, something they fain would retort, knew they [Page 87] what; and at last to shew their courage, and that — Nec victi possunt absistere ferro, they will not yield though overcome, forth steps one, Ironside, p. 172. and as­saults us with two distinctions; of Apostolicall in­spirations one, of Apostolicall traditions the other. Concerning the first he saith, The Apostles are to be considered, either as Apostles by extraordinary mission sent to plant the Gospel, or as Pastours to govern the Church already planted. As Apostles they were infalli­bly inspired with all truths, upon all occasions. As Pa­stours, their inspirations were onely such irradiations, influences and concurrences of the Spirit, as are afforded at this day to Pastours of the Church, unlesse by some per­sonall miscariages they procure unto themselves spiritu­all derelictions.

I Answer, Utrumque abs te fine ulla dubita­tione cogno­scere debui, sed non sum avarus, unum horum doce, Aug. contr. Epist. Ma­nich. lib. un. It is your dutie to prove indubitately both these to me, but I am not covetous, make good but one and I am satisfied. And first, tell me, good Sir, (if to awa­ken you out of this dream I be not over-rude) where find you the Pastorall and Apostolicall Office, in the same persons, distinct? where reade you of a double Commission, one to plant the Church, the other to govern the Church already planted? were not both these parts of the Apostolicall function? were they not Apostles, i. e. sent to do the one as well as the other? Instance in any one act of their Pastorall office, which was not in the latitude of their Apostolicall patent.

Secondly, admit them for severall functions: where I pray learn you that they had a distinct in­spiration, according to those severall functions? If those irradiations you talk of, which were shed up­on [Page 88] them as Pastours, were no other then what God now dispenseth to ordinary Ministers, then (I say) the beams or species intentionall of such irradiations must needs have a tincture of the Medium (naturall corruption) through which they passed; and every thing, which as Pastours they did, not onely may but must have a rellish of sinne or errour, which ever did, and ever shall, more or lesse, distain the best action of the justest man (infected with originall corruption, and not extraordinarily and infallibly in­spired) living upon earth. If then the Apostles as Pastours were but ordinarily inspired, and that or­dinary inspiration did not exempt their Pastorall works from sinne and errour, it were a worthy la­bour to put the New Testament into Purgatory, to weed out all those passages which relate to the Pa­storall office of the Apostles, and to bind them up with the old Apocrypha; I see also no necessitie why Children should be baptized, why women, nay why any of the Laitie should be admitted to the Eucharist, which are Apostolicall devices, whereof expresse command from our Saviour to them we find none: and to speak to the point in question, I see no necessitie of celebrating the Lords day, but of ob­serving the Jewish Sabbath I see a necessitie; for I see Gods command to observe it, and I see no coun­termand to abolish it. If the Apostles abrogated it without expresse warrant from God, they did it as Pastours; and their Pastorall constitutions by your rule ought not oblige the Church for ever.

But let us take view of the proofs which confirm this your distinction. Idem. 174. First you say the Apostles con­sidered [Page 89] as Pastours, were subject to mistake, Gal. 2.1 [...]. as appeareth by Saint Peter; who living at Antioch as a Pastour, was justly reproved by Saint Paul, for not walking as be­hoved a Pastour. And Paul and Barnabas dissented from one another, and that in such heat, as it maketh it appa­rent they were not both, if either, directed by the Spirit.

I answer, That Peter and the other two Apostles were too blame, I not deny; but were they in Ca­thedra, or doing any Pastorall work? assuredly No. He offended about the choice of meat, these about the choice of a companion; which are not things relating to the Pastorall office. And for ought I see, you may as well argue, Such a Minister is a tempo­rizer; Such and such a Pastour were cholerick one with another; Ergò they preach false doctrine, and so transferre the faults of the Person, to the office or calling.

Secondly, you instance in places of Scripture, where you bring in the Apostle speaking some things of himself, not as dictates of Gods Spirit. 1. Cor. 7. I speak this by permission, not of commandment, vers. 6. To the rest speak I, not the Lord, vers. 12. And, I have no commandment of the Lord, vers. 25. And, I give my judgement, vers. 40.

I answer, Your first is nothing ad oppositum: for the Apostle there distinguisheth not his permissive counsel from Christs command. In the follow­ing Text, where S. Paul is said to speak, and not the Lord, it is onely meant, that Christ did not expresly determine the doubt, whilest he conversed on earth, it being not then on foot: and this is the solution of [Page 90] the 25. verse also. Where it is said, verse 40. I give my judgement, we must not think it to proceed from his own head, but dictated by the Spirit; and so by way of precaution he telleth us, I think I have the Spirit of God. Nor do these words, I think, imply, as though the Apostle were not confident of it, but by way of Irony seem to gird those who boasted of extraordinary illumination: and this is the con­stant interpretation of all learned Expositours.

Let us now see how you distinguish Apostolicall Traditions: These (you say) are either such as they received immediately from Christ, or such as were sug­gested to them by the Spirit; the first (you say) they delivered as Apostles, and they are therefore Divine; the other as Pastours, and may be dispensed with. I did expect you would have derived this distinction from the Primitive Fathers, or some reformed Writers, men of some credit with us; but I see you are put to hard shifts, and are glad to appeal to them whom we renounce as incompetent judges, Canus, loc. l. 3. cap. 5. the Papists. But you say, according to this sense you find the Fa­thers speak of Traditions. Your talk of Fathers at first affrighted me, till I saw your instance onely attain a bare singular number. But what find you in Cypri­an, your Fathers, or universall particular? when Stephen accused his Anabaptisme for novelty, and repugnant to the ancient Tradition, Cypr. Epist. ad Pomp. 74. True, saith Cy­prian, but whence is this Tradition? from Christ in the Gospel, or from the Apostles in their Epistles? For what is written must be observed. There (you say) we have the first kind. Cyp. Ep. 68. But elsewhere Saint Cyprian saith, that the choice of Bishops and Ministers in the presence [Page 91] and with the approbation of the people, was of Divine and Apostolicall Tradition. Now who seeth not that here Saint Cyprian speaketh of those other Traditions, delivered and practiced by the Apostles as the Churches Pastours, which are no longer in force then the Church (you forget your self, you mean the Pope, for so your Canus singeth) shall like.

I answer, what you see I know not; this I dare affirm, that whosoever shall behold directly and with equall angles this passage of Cyprian, will clearly discern these two things: First, Diligenter de Traditione Divina & A­postolica ob­servandum est & tenen­dum. that he cou­ples Divine and Apostolicall Traditions together. Secondly, that he annexeth to Apostolicall Tradi­tion an observandum & tenendum est, it must be ob­served, which implieth their perpetuall Obligati­on: and by both these, Cyprian will be discovered to differ from your assertion, secundùm terminos op­positos, as wide as may be. And whereas you would enforce your interpretation upon us, as agreeable to the mind of this Father, from an assurance that such a choice of Bishops and Ministers is neither deliver­ed in the Gospel, the Acts, or the Epistles; the thing is not so evident as you perswade: yea the contrary is the more probable, for Acts 14. vers. 23. where it is said, they had ordained them Elders in every Church, the word is, [...], which most pro­perly implieth that the suffrage of the Laity was used therein. Mistake me not, I say not the Popu­lar vote made, but onely confirmed the Election: to chuse is one thing, to ratifie the choice made ano­ther; therefore to commentatours and others, who render the word [...], To elect by Popular suffrage, [Page 92] I cannot subscribe. Animadv. in Bell. contr. 5. l. 1. c. 7. a 59. The energy of the word may best be collected from Junius his description there­of: Chirotony (saith he) is a signification of suf­frage by the hand, the people being entreated there­to by the common cryer in this form, [...], Let him that approveth not of this lift up his hand. And in like manner I have ob­served Xenophon [...]. bespeaking his Souldiers, [...]. This description with some small elucidation will give you a plenary notion of the Athenian Chirotony. For further illustration therefore you must know, that regularly in whatsoever thing this Popular suf­frage was required, the matter it self was first de­bated and resolved upon by the Nomothetes or Le­gislatours in their counsel-house, and after such consultation it was then posted up in the most re­markable place of the Citie some few dayes, to the end the people might have time to consider of it; which time elapsed, the common cryer in open Market propounded it to the people: next an Ora­tion Hence came that scomme of Anachar­sis, Sapientes in concioni­bus sententi­am dicere apud Graecos, stultos verò dijudicare, Alex. ab A­lexand. gen. dierum, l. 4. was made to them, wherein the convenience and necessitie of the thing offered was laid open: that Oration ended, the people were last demanded by the publick cryer their vote, ut suprà, according to whose suffrage the businesse in agitation or stood or fell. Conformable, to this custome Apostolicall practice, in the ordaining Ministers, most probably was, viz. That they first chose the men, and then presented them to the people, who if they had any thing to oppose against them were then required to declare it. And this is the rather likely, because the [Page 93] Primitive Church, curious in imitating Apostolick usage, did universally Alexander Severus ob­served the same (accord­ing to the Christian pra­ctice) in his ordaining of Magistrates, ar governours of Provinces: Nomina eo­rum propo­nebat, hor­tans popu­lum, ut si quis quid haberet criminis pro­baret manife­stis rebus; dicebátque grave esse, non fieri in provinci [...] ­rum rectori­bus, cùm id Christiani & Ju [...]ae [...] face­rent in prae­dicandis sa­cerdotibus, qui ordinan­di sunt, Lam­pridius in vi­ta ejus. observe the same order; which is still retained also in our Church, as appear­eth by the Rubrick of her book of Ordination of B. P. and Deacons In the or­daining Dea­cons and Presbyters.: So that your assurance, as sure as you take yourself to be, may in this, for ought I see, deceive you. But be it as you would, that such an election is not to be found expresly written, yet will it neither follow, that it being an unwritten Tradition Apostolicall, it is not Divine; or that Cyprian in that place thought so. What his opinion there was, I have already told you; and sure I am, his words as well agree with your new-fangled di­stinction, as if he and you had been at crosse purpo­ses. As for Traditions Apostolicall, the greatest Papists hold them for divine. So Bellarmine De verbo Dei non scripto. cap. 2.: and his reason is, Quòd non sine spiritu Dei eas Apostoli instituerint, Because the Apostles did not institute them without the direction of the holy Ghost: And for the same cause Roffensis Defens. Reg. As­sert. co [...]tr. Capt. Bab. Luth. calleth Consecration (by which Transubstantiation is effected) a divine Tradition, Licèt nullis possit Scripturis comprobari, Though it cannot be proved by any written Word. But none more home then Gerson, Non est in potestate papae, aut Concilii, aut Ec­clesiae, immutate Traditiones datas ab Evangelistis, vel à Paulo, ut quidam del [...] ­rant, De vita Spir. Animae. It is not in the power of the Pope, Counsel or Church to alter Traditions, delivered either by the Evangelists or Saint Paul, as some blunderers think. Thus you see your self deserted by them whom you took to be the greatest fautours [Page 94] of your opinion. Let me advise you, Sir, if you have any more distinctions of the same stuff with those former, — habitent tecum & sint pectore in isto, suppresse them, for they will never credit you.

