The Christian Sabbath defended against a crying evil in these times of the antisabitarians…

although upon due consideration, it may be found, that such a custom (if that be granted) could not otherwise proceed originally than from a solemn institution: It is enough if they ordained that on that day the Churches should be assembled for public worship; which Austin expressly professeth, as formerly I have showed, neither doth it appear in reason how it could be otherwise, such assemblies being universal and so continuing to this day: Is it credible such universal agreement should come to pass casually? if it did, yet their continuance of it without dislike, doth manifest their joint Apostolical approbation, who we know were guided by the Spirit of God: and even in their time was the first day of the week, called the Lords Day. So that in all this I find no incoherence, much less notable. Indeed, in the first of the Corinth. chap. 16.2. he doth not order that the first day should be set apart for Gods service, but rather supposeth it, and that not only at Corinth, but in the Churches of Galatia: how improbable is it that this uniformity should be among them, unless it proceeded ⟨p. 93⟩from some authority superior to the Churches themselves: then coming to consider the denomination of the Lords Day, and concluding it to be the first day of the week, and therewithal concluding that sixth Section: the seventh Section he begins thus; what then? Shall we affirm that the Lords Day is founded in Divine authority? and answers the question thus: For my part (without prejudice to any mans opinion) I assent unto it, however the arguments like me not, whereby the opinion is supported, and so he proceeds in prosecuting of that which was affirmed by him, in the last place, concerning his private dislike of some particular courses taken to justify it. He opposeth, I grant, express institution; but if by just consequence it may be deduced, it serveth our turn, both in the general and in particular at this time and in this place, to discover the immodest and unreasonable carriage of this Prefacer, who would obtrude the contrary opinion upon Doctor Pride aux, as it were, in despite of him; And indeed, it is thought that he owed him a spite, and to pay that he owed him, he came to this translation. But herein the Doctors honour is easily preserved in the despite of this Prefacer; yet see a greater degree of impudency in this Prefacer.

although upon due consideration, it may be found, that such a custome (if that be granted) could not otherwise proceed originally than from a solemne institution: It is enough if they ordained that on that day the Churches should be assembled for publique worship; which Austin expressely professeth, as formerly I have shewed, neither doth it appeare in reason how it could be otherwise, such assemblies being universall and so continuing to this day: Is it credible such universall agreement should come to passe casually? if it did, yet their continuance of it without dislike, doth manifest their joynt Apostolicall approbation, who we know were guided by the Spirit of God: and even in their time was the first day of the weeke, called the Lords Day. So that in all this I find no incoherence, much lesse notable. Indeed, in the first of the Corinth. chap. 16.2. he doth not order that the first day should be set apart for Gods service, but rather supposeth it, and that not onely at Corinth, but in the Churches of Galatia: how improbable is it that this uniformity should be among them, unlesse it proceeded ⟨p. 93⟩from some authority superiour to the Churches themselves: then comming to consider the denomination of the Lords Day, and concluding it to be the first day of the weeke, and therewithall concluding that sixth Section: the seventh Section he begins thus; what then? Shall we affirme that the Lords Day is founded in Divine authority? and answers the question thus: For my part (without prejudice to any mans opinion) I assent unto it, however the arguments like me not, whereby the opinion is supported, and so he proceeds in prosecuting of that which was affirmed by him, in the last place, concerning his private dislike of some particular courses taken to justifie it. He opposeth, I grant, expresse institution; but if by just consequence it may be deduced, it serveth our turne, both in the generall and in particular at this time and in this place, to discover the immodest and unreasonable carriage of this Prefacer, who would obtrude the contrary opinion upon Doctor Pride aux, as it were, in despite of him; And indeed, it is thought that hee owed him a spight, and to pay that hee owed him, hee came to this translation. But herein the Doctors honour is easily preserved in the despight of this Prefacer; yet see a greater degree of impudency in this Prefacer.

For he puts upon the Doctor, as if he had showed the alteration of the day to be only an humane and Ecclesiastical institution, by the general consent of all sorts of Papists, Jesuits,¹ Canonists and School-men of some great Lutherans by name, whereas it is plain, that he mentioneth more Papists maintaining the Lords Day to be of Divine institution, then opposing it. And amongst them that maintain it, one, to wit, Sylvester, professeth it to be opinionem comm•n•m, not one avouched as affirming the contrary. And as for the great Lutherans this Author speaketh of, loving to speak with a full mouth, they are but one, and that Brentius, who is said to affirm it to be a civill ordinance, and not a commandment of the Gospel; a very strange phrase (in my opinion) to call it a civill ordinance; the ordinance being in force many hundred years before the Church of God had any civill government of their own, and being in the Apostles days how could it be less than Apostolical? undoubtedly not so much civill ⟨p. 94⟩as Ecclesiastical. We grant willingly we have no express precept for it, yet Austin is bold to say (as we have heard) that Apostoli sanxerunt, yet Gomarus allegeth no passage out of Brentius to this purpose. But Melanchthon ever (as I take it) accounted of better authority than Brentius, professeth, as Walaeus reports him, that consentaneum est Apostolos hanc ipsam ob causam mutasse diem, in plain terms ascribing the change of the day to the Apostles: As for the Remonstrants, what authority have they deserved to have with us, who are so near a kin to the Socinians, who utterly profess against all observation of the Lords Day. But the four professors of Leiden, have passed over this of theirs without note or opposition. And was not Walaeus one of the four? yet what his opinion is himself hath manifested to the world; yea, and his colleague, Thysius also, yet no cause had they to oppose in this, when the other professed it to be a laudable and good custom, according to the pattern of the Primitive Church; and can the Primitive Church exclude the Apostles, and not rather include them? And is it probable, that the Primitive Church prescribed it to the Apostles, and not rather the Apostles to the Church?

For he puts upon the Doctor, as if hee had shewed the alteration of the day to be onely an humane and Ecclesiasticall institution, by the generall consent of all sorts of Papists, Jesuits,¹ Canonists and Schoole-men of some great Lutherans by name, whereas it is plaine, that he mentioneth more Papists maintaining the Lords Day to be of Divine institution, then opposing it. And amongst them that maintaine it, one, to wit, Sylvester, professeth it to be opinionem comm•n•m, not one avouched as affirming the contrary. And as for the great Lutherans this Author speaketh of, loving to speake with a full mouth, they are but one, and that Brentius, who is said to affirme it to be a civill ordinance, and not a commandement of the Gospel; a very strange phrase (in my opinion) to call it a civill ordinance; the ordinance being in force many hundred yeeres before the Church of God had any civill government of their own, and being in the Apostles dayes how could it be lesse than Apostolicall? undoubtedly not so much civill ⟨p. 94⟩as Ecclesiasticall. Wee grant willingly we have no expresse precept for it, yet Austin is bold to say (as wee have heard) that Apostoli sanxerunt, yet Gomarus allegeth no passage out of Brentius to this purpose. But Melancthon ever (as I take it) accounted of better authoritie than Brentius, professeth, as Walaeus reports him, that consentaneum est Apostolos hanc ipsam ob causam mutasse diem, in plaine termes ascribing the change of the day to the Apostles: As for the Remonstrants, what authority have they deserved to have with us, who are so neere a kinne to the Socinians, who uttterly professe against all observation of the Lords Day. But the foure professors of Leiden, have passed over this of theirs without note or opposition. And was not Walaeus one of the foure? yet what his opinion is himselfe hath manifested to the world; yea, and his collegue, Thysius also, yet no cause had they to oppose in this, when the other professed it to be a laudable and good custome, according to the patterne of the Primitive Church; and can the Primitive Church exclude the Apostles, and not rather include them? And is it probable, that the Primitive Church prescribed it to the Apostles, and not rather the Apostles to the Church?

1. 1Azorius institut. Part. 2. l. 1. c. 2.

Tilenus calls it Ecclesiae consuetudinem, not denying it to be instituted by the Apostles, nay, elsewhere he affirms this, or rather that it was instituted by Christ himself. So little cause had these professors to quarrel with this phrase of the Remonstrants, having weightier matters in hand wherein to oppose them. What if Bullenger call it Ecclesiae consuettudinem; so doth Tilenus de praecept. 4. Thes. 29. yet Thes. 24. he professed it to be not only observed by the Apostles, but that it may seem also to be instituted by Christ himself: Bullenger saith, sponte receperunt, to wit, in opposition to an express Precept, as appears by that which immediately followeth; Non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam, we do not read it any where commanded. Ursine alleged in the next place clearly professeth in the very place quoted by Gomarus, that God it is who hath abrogated the observation of the seventh day, but he adds, that he left it free to the Church to choose other days, which (Church) upon a probable cause, chose the first day, which was the day of Christs resurrection. ⟨p. 77⟩Now what Church was it but Apostolica Ecclesia, as Paraeus upon Ursinus Catechism observes, p. 665. Pro libertate sibi à Christo donatâ pro septima die elegit diem primum propter probabilem causam out of the liberty which Christ hath given them, instead of the seventh day chose the first day of the week, by reason of a probable cause, to wit, because on that day Christ rose, by whose resurrection, ¹the spiritual and eternal rest is inchoated in us, and p. 666. Apostoli ipsi mutarunt Sabbatum septimi diei. The Apostles themselves changed the Sabbath of the seventh day. By the way touch we a little upon this, that, First, this was done in reference to Christs resurrection: so Calvin acknowledgeth in reference whereunto this day had some prerogative above the rest, to wit in the way of fitness, for holy use, because of the work of God on that day. Whence it is evidently concluded, that the Apostles did not think it indifferent, therefore though it were left to their liberty, in as much as no Commandment was given to them thereabout for ought we read, yet by the spirit of God, they were directed to make choice of this day, and that in reference to such a work on that day, as the like on no other.

Tilenus calls it Ecclesiae consuetudinem, not denying it to be instituted by the Apostles, nay, elsewhere hee affirmes this, or rather that it was instituted by Christ himselfe. So little cause had these professors to quarrell with this phrase of the Remonstrants, having weightier matters in hand wherein to oppose them. What if Bullenger call it Ecclesiae consuettudinem; so doth Tilenus de praecept. 4. Thes. 29. yet Thes. 24. he professed it to be not onely observed by the Apostles, but that it may seeme also to be instituted by Christ himselfe: Bullenger saith, sponte receperunt, to wit, in opposition to an expresse Precept, as appeares by that which immediately followeth; Non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam, we doe not reade it any where commanded. Ʋrsine alleged in the next place clearely professeth in the very place quoted by Gomarus, that God it is who hath abrogated the observation of the seventh day, but he addes, that he left it free to the Church to choose other daies, which (Church) upon a probable cause, chose the first day, which was the day of Christs resurrection. ⟨p. 77⟩Now what Church was it but Apostolica Ecclesia, as Paraeus upon Ʋrsinus Catechisme observes, p. 665. Pro libertate sibi à Christo donatâ pro septima die elegit diem primum propter probabilem causam out of the liberty which Christ hath given them, insteed of the seventh day chose the first day of the weeke, by reason of a probable cause, to wit, because on that day Christ rose, by whose resurrection, ¹the spirituall and eternall rest is inchoated in us, and p. 666. Apostoli ipsi mutarunt Sabbatum septimi diei. The Apostles themselves changed the Sabbath of the seventh day. By the way touch we a little upon this, that, First, this was done in reference to Christs resurrection: so Calvin acknowledgeth in reference whereunto this day had some prerogative above the rest, to wit in the way of fitnesse, for holy use, because of the worke of God on that day. Whence it is evidently concluded, that the Apostles did not thinke it indifferent, therefore though it were left to their liberty, in as much as no Commandement was given to them thereabout for ought wee reade, yet by the spirit of God, they were directed to make choyse of this day, and that in reference to such a worke on that day, as the like on no other.