Though I have by main force of this invincible argument of Apostolicall Institution and Tradition reinvested the Lords Day into a possession of Jus divinum, assured and confirmed enough against all machinations of her greatest oppugners, yet wanteth she not other (should need so require) auxiliary to her.

For that Evangelicall day, which was prophecied of, and prefigured in and under the old Law, could not certainly be an humane device: But the Lords Day was shadowed under Circūcision on the eighth day, prophecied in many Psalmes (both proved by sufficient Testimony of the Fathers) Ergò the Lords Day is no humane ordinance.

Lastly, as the Eucharist is called the Lords Supper, because he instituted it; for the same reason is the Sunday denominated the Lords Day. For these two, the Day, and the Supper, have the epithete of [...] in Scripture, Opusc. sp. cont. Traske. to shew that Dominicum is alike to be taken in both, saith B. Andrews.

Before I take cognizance of other questions per­tinent to the Lords Day, lest I be thought over par­tiall to mine own assertion, painting it as Apelles did one-eyed Antigonus, who presented him half faced; and lest our adversaries should upbraid us, that they have not been allowed to object, the ne­gative arguments shall have audience, and, as they lie in order, their refutation.

[Page 95]Whatsoever is of Divine Institution is to be found either in the naturall or positive Law of God: Object. 1. Ironside, p. 159. But that the First day of the week should be the Christian mans Sabbath, is not so found: Ergò, the Lords Day no divine Ordinance.

It is found in the positive Law of God delivered by his Apostles, Solut. and founded upon the moralitie of the fourth Commandment, as I formerly shewed.

But saith one, You onely shewed what the Apostles ob­served themselves; Object. Heilen. p. 2. pag. 188. that they imposed the keeping of the Lords Day as necessary upon the conscience of Gods peo­ple by any law or precept whatsoever, that we reade not; and so it will become a Tradition, which (though Aposto­licall) is no Commandment.

Is not this fine stuff? assuredly an argument ra­ther that they have not left speech, Solut. then that they are returned to their right senses: for (to omit Au­gustine's sanxerunt, Bucer, Junius, Beza, and others, who make it the Institution of the Apostles) doth not Brerewood himself confesse it to be the ordi­nance of the Apostles, and B. White pag. 192. the same al­so? what I pray is an Ordinance but a Law? and was this a Law that bound themselves onely, and not at all the succeeding Church? is it like they would constitute a Law to expire with themselves? And whereas we are now taught a distinction be­twixt Tradition and Command, we will for quiet sake (though it biddeth defiance to all antiquity) ad­mit it in the same sense you impose upon it, and ac­cept it for a mere leaving of the observation of this day to the Church, without any expresse command to observe it; yet, I say, you shall find Command so [Page 96] implicitly complicated with Apostolicall Traditi­on, as all your waters of separation, all your chy­micall extracts of School-distinctions, shall never be able to sever them. For are you able to unmake Tradition? to make that no Tradition which is Tra­dition? If you be not, so long as it is Tradition, it hath expresse command affixt to it, Tenete Traditi­ones, Hold the Traditions, 2. Thess. 2.15. So that if Tradition were it self no command, yet hath it here command annext to it. And though I grant that our Expositours understand this place especially of the written word, yet extend they it to Traditions unwritten also, such as are clearly held to be Apo­stolicall, and have, if not mention, yet foundation in Scripture: amongst which the observation of the Lords Day is worthily accounted. Habet ap­probationem Scripturarum itaque inter Non-scriptas Traditiones haud possit collocari, De Iudice ac Norma fi­dei. It hath the ap­probation of the Scriptures, and therefore cannot be num­bred amongst unwritten Traditions, saith the Reve­rend Salisbury with others Zanch. de Tradit. Pareus in 1. Cor. 11. Whitakerus, Controv. quaest. 6. c. 12.. And for the Church succeeding the Apostles, it is most evident she held her self obliged to the same observation: For even in times of persecution, before any either imperiall Edict, or Canon of Councel enjoned it, the obser­vation of this Day was so taken notice of by the Heathen, that it became a constant Interrogatory to the Christians in their examining, Dominicum servasti? Have you kept the Lords Day? To which their answer was ever ready, Intermitte­re non pos­sum, quia Christianus sum, & Lex Dei de eo agendo ad­monet, apud Baron. 30 [...]. Num. 5 [...]. I cannot intermit it, for I am a Christian, and the Law of God prompteth me to it. Here we see these holy Saints had a Law for the celebrating of this day; and have we none? Perhaps you will say, It may be questioned whether [Page 97] Dominicum here signifieth the Lords Day, because Baronius Ubi suprá, n. 39. and Bellarmine De Carem. Missae sub tit. Collecta. apply it to the Masse, and it may also well be understood of the Eucharist, which is often in antiquity called Dominicum. I answer, It cannot properly and distinctly be under­stood of either: Not of the Masse; for though Pa­pists inform their disciples of I know not what pro-sekenique antiquitie it hath, yet sure we are that (as now stated) it was not in being above a thousand years after our Saviour, and so it could not be meant in this place. Besides, the question was propounded as well to the Lay as Clergy-Christians, of whom it had been absurd to expostulate, Num Dominicum egissent? whether they had said Masse? which is one­ly done by the Priest. Nor can it respect the Eu­charist otherwise then by implication, as it was then an usuall work of that day; because it is said that they might not intermittere, which especially relateth to time (as interpose to place) and inferreth the not doing of a dutie in its proper quando: which cannot be well interpreted of the celebration of the Eucharist, it being not restrained by any positive Law of God to a certain time. And indeed it was more proper to examine them whether they held their Christian assembly, whether they met on the Lords Day, considering it consequently inferred the performance of all sacred duties, then to in­quire whether they had celebrated the Eucharist, which according to the custome of those times was often performed at home, being reserved for the same purpose.

If Christ had either here on earth, Object. 2. Brerewood, page 7 [...]. or after by revela­tion [Page 98] from Heaven, given his Apostles any such charge of Instituting a new Sabbath, sure Christs Apostles would not have concealed Christs command. Ironside, p. 161. Besides, the Apostles holding their first Synod would doubtlesse have exprest as much to the Gentiles.

Solut.First, Christs Apostles did not conceal Christs command: for what if perhaps it be not extant in their writings? They were indeed our Saviours executours, performers of his will; but was his hole will exemplified in Scripture? certainly no: Some part thereof was declared in ima Cera, (as Civilians say) and by Tradition. For Tradition, which is clearly known to be Apostolicall, is as per­fect evidence of Christs will as the Canonicall Scripture it self. For the Scripture before it was Scripture was but a part of Tradition, and became Scripture that it might be of more ready use and better preserved from perishing, but mainly because it was the fundamentall Canon of our Religion.

Secondly, The Apostles in their Synodicall Epi­stle had onely respect to the Judaicall, not to Evan­gelicall observances. Moreover, the solemnity of the Lords Day was made known to them by for­mer practice (equivalent with precept) at least, if not by precept it self: for according to our Church, Hom. of the place and time of prayer. The Christian people immediately after the Ascension began to chuse them a standing day of the week to come together in. My learned Authour biddeth us here observe, that the day was chosen by Christian people; and if chosen by them, H [...]ilen. p. 2. pag. 175. then not injoyned by the Apostles. I see a man may learn something every day; for I professe ingeniously, till this instant I took the A­postles [Page 99] to be Christians. Lastly, the precept was in the negative, not in the affirmative. If you say, True, and hence we may inferre that the first Chri­stians were tied to no affirmatives, but such as were expresly commanded by Evangelicall precept. I answer, then it must follow that women did not communicate, children were not baptised, Mini­sters not ordained, incorrigible persons not excom­municated, these being not expresly commanded by any Evangelicall Law.

Whatsoever is of divine Institution, Object. 3. Ironside, c. 8. p. 162. and by necessitie of precept laid upon the whole Church, is a necessary du­tie, without which (if it may possibly be observed) no sal­vation can be had: But no man will affirm so of the Lords Day: Ergò, &c.

The major is false; Solut. for positive precepts omitted do not inevitably damne any man, but where there is a malicious contempt, or wilfull neglect of the or­dinance. The Sacrament of Baptisme shall be mine instance. It was in the Primitive Church procrasti­nated, by some many years; by most in their usu­all practice some moneths; and is even in our own Church some dayes. In all this delay, no inevitable impossibility debarreth the competent or person to be baptized from this Sacrament: will you then say that Heaven gates are precluded against all those whom hasty death cutteth off in this delay? Heare the most uncharitable of all the Ancients in this point Impletur in­visibiliter, cùm mysteri­um baptismi, non con­temptus reli­gionis, sed ar­ticulus ne­cessitatis, ex­cludit. De Bapt. c. Donat. l. 4. c. 22. S. Augustine, The Sacrament of Baptisme is in­visibly accomplished as long as the fault proceedeth from absolute necessitie, not from contempt of the ordinance.

The Gospel commandeth onely such observations Object. 4. [Page 100] which are either means of grace, Ironside, c. 8. p. 162. as the Word and Sa­craments; or wherein the exercise and use of grace doth consist, as the duties of love towards God and Man: But the observation of the Lords Day is neither a means of grace, nor exercise of grace: Ergò, &c.

Solut.That which is a part of divine worship is a means of grace: But the observation of the Lords Day is so: Ergò, &c.

The minor I prove thus, That is a part of divine worship, whose Institution is divine: But the Insti­tution of the Lords Day is divine, as I have made evident: Ergò, &c.

If you say that Junius, Medull. l. 2. c. 14. Amesius and others, who hold the Day to be Jure divino, make it yet onely an adjunct to not a part of divine worship. I answer, that as it is a time set apart for holy wor­ship, it is an adjunct to it; but as it is a time deter­mined by God himself, the very observation there­of is a part of divine worship, which is nothing but a religious observance of the true God according to the prescript of his own will. Besides, it is a means to stirre up our souls to the exercise of grace in pi­ous meditations, when we consider it in all its pre­rogatives superlative above other dayes; as that which was the [...], and in all probability shall be the [...] of dayes, and therefore aptly dedicated to him who calleth himself [...] and [...]; as the day of our Sa­viours resurrection, by which we are justified; as the day of the holy spirits descension, by whom we are sanctified; Aug. d. Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 30 as the day which mystically prefigu­reth our eternall rest, when we shall be glorified. And therefore it is worthily and truly called by Ad Magnes. Ig­natius, [Page 101] The sublimest and primate of all dayes.

That day which cannot be kept universally through­out the whole world, Object. 5. Ironside, ubi suprá. was never commanded the whole Church of Christ by an Evangelicall Law: (For the Gospel is given to all Nations) But the Lords day can­not thus be universally observed, considering the diver­sitie of meridians, and unequall rising and setting of the sunne in divers Regions, in some whereof time is not distinguished into weeks or dayes, by morning and evening, as in Groinland, Finmark, Lapland, &c.

The positive Laws of God do not alwayes imply a possibility in them upon whom they are imposed. Solut. The Jews were injoyned many observances of sa­crifices, feasts, &c. which could not alwayes be per­formed by them, as in case of captivity or durance. So the Christians are commanded the celebration of the Eucharist, and yet the condition of some Countreys is such as they have not bread As the In­dians, Teste Arriano, l. 8. de Reb [...]s Ind. and the Ve­netians, ut habet [...]e Treas. Po­lit. ▪ of o­thers, as they have not wine As the Nor­wegians.. The truth is, Gods commandment may impose, but never oblige unto, things sometimes impossible: where there is an utter impossibility of observation (as in this or the like case) that impossibility is a necessity with which the Law dispenseth. And this is the reason (to speak to the point in question) why the Sabbath being given to Adam, and in him to all mankind, Gen. 2. was not described as the other six dayes by evening and morning; as also why the Sabbath of the fourth Commandment, of like latitude with the former, is not set out by expresse bounds of from Eve to Eve, Levit. 23.32. as that in the Leviticall Law, which onely concerned the Jews: to intimate that the journall or dayly round [Page 102] of the Sunne, should be no precise rule or character of his Sabbath in such places where time is not so distinguished, but that there his people are to give him a seventh of their time, as it is with them distinguished.

And though the Regions abovesaid have not na­turall dayes described by the circulation of the Sun from East to West, yet times they have holding so near correspondence with such naturall dayes, that in some parts they are denominated dayes; and for Island (if my intelligence misleadeth me not) their dayes are homonymall with ours in England (an ar­gument of their not different either Planters or Conquerours) as derived from the same idoles in Planetary computation, Le Tresor. Polit. l. 3. whereof the learned Selden and Verstegan can inform you.

Object. 6. Ironside, ubi suprá. There is the same reason of keeping a determinate set Sabbath under the Gospel, that there is of preaching, praying, administering the Sacraments, &c. But these are not determined how often they shall be done: Ergò, It is not limited what time shall be a set Sabbath.

Solut.Every of these, though they be not absolutely restrained, yet their proper time is this very Sab­bath, Dominum nostrâ Do­minicâ sem­per manna de Coelo pluere, Hom. in Ex­od. 7. Omni modo orationibus insistendum, ut si quid negligentiae per s [...]x dies agitur, per di­em resurre­ctionis Do­minicae pre­cibus expie­tur, Greg. M. li. 11. Epist 3. whereof those duties were a finall cause: to speak in particular, It is a Day of Preaching, and so ever was in the Primitive Church. Origen alluding to the first fall of Manna in the wildernesse saith, The Lord ever raineth down Manna from Heaven on our Lords day: and so in the Apostolicall age, Acts 20.7. It is a Day of Prayer. We must by all means intend our Prayers on the Lords Day, that by them on that Day we may expiate for all our negligen­ces [Page 103] and escapes in the week-dayes. So Acts 2.1. the Christians were assembled [...], with one accord, on this Day: and how they were wont then to be imployed, the Historian telleth you c. 1. v. 14. it was [...], in Prayer. It is a Chrysost. S. 5. de Resurrect. Athanas. Apol. 2. Day proper for the Eucharist, and therefore anciently called Dies panis, and in some places (as in Alexandria) the onely Day and Time for it. So Acts 20. vers. 7. the Disci­ples came together to break bread, that is, to communi­cate of the Eucharist. It is a day proper for the Sa­crament of Baptisme, and therefore anciently called Dies lucis, the Day of illumination. Chrysost. ubi suprá. This Sacra­ment not usually being conferred unlesse in case of eminent necessity, but upon this Day. So Acts 2.41. (the most notorious president extant) no lesse then [...], very near three thousand were this Day baptized. Lastly, it was a day of almes: Apol. 2. Pro arbitrio quisque suo quod visum est contribuunt, & quod ità colligitur apud praepositum deponitur, saith Justin Mar­tyr. And so 1. Cor. 16.1. Saint Paul ordained it should (the First of the week) be a day of collecti­on for the poore.

That which is expresly against Christian libertie was never commanded by Christ or his Apostles: Object. 7. Ironside, ubi suprá. But to have the Conscience burdened with any outward observations, putting religion in them, as being parts of Gods worship, is directly against Christian libertie: for how is he free that is thus bound to times and dayes?

What you understand by Christian libertie I know not; Solut. sure I am that Christ onely delivered us from the observation of the old ceremoniall Laws, and from the sting of punishment due to the breach [Page 104] of the Morall; but that he exempted us from all outward observations whatsoever, is a fancy of your own, without warrant from the Scripture. For would he then have imposed the outward observa­tion of Sacraments, if we had not been obliged to them? and you are in this implunged in errour be­yond the Anabaptists: for they cry up Christian libertie to free them from the constitutions of men onely, but you will have it reach to the very ordi­nations of God.

Object. 8. Ironside, ubi suprá. There is no dutie essentiall in Religion ordained by Christ or his Apostles, of which we find not either exhor­tations in respect of performance, or reprehensions in re­gard of their neglect, either in the Gospel, Epistles, or Acts: But the keeping of the first Day of the week Sabbath, is no where pressed or exhorted unto, the neglect thereof no where reproved in all the new Testament: Ergò, &c.

Paedobaptisme, the communicating of women, is I hope essentiall in Religion, Solut. secundùm esse perfectum; but where do you find any exhortation to the obser­vation, any reproof for the neglect of these duties? Besides, I see nothing to the contrary but it may be included in Saint Pauls admonition of Tenete Tra­ditiones, whereof before.

Had the observation of the Lords Day been of Divine Institution, Object. 9. Ironside, ubi suprá. it is very probable that the Apostle repro­ving the Corinthians for going to law, would not have omitted the advantage of this circumstance: 1. Cor. 6. For plain it is that their pleadings were ordinarily upon the Lords Day: But he omitteth, &c.