1. 1Rom. 1.4.

1. 1Rom. 1.4.

I appeal to every Christian conscience, whether the sanctifying of this day as holy to the Lord, ought not by more then probable, yea even by necessary reason, come in place of the sanctifying of the seventh day as an holy rest to the Lord in the days of old. Otherwise we should have two different days in the week, the one called the Lords Day, the other the Lords holy Day; or no holy day at all though we have the Lords Day. Lastly consider the very definition of a thing probable, which Aristotle makes to be such as seems so in the judgement of most, or in the judgement of most of the wisest, or of some few provided they are wiser then the rest; but the sanctifying of the first day of the week to the Lord, that is, the Lords Day to the Lord, hath seemed fit not to some of the wisest only in the Church of God, but to all, even to all the Apostles, yea and Evangelists and Pastors, and teachers in their days and to the whole Church, for 1600. years since; and shall we call the reason moving them hereunto only probable? 2. yet all ⟨p. 97⟩this is but a posteriori, which yet for the evidence of it, I presume most sufficient for the convicting of every sober & Christian conscience of that truth, to the demonstration whereof it tends; I come to give a reason hereof à priori. The first creation in the wisdom of God (who proceeds not merely according unto probable reason) drew after it a Sabbath day, the seventh day where on God rested. But if God vouchsafeth us a new creation in the same congruity, may we not justly expect a new Sabbath? Now, the Apostle tells us plainly, that old things are passed away, and that all things are become new, 2 Cor. 5.17. and this he brings in upon showing what Christ hath deserved at our hands, in as much as he died for us, and rose again, vers. 15. the end whereof was this, that he might be Lord both of quick and dead, Rom. 14.9. and concludes, that whosoever is in Christ, is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5.17. And how are we in Christ, but by faith? Gal. 2.20. And what is the object of this our faith? let the same Apostle answer us, If thou confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: so that this faith in Christs resurrection, is to us the beginning of a new creature. And Christs resurrection Sedulius calls nas••ntis mundi primordium.

I appeale to every Christian conscience, whether the sanctifying of this day as holy to the Lord, ought not by more then probable, yea even by necessary reason, come in place of the sanctifying of the seventh day as an holy rest to the Lord in the dayes of old. Otherwise we should have two different dayes in the weeke, the one called the Lords Day, the other the Lords holy Day; or no holy day at all though wee have the Lords Day. Lastly consider the very definition of a thing probable, which Aristotle makes to be such as seemes so in the judgement of most, or in the judgement of most of the wisest, or of some few provided they are wiser then the rest; but the sanctifying of the first day of the weeke to the Lord, that is, the Lords Day to the Lord, hath seemed fit not to some of the wisest onely in the Church of God, but to all, even to all the Apostles, yea and Evangelists and Pastors, and teachers in their dayes and to the whole Church, for 1600. yeares since; and shall wee call the reason moving them hereunto onely probable? 2. yet all ⟨p. 97⟩this is but a posteriori, which yet for the evidence of it, I presume most sufficient for the convicting of every sober & Christian conscience of that truth, to the demonstration whereof it tends; I come to give a reason hereof à priori. The first creation in the wisedome of God (who proceeds not merely according unto probable reason) drew after it a Sabbath day, the seventh day where on God rested. But if God vouchsafeth us a new creation in the same congruity, may wee not justly expect a new Sabbath? Now, the Apostle tells us plainly, that old things are passed away, and that all things are become new, 2 Cor. 5.17. and this he brings in upon shewing what Christ hath deserved at our hands, in as much as he died for us, and rose againe, vers. 15. the end whereof was this, that he might be Lord both of quicke and dead, Rom. 14.9. and concludes, that whosoever is in Christ, is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5.17. And how are we in Christ, but by faith? Gal. 2.20. And what is the object of this our faith? let the same Apostle answer us, If thou confesse with the mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: so that this faith in Christs resurrection, is to us the beginning of a new creature. And Christs resurrection Sedulius calls nas••ntis mundi primordium.

And Athanasius saith, That as the Sabbath was the end of the first creation; so the Lords Day is the beginning of the second creature. And this is it that Bishop Andrewes and Bishop Lake do work upon for the celebration of the Lords Day as by Divine institution. But I am not a little sensible of some appearance of incongruity rising hereupon. Almighty God did not think it fit, that the first day of creation should be our Sabbath, but the seventh from the creation, as whereon himself rested; but in the second creation, the first day is made our Sabbath. To this I answer two things; the first is this: if man should not rest unto God till the second creation is finished, he should not rest at all in this world. And the six days being the days of Gods work; the seventh was the first of mans work, which God would have to be an holy work most convenient whereby to take livery and seisin of the world. For, albeit God commanded Adam to dress the garden and keep it, when ⟨p. 98⟩he placed him in it; yet it is nothing probable it had need of dressing so soon as it was made; and no mention of rest commanded at the first; only it is said, that because God rested that day from all his works, therefore he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. This I deliver to save the expression of Athanasius. 2. But in my judgement, there is an exact congruity between rest and rest in each creation. For, as God rested the seventh day from the work of creation; so Christ rested the first day of the week from his work of Redemption, which was the meritorious cause of the new creation. For Christs dying, and continuing under the power of death, for a certain time, I may justly reckon as one work of Redemption; in which time he suffered ignominy, not only from the reproach of the world, but from the weakness of his servants faith,¹ whose voice was, we thought it had been he, who should have redeemed Israel.