Solut.That which you make so probable, was, I affirm, [Page 105] (considering the Spirit which alwayes assisted him) utterly impossible in the Apostle: for how could he (who knew his Lord and Master had often determi­ned the contrary in very like cases, opposing Phari­saicall strictnesse) how could he, nay how durst he prevaricate or swerve from Christs rule? he knew it lawfull to cure a crazie body, and was it sinne to consolidate a crackt estate upon the Sabbath? it was justifiable to drag a beast out of the ditch, why not also land out of the oppressours claws on that day when it could not be done on another?

If Christ had appointed this day as the day of his Resurrection, Object. 10 Idem. ibid. then the Eastern Churches which followed S. John transgressed this ordinance of Christ when they kept their Easter on another day: But they sinned not in it. Ergò, &c.

Christ nor his Apostles (for ought we know) gave no commandment concerning Easter, Solut. neither is it necessary that the anniversary and weekly me­moriall of one and the same benefit should alwayes jump together. Gods own precept, in almost the same case, we know was otherwise: The Jewish Sabbath and Passeover were both commemoratives of their redemption out of Egypt, yet one was fixed to the day of the week, the other to the full of the moon, so as they seldome met together.

Had it been a Divine Institution, Object. 11 Idem. doubtlesse those Fa­thers and Synods which have spoken so much in praise of the Day, displaying the prerogatives thereof, would ne­ver have omitted this which is the greatest of all: But none ever affirmed a Divine Institution: Ergò, &c.

They do not indeed mention it sub terminis, be­cause [Page 106] it was not questioned in their dayes; but if they make it instituted by Christ (as some) or by his Apostles (as almost all) and if they tell us, Non minùs ratum est quod dictan­te Spiritu sancto Apo­stoli tradide­runt, quàm quod ipse Christus tra­didit, Cypr. de Abl. [...]edum. Whatso­ever the Apostles delivered by the dictate of the holy Ghost is as firm and indefeasable as what Christ himself, then I hope by necessary consequence they make it of Divine Institution.

That which the orthodox condemne for popery should not be consented to by us: Object. 12. Id. ibid. But that the Lords day is a part of Gods worship, and more holy then other dayes (as from Divine authoritie) is condemned by Reformists in the Papists: Therefore we ought not to symbolize with them.

Solut.No reformed Writers condemne this in the Pa­pists, because they hold the Lords Day more holy then others, but onely such, and those very few, as think the Day to be of Ecclesiasticall not of Di­vine Institution. The orthodox Thesis is this, Dies festiab hominibus non possunt fieri aliis sanctiores, Tom. 2. de diebus Fest. c. 10. Festivall dayes cannot by humane constitution be made more holy then others, as Amesius, to whom you ap­peal, could have informed you.

Object. 13. Id. ibid. Lastly, Socrates affirmeth that the Apostles never in­tended to establish laws concerning Holydayes; S. Augu­stine also maketh it will-worship or idolatry to observe any day as commanded of God. Soc. l 5. c. 2. Aug. cont. Adam Ma­nich. c. 16. Hieronym. in Gal. c. 4. S. Hierome likewise saith, we have no dayes having any holinesse in them and necessitie from Divine institution. The book of Homi­lies affirmeth that Christian men of themselves without any Divine precepts did take upon them the observation of the Lords Day. All reformed Churches consent with us; and many Martyrs in the Marian dayes, as Tindall, Frith, Barnes: Lastly, Master Perkins [Page 107] speaketh doubtfully herein, yet he was one of the first that took up this tenet.

Socrates must have a candid Reader, Solut. or be argued of overbold singularitie against all Antiquitie, who affirmed the contrary. Augustine saith that the Christians in his time did not observe so much the festivals themselves as what was signified by them; and therefore he saith that the Apostle did blame the Galatians in this, because they did observe ap­pointed times servilely, Serviliter, non intelli­gentes ad quarum re­rum signifi­cationem pertinerent. not knowing the mystery to which they tended: he speaketh nothing of their institution, not one word. Hierome in­deed, I grant, was inclining to your opinion, but his single judgement is not equivalent to the many reasons and authorities urged on the contrary. The book of Homilies affirmeth no such thing as you say: these words, of themselves without any Divine precept, are yours not the Churches; not expresly, not in­terpretatively, so not hers as she is positive in the di­rect contrary. For there being two things wherein the Divine right of the Lords Day is founded, upon legall Institution in the fourth Commandment, and Evangelicall by either Christ or his Apostles, for the first she saith that God expresly in that precept com­mandeth the observation of the Sabbath which is our Sunday; and not onely commandeth it, but also by his own example doth stirre and provoke us to diligent keep­ing of the same. For the second, having a while after declared it to be Gods Will and Commandment to have a solemn time and standing day in the week consecrated to him, she presently addeth, This exam­ple and Commandment of God the godly Christian peo­ple [Page 108] began to follow immediately after the ascension of our Lord Christ, and began to chuse them a standing day in the week to come together in. Now where she speaketh of Godly Christian people, she doubtlesse meaneth the Apostles (for who else durst at that time take upon them to begin such a custome) and so as touching the Institution of the day as a weekly day, she redu­ceth it to the fourth precept, and as the first of the week, she foundeth it upon Apostolick practice.

What some other reformed Churches think in this point of the Lords Day, may plausibly enough against us be urged on your parts, I confesse, and it is your Drusian, your keenest objection; and yet we can oppose many things to turn the edge of it. For first, they are onely positive in setting down their own opinions, but the reasons inducing them thereto they suppresse; and seeing they are not [...], we must not be governed by their bare Thesis. Se­condly, those confessions are not generall, but par­ticular to some Churches. Thirdly, were they the Canons of a generall Councel, yet must they not predominate over Truth: Ipsa concilia quae per sin­gulas Regio­nes vel Pro­vincias fiunt, plenariorum Concilio­rum auto­ritati, quae fi­unt ex uni­verso orbe Christiano, sine ullis am­bagibus cede­re, ipsá (que) ple­naria, saepe priora poste­rioribus, e­mendari, cùm aliquo expe­rimento ve­rum aperitur quod clausum erat, & co­gnoscitur quod latebat, August. de Bapt. c. Don. l. 2. c. 3. Nationall and Provinciall councels ought to give place to the authoritie of Vniver­sall and Oecumenicall; and these have been oftentimes amended, when experience hath cleared some truth which before lay hid, saith Augustine.

Lastly, (though some will think it Hieronym. Ep. ad Dam. Pap. in 4. Evang. periculosa prae­sumptio judicare de caeteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum) to speak the truth, yet to speak it with all terms of venerable regard to those famous Churches, I dare pronounce they are not right in this point, not so full reformed but they stand yet in need of further re­formation. [Page 109] Nor ought we to wonder at their mis­take herein: For first the precept of the Lords Day is not so legible in sacred Scripture as the rest which concern matters of faith, thereby to instruct us to put a difference betwixt fundamentalls and ceremo­nies; it is written in a finer character, in a smaller Print, and therefore might well escape the eyes of those Churches at the first break of day of Refor­mation, when the light shone somewhat dimme. Secondly, the question was never on foot in their times, and so the evidences demonstrating Divine Right were never laid open to them; and having inquiries concerning sacrifice of the Altar, Adorati­on, &c. more proper for those times, to imploy them, they were not like to inform themselves bet­ter upon accident.

What I have said concerning the Reformed Churches, may also be applyed to those holy and blessed Martyrs you cite, and partly to master Per­kins, who had he lived now would (I dare say) have been as positive and resolute as any other. And whereas you make him the prime inventer of this tenet, though what I have urged out of the book of Homilies is your sufficient confutation, yet will I produce one Testimony more, and that no lesse then Royall, and as Reformation it self ancient. Injunct. of H. 8. anno 1636. apud Fox Martyr. The Sab­bath Day was used and ordained but for mans use, and therefore ought to give place to the necessity and behoof of the same whensoever that shall occur; much rather any other holy day instituted by man. What say you now, Sir? if Perkins was the first that took up this tenet, who I pray laid it down? and down it was laid for [Page 110] certain, if he took it up; for up it was you see in Henry the eighths time.

Having thus waded through all the objections, and discovered their frame to consist of very loose and defeasable stuff, wherein truth is no ingredient, I step forward to other questions incident and per­tinent to this discourse.

And first, it is to be examined (the Lords day being an Apostolicall Tradition) whether it be im­mutable, whether the Church hath power to alter the day, and substitute another in liew thereof.

I answer, Nay, the Church hath not such a power, the sphere of her activitie extendeth not so farre, she cannot null and rescind the act of God. If the Sun­day be established (and established so I have proved it) Jure divino, it is without all dispute unchange­able; for Immutable is one ingredient into the defi­nition of Jus divinum, as the Canonists compound it, who make it, which is comprehended in the Law and Gospel, and remaineth perpetuall Quod in Lege & E­vangelio con­tinetur, at­que immuta­bile semper permanet, L [...]ncelot. Inst. Juris Canon. lib. 1. Tit. 2.. True it is, I grant, that many positive divine Laws are changeable by the same authority which first imposed them, but that a divine Law can be abrogated, yea or displaced, by humane authority, that no sober man will yield to: And I hope (though many have of late set her on her tip-toes, and advanced her to a tickle point) the Churches power and authority reacheth not Divine. Besides, there is an especiall and peculiar reason of the inalterability of the Lords Day more then is usuall in other constitutions though Divine; for God hath a propriety therein. Six dayes in the week he hath bestowed upon us, but the seventh he [Page 111] reserved for himself, wherein he hath as good, nay better freehold estate, then any man in his possessi­ons; and then the rule of the Law is, Quod no­strum est, sine assensu nostro, ad alium trans­ferri non po­test, Reg. Ju­ri [...], lex 11. What is ours without our assent cannot be transferred to another. So that the Church hath no power to make that a work­day, which God himself hath consecrated to his ho­ly worship. Nor mattereth it whether this designa­tion were performed by Christ immediately, or by the mediation of his Spirit assisting and infallibly di­recting the Apostles, and so it becometh an Apo­stolicall Tradition; for even this (though the low­est degree of Divine appointment) doth conferre exemption enough upon this day, to secure it from any jurisdiction the Church can claim over it.

I will not dissemble it, some learned men have I confesse ascribed to the Church an authoritie over this day, so as she may if it please her transferre it to another: But you must know withall, that not one of these do repute it as an Apostolicall Tradition, which is the hinge upon which the hole question moveth; nor if they did, are we to give absolute credit to their dictates. Men they were of excellent en­dowments, great both for their piety and learning, and amongst them I honour none more then that fa­mous Bishop P. Paraus, de vit. & ob. Patris. of Geneva M ^r Calvin; yet in some things (as this for one) I may say of him as Augu­stine of Cyprian, Sicut multa erant quae doctus Cal­vinus doce­ret, sic erat & aliquid, quod Calvinus do­cibilis disce­ret, contr. Donat. l. 5. c. 26. As there were many things which learned Calvin taught others, so were there some things which he might learn of others. If you can, produce any one who hath affirmed it to be an Apostolicall insti­tution or tradition, and withall an alterable ordi­nance, and I will promise you to affoard you two at [Page 112] least for him who have resolved the contrary.

Object.But here perhaps you will demand, What? are all Apostolicall Traditions immutable? That restriction from eating bloud, or things offered to idoles? that of collecti­ons for the poore every Lords Day? &c.

Solut.I answer, let it be first agreed what Apostolicall Traditions are, under which name many upstart and recent customes intruded themselves into the Church. Unaquae (que) Provincia praecepta Majorum le­ges Aposto­licas arbi­tratur, Hieron. Epist. ad Lucinum. Every Province accounteth the constitutions of its Forefathers Apostolick Traditions, saith Hierome. Apostolicall Traditions then I say were of two sorts, the one particular, the other generall. Particular were such, as were framed by the Apostles either joyntly or severally, but restrained to some especiall circumstance of time, place, persons, or the like; and so having onely reference and regard to such cir­cumstance, the removall of that circumstance made the observation of the Law to cease: Such are those Traditions above named in the objection, such are supposed to be the different rites of the East and West, Azor. Inst. Moral. l. 8. c. 4. one observing both the Sabbath and Lords Day, the other the Lords Day onely, and fasting on the Sabbath; one celebrating the Festivall of Ea­ster on the fourteenth day of the Moon, the other upon the Sunday after.

Generall were such as neither regarding any cir­cumstance of time, place &c. nor any moveable oc­casion were universally agreed upon to be received, and so prescribed to the Christian Church by all the Apostles: such were the Creed, the books of the Canonicall Scripture, the observation of the Lords Day, Paedobaptisme, &c. whereof that gol­den [Page 113] rule of S. Augustine Quod uni­versa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis in­stitutum, sed semper re­tentum est, non nisi au­toritate Apo­stolicâ tradi­tum, rectissi­mê credimus, Cont. Donat. de Bapt. l. 4. c. 23. is a character. What the Catholick and Vniversall Church holdeth, not decreed by Councels but ever observed, we may safely believe it proceeded from no lesse then Apostolick authoritie. Now these generall Traditions I averre to be immutable, and such as must ever be observed in the Church, not onely because they have or mention, or foun­dation in the Scripture (for so the particular have also, and they which have not are not by us owned for Traditions Apostolicall) but because they were at first made without limitation and restriction; and herein I have the suffrage of Zanchy De Tradi­tion., Pareus Com. in 1. Cor. 11., and other learned men.

As for particular Traditions, they being at first framed for speciall occasions, are now (those occa­sions being ceased) but as laws dormant, untill the emergency of the like occasion awakeneth them again. Dormant I said, not dead. Life, vigour, and force they have still, and should the same occasion arise again, God would expect from the Church the same observation: For they being Apostolicall, and so evidences of the Divine will upon severall occasions, we must not think that one and the same cause can operate in the Immutable Essence a diverse will, seeing in Philosophy, The same agent, Idem, quà idem, semper facit idem. whilest he is the same, effecteth the same thing: Dead there­fore they cannot be, so long as there remaineth a possibilitie for the same occasion to set them on work again; and so that School-rule may fit them well, Obligant semper, sed non ad sem­per, Bona­vent. Diet. salutis. They oblige alwayes, but not upon all occasions.

Well, be the Lords Day Divine, be it Immuta­ble, what then? are we obliged to observe it with [Page 114] that severe and rigid vacation, which the Jewish Sab­bath required?

I answer, Yes, Qui in do­minium al­terius succe­dit jure ejus uti debet, Reg. Juris Lex 138▪ He which succedeth into anothers jurisdiction, is invested in his predecessours right. The same strictnesse of observation belongeth to the Lords Day, that anciently did to the Sabbath; I say by the fourth Commandment: for that Command­ment hath not lost under the Gospel the least scruple or atome of obligation, which it injoyed during the Law, but bindeth still without abbreviation of time, or alleviation of restraint during that time. As for the duration of time, though I cannot discern such distinct abbuttalls thereof in this Command­ment as some seem to perswade, yet am I of opini­on that the word Day comprehendeth [...] a hole naturall Day. And as touching restraint from negotiation and toil on that Day, the words are very direct, Thou shalt do no manner of work. What, not quench an house of fire? not water a beast? not provide necessary food? yes, works of necessitie, works of mercy, thou mayest do: the precept onely interdicteth servile work, ordinary work of our vocation (All Doctours whatsoever so understand it:) which being granted, the fourth precept for ought I see little exceedeth in rigour touching the Sabbath, the Canon and Statute Law of this land, concerning the meanest holy Day. Dif­fer I do herein from my sacred mother the Church of England, it cannot be denied; she hath expressed her self otherwise, Hom of the Time and Place of Prayer, Hom. 1. viz. That this Commandment of God doth not bind Christian people, so straitly to ob­serve the utter ceremonies of the Sabbath Day, as touch­ing [Page 115] the forbearing of work and labour in times of great necessitie. But seeing in the substance, viz. That we are not bound to observe the Lords Day with that extreme severitie which once belonged to the Jewish Sabbath, we consent, I hope a difference in the manner of expression is at most but a peccadil­lo, but a veniall fault; our dissent is onely this: That strictnesse which she reduceth to the fourth Com­mandment, I rather lodge and settle in those acces­sory and occasionall laws, which are quite of ano­ther parish, and have nothing to do here.

If it be here objected, That this precept bindeth not to the observation of the Lords Day, and there­fore no matter what it injoyneth.

I answer, it doth oblige to the observation of this day; for no other day can properly be called Gods Sabbath then this, because no other day is weekly solemnized in the Church, and thereto destined by Divine appointment, which are the certain chara­cters of the Sabbath of that Commandment.

Besides, all Expositours interpret this precept of this day especially, and some of none other; and above all, our Church it self is so full as nothing can be desired more apposite to our purpose, then what she hath delivered. Hom. of the Place and Time of Prayer. Like as it appeareth by this Com­mandment, saith she, that no man in the six dayes ought to be slothfull and idle, but diligently labour in that estate wherein God hath set him; even so God hath given expresse charge to all men, that upon the Sabbath Day (which is now our Sunday) they should cease from all weekly and work-day labour, and give themselves wholly to divine exercises of Gods true Religion and Service. [Page 116] And a few lines after she saith, That to keep the Christian Sabbath (which is the Sunday) is Gods ex­presse commandment. These are lowd and clear de­monstrations of what our Church then thought; wherein two things are remarkable: First, that she reduceth the observation of the Lords Day to the fourth Commandment: and secondly, that with­out any scruple she very broadly calleth it our Sab­bath, See before, p. 109. In­junct. of H. 8. yea and The Sabbath. A word whereat much offence hath lately been taken, and all that use it are checkt by our great Schoolman; who (good man) in a tender care of us, Ironside, p. 120. adviseth that we follow the lan­guage of the holy Ghost, as also of the Primitive Church, that we vary not from other reformed Churches, that we gratifie not the Jews in their obstinacy against Christ, that we offend not our weak brethren, and lastly that we use that name which doth most edifie, viz. the LORDS DAY. As concerning the style Lords Day, we quar­rell not at it, we are no enemies of it, we use it for ought I know more frequently then Sabbath; yet were it truly sensed, and according to right sense duly observed, it would contract not onely the title but nature of a Sabbath; for what is our Lords Day but the Evangelicall Sabbath? as the Legall Sab­bath was the Jewish Lords Day. Be the Lords Day thus stated, call it then by that name ever if you please, it not at all offendeth us; but when it be­cometh from the Sabbath an ordinary holy day, or rather playday; from the Lords Day, the Churches Day, we have then just cause to rouse the world by shrill expressions, and lowd manifestations, that it is both the Sabbath of the fourth Commandment, and [Page 117] also the Lords Day, that is, of his Institution. But to persue this not without wonder, behold the strange condition of these men who inveigh so bit­terly against the word Sabbath, which hath notwith­standing warrant both from our book of Homilies, the Canons Ecclesiasticall, and Edicts of our Prin­ces, behold their perversitie: The words Altar, Priest, Sacrifice, Holy of Holies, will down with them so easily, as now they begin to rellish nothing else. It is rare, very rare, a great novelty to heare the course and homely terms of Table, Minister, Lords Supper, or Chancel in their mouths. Now I say, and a­ver, the word Sabbath hath not in it any semblance of danger to Gods Church, comparable to that of Altar, Priest, &c. For first the Lords Day is a Sabbath, & The Sabbath [...], properly and directly; whereas these words Altar, Priest, &c. are used [...], but fi­guratively and symbolically. Besides the word Sab­bath giveth no offence, for if any incline to Judaisme it is in the strictnesse, not now in the day. But the other words stumble many, especially in these times wherein we have cause, and just cause, to fear they are meant and intended of things other then meta­phoricall: And are not our fears just? when Trans­substantiation beginneth not to be instilled in some subtile and Paracelsian spirit of School distinction, but according to the Galenists to be exhibited in the grosse masse of corporeall presence in a corporeall sense; so as the most unprepared and unbelieving receiver eateth his part thereof as well as the faith­full. But admit this to be the tenet of some few ex­travagants; yet are not our fears just? when that [Page 118] uncouth and apish bowing toward, if not to the Al­tar is not onely warranted and defended, but com­mended to our observation by the chief of our Church: which whosoever shall dive into it, and search antiquitie, will find it one of the Parents (E­levation or Ostension being the other) which begot adoration of the Host, which begot Impanation or Transsubstantiation. Let not any think here that by Antiquitie I understand the very Primitive Church, with whom we challenge so near alliance in matters of Doctrine; for certain it is, that the first Church was utterly ignorant of this novel device: you shall indeed many times, very often find in the Fathers Just. M. q. ad Orth. 118. Tertul. Apol. c. 16 Orig. in Num. Hom. 5. Clem. Alex. strom. 7. A­than q. 37. Basil. de Sp. S. c. 27. that they bowed or worshipped towards the East, and this they did onely at their entrance into the Church according to the Poet,