And Athanasius saith, That as the Sabbath was the end of the first creation; so the Lords Day is the beginning of the second creature. And this is it that Bishop Andrewes and Bishop Lake doe worke upon for the celebration of the Lords Day as by Divine institution. But I am not a little sensible of some appearance of incongruity rising hereupon. Almighty God did not thinke it fit, that the first day of creation should be our Sabbath, but the seventh from the creation, as whereon himselfe rested; but in the second creation, the first day is made our Sabbath. To this I answer two things; the first is this: if man should not rest unto God till the second creation is finished, hee should not rest at all in this world. And the sixe dayes being the dayes of Gods worke; the seventh was the first of mans worke, which God would have to be an holy worke most convenient whereby to take livery and seasin of the world. For, albeit God commanded Adam to dresse the garden and keepe it, when ⟨p. 98⟩he placed him in it; yet it is nothing probable it had need of dressing so soone as it was made; and no mention of rest commanded at the first; onely it is said, that because God rested that day from all his works, therefore he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. This I deliver to save the expression of Athanasius. 2. But in my judgement, there is an exact congruity betweene rest and rest in each creation. For, as God rested the seventh day from the worke of creation; so Christ rested the first day of the weeke from his worke of Redemption, which was the meritorious cause of the new creation. For Christs dying, and continuing under the power of death, for a certaine time, I may justly reckon as one worke of Redemption; in which time hee suffered ignominy, not onely from the reproach of the world, but from the weaknesse of his servants faith,¹ whose voyce was, wee thought it had been he, who should have redeemed Israel.

1. 1Acts 24.

As for Zanchy, in the place cited by Gomarus; he confesseth, hunc diem ex traditione Apostolica esse, & optimo jure ab Ecclesia retentum. That the Lords Day is (to be observed) by Apostolical tradition, and by the best right retained by the Church— this the Prefacer in his wisdom omitted; indeed he saith, we no where read that the Apostles commanded it: but left it free; but take with you the rest, ita liberum, ut omnino ipse dies sanctificandus sit, nisi charitas aliud postulat. In such a manner free, that omninò, undoubtedly the day it self ought to be sanctified, unless charity require otherwise. I conceive his meaning is, and the meaning of all that use this language, that we are to keep it by no other obligation (not of special commandment) than the reason of the day doth minister unto us, it being the day that the Lord hath made, joyful to Gods Church by the resurrection of Christ from the dead; and in this sense they say it doth not bind mens consciences, to wit, as a Precept doth, whether we know the equity of it or no. And it were very strange, that Christians in keeping any holy day in the week, should not make choice of the Lords Day for that, without any express commandment. Aretius saith no more than that Christians changed the Sabbath unto the Lords Day; and can any man doubt, but that the Apostles ⟨p. 99⟩were meant hereby? For which is most likely, that the practice and judgement of others was a leading cause to the Apostles, or rather that the judgement and practise of the Apostles was a leading cause unto all others? Simler hath no more but this, that he calls it the custom of the Church, so doth Tilenus, yet he proposeth it as likely to have had its institution from Christ. Paraeus in the very place cited by Gomarus, ascribeth the change of the day to the Apostolical Church, and expressly saith, that the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to meet together the first day of the week, and make their collections. I wonder the Prefacer omits Cuchlinus, was it because that which others call consuetudinem Ecclesiae, he calls consuetudinem Apostolicam? In the last place, Bucer is named by the Prefacer, but Gomarus is well content to omit what is delivered by him. But to the contrary, I will not forbear to set down what I find in his book De Regno Christi, lib. 1. cap. 11.

As for Zanchy, in the place cited by Gomarus; hee confesseth, hunc diem ex traditione Apostolica esse, & optimo jure ab Ecclesia retentum. That the Lords Day is (to be observed) by Apostolicall tradition, and by the best right retained by the Church— this the Prefacer in his wisedome omitted; indeed hee saith, we no where reade that the Apostles commanded it: but left it free; but take with you the rest, ita liberum, ut omnino ipse dies sanctificandus sit, nisi charitas aliud postulat. In such a manner free, that omninò, undoubtedly the day it selfe ought to be sanctified, unlesse charity require otherwise. I conceive his meaning is, and the meaning of all that use this language, that wee are to keepe it by no other obligation (not of speciall commandement) than the reason of the day doth minister unto us, it being the day that the Lord hath made, joyfull to Gods Church by the resurrection of Christ from the dead; and in this sense they say it doth not bind mens consciences, to wit, as a Precept doth, whether we know the equity of it or no. And it were very strange, that Christians in keeping any holy day in the weeke, should not make choice of the Lords Day for that, without any expresse commandement. Aretius saith no more than that Christians changed the Sabbath unto the Lords Day; and can any man doubt, but that the Apostles ⟨p. 99⟩were meant hereby? For which is most likely, that the practice and judgement of others was a leading cause to the Apostles, or rather that the judgement and practise of the Apostles was a leading cause unto all others? Simler hath no more but this, that he calls it the custome of the Church, so doth Tilenus, yet he proposeth it as likely to have had its institution from Christ. Paraeus in the very place cited by Gomarus, ascribeth the change of the day to the Apostolicall Church, and expressely saith, that the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to meet together the first day of the weeke, and make their collections. I wonder the Prefacer omits Cuchlinus, was it because that which others call consuetudinem Ecclesiae, hee calls consuetudinem Apostolicam? In the last place, Bucer is named by the Prefacer, but Gomarus is well content to omit what is delivered by him. But to the contrary, I will not forbeare to set downe what I find in his booke De Regno Christi, lib. 1. cap. 11.