But of bowing (for what some urge of Nazian­zen's Gorgonia was geniculation, not genuflection, as will appear to any that duly peruseth the place) towards the Altar as you call it, or ducking as often as they approched unto, or departed from it, you shall not find mention any where till you ar­rive at Chrysostome's Liturgy, which requireth [...], adorations to be made, [...], towards the holy Table; and this we all know is a piece of yesterday, the Authour whereof was in being not full six hundred years past, which we are also as certain was the very time about which the Incarnation of Bread or Transsubstantiation began first to be whispered. I should not have dwelt so [Page 119] long upon this, but that I find it pressed as a necessa­ry dutie, yea a dutie of necessity adequate to the ob­servation of the Lords Day, a Tenet which deser­veth rather to be hist at then answered.

But to return from whence I have digressed: Let whatsoever is positive in the fourth Commandment stand for a cipher, is the Lords Day to be observed one jot the more remisse? doth not Apostolicall Institution imply an equall Obligation both con­cerning the continuance of time and restraint from labour? what did they ordain? what institute? was it not, That the first day of the week should be consecrated to God and spirituall negotiations? you cannot yield us lesse. If then it was the first day, of what is it meant? of a naturall day from sun to sun, or of an artificiall from the sun-rise to his set? I an­swer, of the first, for these reasons. If all the other dayes of the week contained both night and day, why should not the Lords Day have as large a pro­portion of time as the rest? do not all the dayes in the week hold by Gavelkind? and if it contained onely daylight, then there was a night to spare, whereof I would gladly know what should become: Should the Saturday have it all? If so, then this would by sesquialter proportion exceed all the rest: should it passe by way of dividend amongst the other six, then there would be two houres in every day more then the suns revolution maketh. Moreover, when God requireth any thing dedicated to him, his constant caveat and proviso is that it be [...], not defective and without blemish, not lame, Deut. 15.21. or imperfect. Now that which wanteth one minute [Page 120] of its full time cannot properly be called a day: re­gularly I say, and de jure, of right, it cannot, where the day is seposed by divine designation. Neque ideo jussisse ut à vespera ad ve­speram Sab­bata sua cele­brarent, ut diei initi um & finem designaret, sed ut inte­grum diem naturalem sibi vendica­ret, Dr Garnons Determ. M. S. de Die Dom. Cant. Junii ultimo, 1632. And this is the more evident by observing what God requi­red under the law, it being no lesse then a full and complete naturall day from eve to eve; which was, not (as a learned Doctour conceiveth, and I think aright) to set out the beginning and end, the boun­daries of a naturall day, but to declare his own claim of a naturall day to be dedicated to him which should begin at evening. If then the day must be understood of a naturall day of 24 houres, it will then necessarily follow that vacation from labour during that time must be concomitant with it: For vacation from worldly affairs, which may impeach the worship of God, is so inseparable from times consecrated to that worship, as it is by Brerewood rightly accounted part of the moralitie and sub­stance of the fourth Commandment, pag. 62. and so in the Christian Church perpetually to be observed.

Object.If any shall now object that this vacation is onely necessary and required during the time of pub­lick assembling in the Church, and that no more is exacted of us then that we attend such assem­blies.

Solut.I answer, that God will admit no sharer in any thing consecrated to him; and though the cardinall and chief end of the Sabbath is, that God be pub­lickly honoured, yet doth he not leave the re­mainder thereof so at our dispose, that we may dis­pend it either in carnall pleasures, or terrene nego­tiations

[Page 121]Those oratories which, from their dedication to the Lord, are in English denominated Churches, do from their destination to publick and solemn ad­dresse contract the name and repute of sacred: and though they be superlatively and above all vene­rable while employed to their destinate end, yet al­wayes, even at times of Cultustitium (as I may so say) or vacation from publick worship there re­maineth in them an indeleble impression of awfull regard, which ought to preserve them from all pro­fanation inviolable. Mistake me not, I place no in­herent sanctitie, I immure not God in them, I ap­prove not of their decoring, even to effeminate cu­riositie, nor allow them an honour as some of late (too close followers of Nazianzene De funere Patris.) even to ridi­culousnesse superstititious; yet this I hold, Gods houses they are, places where his honour dwelleth, for which cause such a relative veneration is due to them as alwayes dignifieth and ennobleth them above any other house whatsoever, and secureth them from common use: and in this men both learn­ed and moderate have led me the way, as Zanchy In Decalog., Hospinian De orig. Templ., &c. Now Eâdem re­ligione san­ctificanda sunt Domi­no loca & tempora eju [...] nomini di­cata, Bucer. Cens. Angl. ord. p. 460. Levit. 26.2. Places and Times consecra­ted to Gods name are to be sanctified with equall religi­on; and so the Rituall of the old Testament cou­pleth them together, Ye shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my Sanctuaries: And then I say, that the Lords house may as well be impropriated to a ware­house, as his day to a work-day, when the congre­gation is dismissed. And this priviledge it as well deriveth from Evangelicall, as Legall institution: Therefore Leo Novell. Le­on. c. 54., when he made that edict of gene­rall [Page 122] restraint on the Lords day, pleadeth conformitie w ^th the evangelicall constitution, Statuimus quod Spiri­tui sancto ab ip [...]óque insti­tutis placuit, &c. We ordain as it seem­ed good to the holy Spirit & to them whom he instructed.

But it will be here opposed, that neither the A­postles themselves, nor the Primitive Church, ob­served this day with any such strictnesse untill Con­stantine's decree; and therefore it is like they en­joyned it not.

I answer, as touching the practice of the A­postles, there is, I confesse, nothing either the one way or other clearly evident, nor much of that of the Primitive Church during the time limited: Onely Justin Martyr Apol. 2. (if I be not mistaken) hath something reflecting that way; for in his description of the custome of publick assembling in those times upon the Lords day, after he hath insisted awhile up­on the duties performed in the Church, he setteth down what the Christians did postea, after their dis­mission, as their visiting & relieving the poore, their consorting together, and their repeating to one ano­ther what they had learned that day in the Church. Of the remainder of time, the solemn assembly be­ing ended, I understand this postea probably enough, yet will not warrant it with over much pertinacitie; if any other construction can vouch better reason in its defence, let that obtain. But though we should find no evidence of the Primitive practice of cessa­tion from labour on this day, yet will it not follow that they did not forbare it if possibly they could: for we meet with exhortation to it by Origen, Die Sabba­ti Christiani nihil ex om­nibus mundi actibus opor­tet operari; si ergò desi­nas ab omni­bus seculari­bus operibus, & nihil mun­danum geras, sed spirituali­bus operibus vaces, haec est observatio Sabbati Christiani, Hom. 23. in Num. On the Christian Sabbath day we ought not to do any worldly businesse; if therefore thou dost surcease from all [Page 123] secular affairs, and dost nothing but employ thy self in spi­rituall negotiations, this is the right observation of the Christian Sabbath. Is it now likely that the doctrine of so eminent a Teacher as Origen should perswade none to conformitie with what he here delivered? But suppose the worst, and that you were able to af­ford us an example or two of labour on this day, must it therefore follow that there was no decree of restraint made by the Apostles, and that we are at li­bertie to plow and cart on this day, notwithstand­ing any divine Law to the contrary? Nothing lesse: for as his late Majestie Conference at Hampton Court, p. 16. judiciously said, It is not sound reasoning from things done before a Church be set­tled and grounded, unto those which are to be performed in a Church estalibshed and flourishing. There might be, and was, weighty cause to dispence with so strict a vacancie from worldly businesse, as the state of the Church then stood. Heavy were their pres­sures, many thousands were the slaves of miscreant masters, who in likelihood would not forbear their servants work an hole day in a week, but exact it from them under the penaltie of many stripes; so that should any of that servile condition have refu­sed his masters work on that day, nothing could he expect but severe if not inhumane usage: and should the Christian Church have engaged herself in the vindication and justification of such contempt, it had been the high-way to have made both her Re­ligion and self (even to eradication) odious, as the incendiaries of disobedience and maintainers of Anarchie. And therefore very discreetly the fathers of the Laodicean Councel, wary of giving offence, [Page 124] yet willing to shew how they stood affected, de­creed in the twentie ninth canon of that Councel, that Christians should rest from labour on the Lords day, [...], if they could, that is, if their Pagane masters would not constrain them to work; and so it is by Brere­wood understood.

But here it will be excepted, If the Law of God commanded their rest and cessation upon the Lords Day, the law of man enjoyning the contrary was not to be weighed: for in such cases, Nullus sub­jicitur legi in­ferioris con­tra superio­rem, Aquin. 1.2 ^a q 96.5. ad 3. No man is subject to a law of an inferiour repugnant to another of a superiour. or It is better to obey God then man, Acts c. 5. v. 29.

I answer, Better it is indeed to obey God then man, when they command things repugnant; but it must be with this proviso, that the Law of God be fundamentall and paramount, from which there is no appeal to an higher: For if it be a positive or ce­remoniall law, a law of lesser caract, then Aquinas his rule must be retorted with the losse but of one letter, No man is obliged by an inferiour law against a superiour. Nullus sub­jicitur legi inferiori con­tra superio­rem. All positive laws whatsoever are subor­dinate, and when they stand in competition with moralls and fundamentalls they must strike sail. Because the point is tickle, and may perhaps give offence to weaker apprehensions, I will illustrate it with two examples taken out of Holy writ, where God dispenced with ceremoniall laws for a while, that the morall might be preserved inviolate. The ceremoniall law of God enjoyned the Israelites to offer such and such sacrifices, at such and such times, in such and such places; directly crosse to which, [Page 125] Pharaoh their King imposed upon them such a task, as would not afford them any leisure to perform those sacred duties: Now the fundamentall law of God enjoyned them (as it doth all men) to obey their superiours in all things either simply good, or not simply evil; and betwixt this fundamentall and the other ceremoniall laws stood the contest. But what was the issue? Did God with the Israelites in this case (as Popes in their fury, by a Nos Sanctorum, Gratian D [...]e. p. 2. q. 7. cau­sa 15. Exod. 1. with the subjects of an heretick Prince) absolve them from their obedience? The Israelites were more and mightier then their adversaries; did he in­stigate and spurre them on to rebell, or by assassina­tion to make away their King? No, he sent to Pharaoh and commanded him to let his people go; he knew the fault and impediment to be in him alone, the Israelites were blamelesse: and as Au­gustine saith in a similarie case, Reum Re­gem fecit ini­quitas impe­randi, inno­centem sub­ditum ordo serviendi, Cont. F. Man. l. 22. c. 75. The obliquitie of the command made the King blame-worthy, the ordinance of obeying made the subject innocent. Nay, to pursue this example a little further: when Pharaoh conde­scended to let the people go to sacrifice, provided they went not farre, Moses refused the leave upon such conditions as were like to bring them in peril of their lives. It is not meet so to do: shall we sacri­fice the abomination of the Aegyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us? Exod. 8.26. A true con­firmation of Gods impresse, I will have mercie and not sacrifice, Hos. 6.6. Both he will have, where both may be had; but if he must part with one, mercie he will have, let the other go. Paraeus in loc. Upon this text a learned Commentatour [Page 126] thus, Deus caere­monialia pri­mae Tabulae moralibus se­cundae tabu­lae post ponit. God preferreth the moralls of the second Table before ceremonialls of the first. And the same is the opinion of divers others Zanch. in loc. Jun. Parall. l. 1. c. 22..

The second dispensation was in the wildernesse, and that from observation of a sacramentall law: for we reade Joshua 5.5. that circumcision was omitted all that time, and the Israelites abode there 40 years. The most probable cause of this omission was, because they were every minute to watch the motion of the convoy-cloud, and to march with it; but circumcision would either retard their expedition, or hazard the lives of the infants: therefore God in mercie had rather respect to the safety of those innocents, then to his ordinance of circumcision.

I could also instance in Gods dispensation during the persecution under Manasses and other idolatrous Kings, as also under the Captivitie of Babylon; in all which severall times, doubtlesse, there was a fail in many ceremoniall duties otherwise observable. The truth is, all ceremoniall laws have respect to the latitude of Jury, and the land of Canaan, as well in a morall as a literall sense; viz. they are fra­med onely for the Church, whilest she enjoyeth a visible and open profession of her religion, whilest her peace remaineth indisturbed: for when the fury of persecution hunteth her like a partridge on the mountains, when times of tribulation and calami­tie seise upon her, God then accepteth what service she can with her own safety afford him; he standeth not upon shadows, the substance is that he onely then looketh after. Ceremonies are but the out­ward [Page 127] dresse of religion, onely made to decore her in publick profession, and therefore not absolutely of the essence of a Church; and so but respectively necessary: The very Sacraments themselves are but so, as the glory of our Church Perkins, case consc. l. 2. c. 8. q. 1. hath rightly obser­ved upon that fail of circumcision in the wilder­nesse; yet Sacraments (I take it) are the highest stair and degree of ceremonies.

Now these premises considered, nothing discern I to the contrary, but a constitution of the A­postles concerning labour to be omitted on this day there might be, though not to take a full effect untill the Church should attain her land of Canaan, a settled and flourishing peace. And the event seem­eth to prove the ordinance: for no sooner did Con­stantine (a second Joshuah or Josiah) sit sure in his throne, then Gods externall worship began to be magnificently solemnized, and (as an especiall badge thereof) his day superlatively honoured both by Imperiall edict and example; and that with strict vacation from all worldly avocations: ab omni opere, from all work, so his Histriographer Eusebius, de vita Const. l. 4. c. 18. re­porteth. Elsewhere (I grant) there occurreth a constitution of this Religious Emperour tolerating labour on this day, but it was in countrey villages onely, and that too but in case of necessitie, Nè occasi­one momenti pereat com­moditas coe­lesti provisio­ne concessa. Cod. l. [...]. Tit. 12. l. 3. lest pre­termitting the opportunitie offered by the divine provi­dence it might not occurre again. ^o This dispensation is much urged by the Anti-sabbatarians, but it hath no great force with us. For first, it may be well con­troverted, whether Constantine ever made any such indulgence or no; because if he had, is it credible [Page 128] it could have escaped Eusebius, who was not onely contemporary but in a manner companion with this Emperour; who took speciall notice of all his acti­ons, having in designe the compiling of the Histo­rie of his life, and who over lived him; yet this Bi­shop hath not one word of it. But be it Constan­tine's; sure we are it was after rescinded by Leo with a We ordain that all men cease from labour on the Lords day, Statuimus ut omnes a la­bore vacent, neque agrico­lae ne (que) qui­quam in eo (die Domi­nico scil) il­licitum opus aggrediantur. that neither husbandmen nor any other take in handwork unlawfull on that day. And before Leo, di­vers of the Fathers in their popular tracts or ser­mons pressed this vacation upon the people: On the festivall day all handy-work is prohibited to the end that men may more intirely exercise themselves in sacred matters. So Cyril Prohibetur die f [...]sto opus quod manu exercetur, ut integriùs re­bus divinis exercere vos possitis, In Joan. l. 8. c. 1.. Chrysostome Hom. 5. in Matth.calleth it [...], an immoveable law, [...], that this first day of the week be holly set apart for sacred exerc [...]s [...]s. But there are also fathers, you will say, that seem to incline to the contrary. First Hierome: he relateth of a religious woman, gover­nesse of the Nunnes at Bethlehem, how she every Lords day resorted to the Church, and after service she and her company fell to their ordinary work of making garments for themselves or others. To this I answer, consider Paula as a subject, and then tell me how can you acquit her of the breach (I will not say of the fourth but) of the fifth precept, if Beth­lehem was within the latitude of Constantine's de­cree; and certainly it was: for that reached Omnes Romano Imperio parentes, all men subject to the Ro­mane Empire. And if this Lady was not within the verge of the dispensation, for that was for husband­men [Page 129] onely, was not then this her act a disobedience to her Princes law, and therefore her example no rule of those times, it being it self irregular. Besides, S. Hierome telleth us of religious persons of the other sex, Monks, that they did orationi tantùm, & lectionibus vacare, busie themselves in prayer and reading on the Lords day. Now consider Paula and her Nunnes as women, and compare their pra­ctice with that of these Monks, and then if the ma­sculine practice be not more worthy then the femi­nine, let Grammar scholars judge.