For having formerly described what are the true works of holy rests, added upon the back of it; Eapropter, For this cause the Lords Day was consecrated by the Apostles themselves to these kind of actions. Which ordinance of theirs (institutum he calls it) the ancient Churches observed most religiously. Then he shows the cause why they changed the day: 1. The first reason given is, to testify that Christians are not obliged to the Pedagogy of Moses law: 2. The second is, to celebrate the memory of Christs resurrection, which was performed on the first day of the week. So that not one of the Authors mentioned by him makes any thing for him. And if the passages of the six mentioned by him, and related by Gomarus did make any thing for him; we have no less of the ancient Fathers to the contrary, as namely, Athanasius, Cyril, Eusebius, Austin lately mentioned, to whom add Sedulius operis Paschalis, lib. 5. cap. 21. The glory of the eternal King illustrating (the first day of the week) with the trophy of his resurrection, primatum cum religione concessum di•rum censuit retinere cunctorum; thought good it should have the primacy of all days granted unto it with religion: that is, with an holy celebration thereof. Add unto him Gregory, mentioned in the first Section, affirming that Antichrist affecting to imitate Christ, shall command the ⟨p. 100⟩Lords Day to be kept holy. Add to these the universal consent of Christendom in ancient times; for when the question was proposed unto them, as usually it was thus; Dominicum servasti? Hast thou kept the Sabbath? their answer was this, Christianus sum, intermittere non possum: For Brentius alleged by him to little purpose, let me represent what Gerard the Lutheran writes of our Christian Sabbath in his common places, tom. 3. pag. 146. Est Sabbatum Christianum, quo juxta Apostolorum constitutionem dies hebdomadae primus publicis ecclesiae congressibus destinatus est. Our Christian Sabbath is that whereby the first day of the week is destinated to the public assemblies of the Church, by the constitution of the Apostles. See how plainly he refers the celebration of this day to Apostolical constitution: and pag. 148. he showeth the analogy between the Jews Sabbath and our Christian Sabbath, consisting in two or three particulars: 1.

For having formerly described what are the true workes of holy rests, added upon the backe of it; Eapropter, For this cause the Lords Day was consecrated by the Apostles themselves to these kind of actions. Which ordinance of theirs (institutum he calls it) the antient Churches observed most religiously. Then he shews the cause why they changed the day: 1. The first reason given is, to testifie that Christians are not obliged to the Pedagogie of Moses law: 2. The second is, to celebrate the memory of Christs resurrection, which was performed on the first day of the weeke. So that not one of the Authors mentioned by him makes any thing for him. And if the passages of the sixe mentioned by him, and related by Gomarus did make any thing for him; we have no lesse of the ancient Fathers to the contrary, as namely, Athanasius, Cyril, Eusebius, Austin lately mentioned, to whom adde Sedulius operis Paschalis, lib. 5. cap. 21. The glory of the eternall King illustrating (the first day of the weeke) with the trophy of his resurrection, primatum cum religione concessum di•rum censuit retinere cunctorum; thought good it should have the primacy of all dayes granted unto it with religion: that is, with an holy celebration thereof. Adde unto him Gregory, mentioned in the first Section, affirming that Antichrist affecting to imitate Christ, shall command the ⟨p. 100⟩Lords Day to be kept holy. Adde to these the universall consent of Christendome in antient times; for when the question was proposed unto them, as usually it was thus; Dominicum servasti? Hast thou kept the Sabbath? their answer was this, Christianus sum, intermittere non possum: For Brentius alleged by him to little purpose, let mee represent what Gerard the Lutherane writes of our Christian Sabbath in his common places, tom. 3. pag. 146. Est Sabbatum Christianum, quo juxta Apostolorum constitutionem dies hebdomadae primus publicis ecclesiae congressibus destinatus est. Our Christian Sabbath is that whereby the first day of the weeke is destinated to the publique assemblies of the Church, by the constitution of the Apostles. See how plainly hee referres the celebration of this day to Apostolicall constitution: and pag. 148. he sheweth the analogie between the Jewes Sabbath and our Christian Sabbath, consisting in two or three particulars: 1.

As on the seventh day God rested from the six days work of creation, in remembrance of which benefit, the Sabbath was instituted in the old Testament: so in the first day of the week, after Christ-by his death and passion had accomplished the mystery of our Redemption, he returned gloriously as a conqueror from the dead, in remembrance of which benefit, the first day of the week is celebrated in the new Testament. 2. As in the old Testament the Sabbath was instituted, that it might be a memorial of their deliverance out of Egypt, Deut. 5.15. So in the new Testament, the Lords Day is a memorial of our spiritual deliverance out of the kingdom and captivity of Satan, procured unto us by the resurrection of Christ, a type whereof was that deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt. 3. By Christs death and resurrection, were abrogated Levitical ceremonies and legal shadows, amongst which the Sabbath is reckoned, Col. 2.17. Therefore the change of the Sabbath into the Lords Day, is a public testimony that Christians are freed from legal shadows, and that difference of days, which in ancient time was ordained. Add to him Melanchthon, alleged by Walaeus, pag. 265. affirming, that the Apostles for this cause changed the day, that in this particular they might give an example of the abrogation of ⟨p. 101⟩the ceremonial Laws of Mosaical policy. As for our Popish Divines for which he refers us to Doctor Prideaux, it is apparent that more of them are alleged for the jus divinum, of the celebration of the Lords Day, then for the contrary; & one of them, Sylvester by name professeth expressly that his opinion, was the common opinion which was for the Divine institution of it. And Azorius the Jesuit, as he professeth it a thing most agreeable to reason that after six work days one entire day should be consecrated to Divine worship; so withal saith that it is most agreeable to reason that the Lords Day should be that Day.

As on the seventh day God rested from the six dayes worke of creation, in remembrance of which benefit, the Sabbath was instituted in the old Testament: so in the first day of the weeke, after Christ-by his death and passion had accomplished the mysterie of our Redemption, he returned gloriously as a conqueror from the dead, in remembrance of which benefit, the first day of the weeke is celebrated in the new Testament. 2. As in the old Testament the Sabbath was instituted, that it might be a memoriall of their deliverance out of Egypt, Deut. 5.15. So in the new Testament, the Lords Day is a memoriall of our spirituall deliverance out of the kingdome and captivity of Satan, procured unto us by the resurrection of Christ, a type whereof was that deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt. 3. By Christs death and resurrection, were abrogated Leviticall ceremonies and legall shadowes, amongst which the Sabbath is reckoned, Col. 2.17. Therfore the change of the Sabbath into the Lords Day, is a publique testimony that Christians are freed from legall shadowes, and that difference of dayes, which in antient time was ordained. Adde to him Melanchthon, alleged by Walaeus, pag. 265. affirming, that the Apostles for this cause changed the day, that in this particular they might give an example of the abrogation of ⟨p. 101⟩the ceremoniall Lawes of Mosaicall policy. As for our Popish Divines for which he referres us to Doctor Prideaux, it is apparent that more of them are alleaged for the jus divinum, of the celebration of the Lords Day, then for the contrary; & one of them, Silvester by name professeth expresly that his opinion, was the common opinion which was for the Divine institution of it. And Azorius the Jesuite, as hee professeth it a thing most agreeable to reason that after six worke dayes one intire day should bee consecrated to Divine worship; so withall saith that it is most agreeable to reason that the Lords Day should be that Day.