Out of Gregory they tell us, that he giveth it as one cognizance of Antichrist, L. 11. ep. 3. Diem Domi­nicum & Sabbatum ab omni opere faciet custo­diri. That he shall enjoyn the Lords Day and the Sabbath to be o [...]served with ab­stinence from all work. To which I answer, There are two things which Gregorie here reproveth in the observation of the Dominicall Day: first a Jewish not a moderate and sober restraint; and this is cer­tain, for in the very same epistle he saith, Dominico die à labore cessandum est, & omni modo oratio­nibus vacan­dum. On the Lords day we must cease from labour, and by all means attend our prayers; secondly, the celebrating it to­gether with the Sabbath, for it is Diem Dominicum & Sabbatum, the Lords Day and Sabbath both, which was the errour of the Ebionites. And there­fore Gregorie, for ought I see, standeth their friend no more then Hierome. This Gregory was a man of the sixth Centurie, an age wherein themselves acknowledge this restraint took deep root, and so it continued successively downward, even to the times of Reformation; nor did the first Reformers, those of our Church especially, exercise themselves in varying any thing at all in this point from the re­ceived [Page 130] practice, as may appear both in the statute and canon laws both of this and other coun­treys.

But hitherto I have onely insisted upon restraint from labour and servile work, there is yet another question concerning restraint, not from work, but play, and from recreations, viz. Whether recrea­tions (such as are at other times lawfull) are tole­rable and lawfull on the Lords day.

To this I answer in short, All recreations at other times lawfull are interdicted on this day, but such whereby the mind is better disposed towards the sanctification of the day, or such as are no impedi­ments to that sanctification. For the day is ap­pointed to be sanctified, that is to be an holy, not a playday: and it is a rule in the decalogue and all other divine laws, that where any thing is com­manded to be done, all things subservient to the per­formance of it are consequently enjoyned, as also all lets and hinderances prohibited. Synod. Antisi­odor. Can. 9. Besides, Gods house hath been ever thought profaned and pollu­ted by sports and meetings of good fellowship, why also not his day? Nor is it enough that these recrea­tions be not an hindrance to publick exercises in the Church, but they must not disturb even private du­ties at home, as meditation, prayer, holy confe­rence, &c. For God commandeth not the sanctifi­cation of some few houres, but of a day, that is an hole day, allowing sufficient time for repose and re­past to the body. And so our Church Hom. ubi suprá. interpreteth the command: Gods obedient people, saith she, should use the Sunday holily, and rest from their common and [Page 131] dayly businesse, and give themselves wholly to heavenly exercises. And consonant to her, her sister the Church Art. 56. of Ireland, The Lords Day is wholly to be dedicated to the service of God. If holly to Gods ser­vice, where have recreations a room? These arti­cles are it seemeth called in; for what reason I not dispute: sure I am the nulling of them was very ac­ceptable to the disciples and followers of Arminius ( Men too bold and frequent in these Dominions K. J. cont. Vorst. p. 18.) whose accursed tenets were there damned.

As an appendix to this discourse of recreations, if now my opinion be demanded concerning his Majesties book, I shall say of that onely this, His Princely intentions were therein (I doubt not) pi­ous enough; not so, I fear, theirs who first suggested the convenience and fitnesse of that liberty unto him. But in regard the foundation thereof seemeth especially to be the preserving in observation Encae­nia or Church dedications, of them I shall say some­what, perhaps not known to all. Of their first In­stitution (innocent enough) I will not speak nor trouble my self and you in shewing by what grada­tions they ceased to be what they ought, and be­came what they ought not; of their corrupt and degenerate estate I purpose onely to give you some small hint, collected from what I have read, and partly from what I have seen.

First therefore you must understand, there were in the late times of superstition and blindnesse in our Church (in our Church I say, for in other Coun­treys I confesse they were united) two feasts, Mae­nechmi, very near resembling one the other; one cal­led [Page 132] the Feast of Dedication, the other, the Feast of the Patrone or Church Holiday: the impious and profane fooleries were almost the same and common to both, onely the Feast of the Patrone had this peculiar to it, The idol or image of the Patrone richly deckt and drest was set forth upon a table near the Church doore, to the view of the People,

But the first spark of light which shone in the be­ginning of Reformation soon quitted the world of this grosse abuse: King Henry the eighth, anno 1536 amongst other things, enjoyning that this Feast of the Patrone of every Church, commonly called the Church Holiday, should be no more observed with­in the Realm. The Feasts of Dedication indeed con­tinued still, yet much eclipsed in their former wick­ed and abominable solemnity; for whereas before the custome was for divers vicine Parishes to assem­ble themselves together there where the Feast of Dedication was to be held, to feast and riot in the very Churches, to erect stalls for pedlars in the Churchyard, to spend the hole day in swinish swill, lascivious wantonnesse, in cudgellplay-matches, and [Page 133] in the true service of Satan; and because every Pa­rochiall Church had its proper Sunday whereon the Feast was kept, and it was rare by reason thereof to have a Lords Day observed (especially in summer time, wherein these Feasts are most frequent) with any tolerable devotion and exercise of Piety, it was therefore by the same Prince strictly injoyned, Anno prae­dicto. That the Feasts of Dedication of Churches should in all places of the Realm be celebrated upon the first Sunday in Octo­ber for ever, and upon none other day. The scope of this King was doubtlesse to restrain the disordered licen­tiousnesse of the people on this day, being occasio­ned by their joynt resort to other Parishes where these Feasts were observed; and in this I cannot but commend that Declaration of his sacred Majesty, which restrained and prohibited that disorder so far as in it lay. Had there been due inquiry made into the violation of his Majesties will in this, and pu­nishment inflicted upon the offendours, great I dare say had been the good it would have produced: but through generall impunity, and the perverse cor­ruption of humane nature, chusing in every thing that which serveth its own (though never so inor­dinate) ends, and neglecting the rest, his Majesties godly purpose was (I know) much abused, and Gods sacred Day not lesse dishonoured. And for proof thereof, I will give you a Relation of mine own au­topsie, of what these eyes saw. It was some few years since my fortune to visit a kinsman (seated in a countrey where these Feasts are frequent) upon a saturday, and though I purposed to depart that day, yet he importuned and prevailed with me to repose [Page 134] my self with him the ensuing Lords Day. I did so, and as dutie required, in the morning I accompanied him to Church: A full assembly there was; service being read, the preacher, a man of no mean note or degree, Nè tantum nefas non ri­re fieret, Eccles. 2.24. maketh a sermon, lest such profanation should want its due ceremony, upon this Text, There is no­thing better for a man then that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul to enjoy good in his la­bour: he insisted his hole time upon the lawfulnesse of Feasting, and of Christian liberty in the use of the creatures; and to give him his due, nothing did he deliver amisse: something I grant he might, nay ought to have added, as in setting down the proper­ties of a Christian Feast, and in opening to the peo­ple his Majesties will and pleasure concerning these Feasts, which certainly gave them not so free a scope as they took. Well, the sermon ended and congre­gation dismissed, in our return home I inquired of my kinsman the occasion of that Text; he told me it was the Feast of dedication of their Church. Home we went, took a moderate repast, and scarce had we dined before the bells summoned us to Church, whither with all convenient speed we hasted; and being come, behold the congregation, which in the morning amounted to about nine or ten score, could not (except the family we brought with us) make up now so many single persons: as the congregation was thinne, so was the service suitable, being posted over in great haste. After this service, I was much requested by my kinsman to accompany him to the place of rendez-vous where the Feast was kept; many denials had I given him, as fearing to be a [Page 135] spectatour of Gods dishonour, and did partly ex­presse as much, but he assured me I should find no­thing but honest and innocent disport: at length, I confesse not without much inward conflict, I yield­ed to him (and the rather out of a desire to inform my self of the manner of those Feasts, whereof I had heard much talk) So I accompanied him to the green which was the scene of their pastime, where loe we beheld a multitude of people, the muster whereof could not be lesse then a thousand. The main pre­tence of that assembly was to give testimony of their manhood by wrestling, cudgel-play, &c. (there be­ing to that end a confederacy, league and siding of the neighbour towns, so many against so many) which exercises imployed the body, and greater part of that multitude: but they who listed not to be either spectacles or spectatours wanted not where­with to entertain themselves, there being an ale-house by. The disorders of that meeting by drun­kennesse, swearing, malicious reviling one the other, which may easily be conceived, I purpose not to re­late; that which I offer to consideration is, whether there was not by this assembly a great affront to his Majesties royall Declaration, which prohibited all concourse of people out of their own parish, yea or in their own parish untill Evening Prayer were en­ded, when as I dare say there were near a thousand of this meeting, which were not of the parish where­in it was held, and of those not fourtie (I verily be­lieve) had been present at Evening service; for how could they in regard some of them came foure or five, most two or three, and all at least a mile off? [Page 136] which abuse of our Princes pleasure is I think con­dignly meritorious of severe punishment, the execu­tion whereof I leave to those whom it concerneth.

Having thus stated the Dominicall Day, having proved it to be a Day divinely instituted, a Day im­mutable, a Day holly to be appropriated to sacred duties, I have finished my last part, and in that (my imperfect way) perfected what I first intended. Which done, my earnest sute is that my Christian perusers would fervently pray that this work under­taken for the honour of my Lord and blessed Savi­ours Day may through his merits So much (to speak with devout Salvian) avail the Authour with God, Tantum a­pud Deum scriptori suo profit, quan­tum eum pro­desse ipse omnibus cu­pit, Epist. Sa­lonio Episco­po. Jud. ult. as he seriously desires it may profit all men. To which onely wise God our Saviour be glory and majestie, dominion and power, now and for ever, Amen.