Add unto these Sixtus Senensis, ¹but that which they object (saith he) concerning the Lords Day not as yet instituted in the time of John, is most false, the consent of the whole Church disclaiming it, which doth believe the solemnity of the Lords Day was appointed by the Apostles themselves in memory of the Lords Resurrection: concerning the institution whereof by the Apostles Austin Ser. 25. de temp. testifyeth in these words: therefore the Apostles themselves, & Apostolical men, appointed that the Lords Day should for that reason be religiously solemnized, because on it our Redeemer rose from the dead. In the last place come we to our Divines. Now Bucer I have already showed to stand for us rather then for him. 2. And Calvin expressly acknowledgeth that the Apostles did change the day. 3. Beza upon Re. 1. v. 10. hath an excellent passage to the same purpose. For he considers Christs resurrection to be as it were a second creation of a World spiritual, and thereupon doubts not but that the spirit of God did suggest unto them the change of the seventh day into the Lords day, as to be consecrated to Divine Service. 4. Junius on Gen. 2. writes that the cause of the change of the day was the resurrection of Christ, and the benefit of instauration of the Church in Christ. The commemoration of which benefit succeeded to the commemoration of the Creation, not by humane tradition, but by the observation of Christ himself, and his institution. 5. Piscator on Exod. 20.10. It is to be observed that the circumstance of the seventh day, in celebrating the Sabbath is abolished by ⟨p. 102⟩Christ; as who for that day ordained the first day of the week, which we call the Lords Day, and that in remembrance of the Lords Resurrection performed on that day. And upon Luk. 14. v. 2. He makes this observation, By occasion of this story, it is fit to consider what was the religion of the Sabbath in the new Testament, and what place it hath at this day among us Christians, and how it is to be observed. And first we must hold that the Sabbath is abrogated, by Christs coming as touching the seventh or last day in the week, and that in the place thereof is ordained the first day, which we call the Lords Day, because on that day the Lord rose from the dead, and showed himself alive to his Disciples, and divers times speaking with them of the Kingdom of God:

Adde unto these Sixtus Senensis, ¹but that which they object (saith hee) concerning the Lords Day not as yet instituted in the time of John, is most false, the consent of the whole Church disclaiming it, which doth beleeve the solemnity of the Lords Day was appointed by the Appostles themselves in memory of the Lords Resurrection: concerning the institution whereof by the Apostles Austin Ser. 25. de temp. testifyeth in these words: therefore the Apostles themselves, & Apostolicall men, appointed that the Lords Day should for that reason bee religiously solemnized, because on it our Redeemer rose from the dead. In the last place come wee to our Divines. Now Bucer I have already shewed to stand for us rather then for him. 2. And Calvin expresly acknowledgeth that the Apostles did change the day. 3. Beza upon Re. 1. v. 10. hath an excellent passage to the same purpose. For hee considers Christs resurrection to bee as it were a second creation of a World spirituall, and thereupon doubts not but that the spirit of God did suggest unto them the change of the seventh day into the Lords day, as to bee consecrated to Divine Service. 4. Iunius on Gen. 2. writes that the cause of the change of the day was the resurrection of Christ, and the benefit of instauration of the Church in Christ. The commemoration of which benefit succeeded to the commemoration of the Creation, not by humane tradition, but by the observation of Christ himselfe, and his institution. 5. Piscator on Exod. 20.10. It is to bee observed that the circumstance of the seventh day, in celebrating the Sabbath is abolished by ⟨p. 102⟩Christ; as who for that day ordained the first day of the weeke, which wee call the Lords Day, and that in remembrance of the Lords Resurrection performed on that day. And upon Luk. 14. v. 2. He makes this observation, By occasion of this story, it is fit to consider what was the religion of the Sabbath in the new Testament, and what place it hath at this day among us Christians, and how it is to be observed. And first we must hold that the Sabbath is abrogated, by Christs comming as touching the seventh or last day in the week, and that in the place thereof is ordained the first day, which we call the Lords Day, because on that day the Lord rose from the dead, and shewed himselfe alive to his Disciples, and divers times speaking with them of the Kingdom of God:

1. 1Biblioth. lib. 7. p. 603. Col. 1.

and so by his own example consecrating that day to Church assemblies, and for the performance of the outward service of God. The reason of the abrogation is, because that ceremonial rest observed in the Law, was a type of that rest, which the Lord made in his grave, as is perceived by the words of Paul Col. 2.16.17. Now of the apparitions of the Lord, S. John testifies Chap. 21. where he shows how first he appeared to them gathered together on that very day whereon he rose. And again eight days after. Now that in these days he spake unto them of the Kingdom of God Luke shows, Acts 1.3. Whence it was undoubtedly that the Apostles observed that day by the Lords ordinance, to keep their Ecclesiastical assemblies thereon — as it appears they did Acts 20.7. & 1 Cor. 16.2. And hence it was without doubt, on the Lords day John was in the spirit and received the Revelation. To the same purpose is that which Doctor Walaeus allegeth out of Piscators

aod so by his own example consecrating that day to Church assemblies, and for the performance of the outward service of God. The reason of the abrogation is, because that ceremoniall rest observed in the Law, was a type of that rest, which the Lord made in his grave, as is perceived by the words of Paul Col. 2.16.17. Now of the apparitions of the Lord, S. John testifies Chap. 21. where he shewes how first he appeared to them gathered together on that very day whereon he rose. And againe eight dayes after. Now that in these dayes he spake unto them of the Kingdom of God Luke shewes, Acts 1.3. Whence it was undoubtedly that the Apostles observed that day by the Lords ordinance, to keep their Ecclesiasticall assemblies thereon — as it appeares they did Acts 20.7. & 1 Cor. 16.2. And hence it was without doubt, on the Lords day John was in the spirit and receaved the Revelation. To the same purpose is that which Doctor Walaeus alleageth out of Piscators

Aphoris. 18. It may be doubted concerning the Lords Day, whether it be appointed by God for his service in the New Testament. My opinion hereof is this; although we read no express Commandment concerning it, yet that such an institution may be gathered from the example of Christ and his Disciples. For on that day whereon the Lord rose from the dead (therefore called the Lords-Day) he showed himself alive to his Disciples, and spake to them of the Kingdom of God. And Paul on that day in an assembly of the faithful met together to celebrate the Lords Supper, preached to them on that day, Acts 20.7. and that the Christians ⟨p. 103⟩at Corinth were wont to meet on that day for public prayer, appears 1 Cor. 16.2. Now it cannot be doubted but Paul ordained that day amongst them, as also the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper, and that according to the Commandment of Christ, Math. 28. the last, Teach them (to wit, as many as receive the Gospel) to keep all those things which I have commanded unto you. On the Lords Day also John was in the spirit, and in the spirit saw and heard the Revelation concerning the state of the Church that was to come, Apoc. 1.10. whence we may gather, that even then he rested to holy meditations such as became the Lords Day. There is not a passage in all this but of great weight, and very considerable. 6. As for Doctor Fulk upon the Re. 1.10. I have represented him formerly at large; that for the prescription of this day before any other of the seven, they had without doubt ether the express Commandment of Christ before his Ascension when he gave them precepts concerning the Kingdom of God, and the ordering and government of the Church Acts 1.2. or else the certain direction of his spirit, that it was his will, and pleasure that it should so be, and that also according to the Scriptures. And observe how he falls upon the same reason that Athanasius, and the ancient Fathers insist upon; Seeing there is the same reason of sanctifying that day, in which our Saviour Christ accomplished our redemption, and the restitution of the World by his resurrection from death; that was of sanctifying the day, in which the Lord rested from the Creation of the World. 7. Doctor Andrewes in like manner Bishop of Winchester in his Star Chamber speech in the case of Traske;

Aphoris. 18. It may be doubted concerning the Lords Day, whether it be appointed by God for his service in the New Testament. My opinion hereof is this; although we read no expresse Commandement concerning it, yet that such an institution may be gathered from the example of Christ and his Disciples. For on that day whereon the Lord rose from the dead (therefore called the Lords-Day) he shewed himselfe alive to his Disciples, and spake to them of the Kingdom of God. And Paul on that day in an assembly of the faithfull met together to celebrate the Lords Supper, preached to them on that day, Acts 20.7. and that the Christians ⟨p. 103⟩at Corinth were wont to meet on that day for publique prayer, appeares 1 Cor. 16.2. Now it cannot be doubted but Paul ordained that day amongst them, as also the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper, and that according to the Commandement of Christ, Math. 28. the last, Teach them (to wit, as many as receave the Gospell) to keep all those things which I have commanded unto you. On the Lords Day also John was in the spirit, and in the spirit saw and heard the Revelation concerning the state of the Church that was to come, Apoc. 1.10. whence we may gather, that even then he rested to holy meditations such as became the Lords Day. There is not a passage in all this but of great weight, and very considerable. 6. As for Doctor Fulk upon the Re. 1.10. I have represented him formerly at large; that for the prescription of this day before any other of the seven, they had without doubt ether the expresse Commandement of Christ before his Ascension when he gave them precepts concerning the Kingdom of God, and the ordering and government of the Church Acts 1.2. or else the certaine direction of his spirit, that it was his will, and pleasure that it should so be, and that also according to the Scriptures. And observe how hee falls upon the same reason that Athanasius, and the ancient Fathers insist upon; Seeing there is the same reason of sanctifying that day, in which our Saviour Christ accomplished our redemption, and the restitution of the World by his resurrection from death; that was of sanctifying the day, in which the Lord rested from the Creation of the World. 7. Doctor Andrewes in like manner Bishop of Winchester in his Starre Chamber speech in the case of Traske;

he not only professeth, that the Sabbath had reference to the old Creation, but in Christ we are a new Creature, a new Creation, and so to have a new Sabbath; and that this new Sabbath is the Lords Day declared unto us by the resurrection of Christ, for which he allegeth Austin Ep. 119. ad Januarium. But also for the confirmation of it saith it is deduced plainly by practise; adding that these two only the day (of the week whereon Christ rose) and the Supper, are called the Lords, to show that the word Dominicum is taken alike in both. Nay he goes farther, as namely to allege not only practise but precept also for it; from the first of the Epistle to the Corin. ⟨p. 104⟩cap. 16.2. For albeit the Apostle there doth expressly constitute only an order for collections for the poor on the day of their meeting, yet as Piscator observes, it cannot be denied but that undoubtedly as touching the time of their meeting they were therein ordered also by S. Paul, as they were about the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper. And accordingly, Paraeus in the very passage alleged by Gomarus, doth take that place of 1 Cor. 16.2. to notify, that the very time of their meeting there specified, was by the ordinance of S. Paul.

hee not onely professeth, that the Sabbath had reference to the old Creation, but in Christ we are a new Creature, a new Creation, and so to have a new Sabbath; and that this new Sabbath is the Lords Day declared unto us by the resurrection of Christ, for which he alleageth Austin Ep. 119. ad Ianuarium. But also for the confirmation of it saith it is deduced plainly by practise; adding that these two onely the day (of the weeke whereon Christ rose) and the Supper, are called the Lords, to shew that the word Dominicum is taken alike in both. Nay hee goes farther, as namely to alleage not onely practise but precept also for it; from the first of the Epistle to the Corin. ⟨p. 104⟩cap. 16.2. For albeit the Apostle there doth expressely constitute onely an order for collections for the poore on the day of their meeting, yet as Piscator observes, it cannot bee denied but that undoubtedly as touching the time of their meeting they were therein ordered also by S. Paul, as they were about the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper. And accordingly, Paraeus in the very passage alleaged by Gomarus, doth take that place of 1 Cor. 16.2. to notifie, that the very time of their meeting there specified, was by the ordinance of S. Paul.

Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath and Wells, in his Theses de Sabbato, Thes. 34. The Apostles directed by Christs not only example, but spirit also, observed the same; witness in the Acts, S. Paul, S. John in the Revelation. 38. And from the Apostles the Catholic Church uniformly received it, witness all Ecclesiastical writers. 39. And the Church hath received it not to be liberae observationis, as if men might at their pleasure accept or refuse it, 40. but to be perpetually observed to the Worlds end. For as God only hath power to apportion his time: so hath he power to set out the day that he will take for his portion. For he is Lord of the Sabbath. 8. Master Fox upon the Rev. 1. v. 10. professeth, that the observation of the Lords Day doth Niti authoritate institutionis Apostolicae, depend upon the authority of Apostolical institution. 9. Walaeus dissert. de Sab. p. 172. we conclude (saith he) this first day of the week, was by the Apostles put in the place of the Sabbath, and commended to the Church, not only by a power ordinary, competent to all pastors for the ordering of indifferent rites in their Churches; but by a singular power also; as who had the oversight of the whole Churches; and who as extraordinary Ministers of Christ, were by the holy Ghost, put in trust, that they might be faithful, not only for the delivering of certain precepts concerning faith, and manners, but also as touching upright ordering of the Church: that so it might be made known to all Christians every where what day in the week was to be kept, by virtue and Analogy of the fourth Commandment, least dissension thereabouts and (consequently) confusion might arise in the Church of God: and to this purpose he allegeth Beza before mentioned; and Gallesius, ⟨p. 105⟩Calvins Colleague on Exod. 31. This ordinance, to wit, that the Lords Day should be substituted in the place of the Sabbath, we have re•aved (saith he) not from men, but from the Apostles, that is, from the Spirit of God, whereby they were governed: and after he had proved this out of three places of Scripture, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16 2. Re. 1.10. in the end he, adds, For although we are not tied to the observation of days yet this necessary order must be observed, least confusion should be bred in the Church. 10. Fayus Calvins successor alleged also by Walaeus disput. 47. in q. precept.

Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath and Wells, in his Theses de Sabbato, Thes. 34. The Apostles directed by Christs not only example, but spirit also, observed the same; witnesse in the Acts, S. Paul, S. John in the Revelation. 38. And from the Apostles the Catholique Church uniformly receaved it, witnesse all Ecclesiasticall writers. 39. And the Church hath receaved it not to be liberae observationis, as if men might at their pleasure accept or refuse it, 40. but to be perpetually observed to the Worlds end. For as God only hath power to apportion his time: so hath he power to set out the day that he will take for his portion. For he is Lord of the Sabbath. 8. Master Fox upon the Rev. 1. v. 10. professeth, that the observation of the Lords Day doth Niti authoritate institutionis Apostolicae, depend upon the authority of Apostolicall institution. 9. Walaeus dissert. de Sab. p. 172. we conclude (saith hee) this first day of the weeke, was by the Apostles put in the place of the Sabbath, and commended to the Church, not only by a power ordinary, competent to all pastors for the ordering of indifferent rites in their Churches; but by a singular power also; as who had the oversight of the whole Churches; and who as extraordinary Ministers of Christ, were by the holy Ghost, put in trust, that they might be faithfull, not only for the delivering of certaine precepts concerning faith, and manners, but also as touching upright ordering of the Church: that so it might be made known to all Christians every where what day in the weeke was to be kept, by vertue and Analogy of the fourth Commandement, least dissension thereabouts and (consequently) confusion might arise in the Church of God: and to this purpose hee alleageth Beza before mentioned; and Gallesius, ⟨p. 105⟩Calvins Collegue on Exod. 31. This ordinance, to wit, that the Lords Day should be substituted in the place of the Sabbath, we have re•aved (saith hee) not from men, but from the Apostles, that is, from the Spirit of God, whereby they were governed: and after he had proved this out of three places of Scripture, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16 2. Re. 1.10. in the end hee, addes, For although we are not tied to the observation of dayes yet this necessary order must be observed, least confusion should be bred in the Church. 10. Fayus Calvins successor alleaged also by Walaeus disput. 47. in q. praecept.

Justly therefore may we say, that the Apostles by the leading of the Holy Ghost for the seventh day of the Law, substituted the first day of the week, which was the first in the Creation of the first World. 11. Hyperius in. 1. Cor. 16. 1. The first day of the week in memory of the Lords Resurrection was called the Lords Day, the observation of the Sabbath being translated thereunto through the command of the Holy Ghost by the Apostles. 12. Add unto these Master Perkins maintaining the same. That which he delivers of the Parliament in the days of King Edward the sixth, in that preamble of theirs concerning holy days, as left by the authority of Gods Word to the authority of Christs Church, by the discretion of the Rulers, and Ministers thereof, as they shall judge most expedient to the true setting forth of Gods Glory, and edification of the people; I say that this should be understood not of holy days only, but of the Lords Day also, is a thing most incredible; neither doth he offer to cite any parcel thereof to justify this so bold an affirmation; only he saith, that by the body of the act it doth appear; but what that is in the body of that act whereby this doth appear, he very judiciously conceals. How improbable is it, that Bishop Andrewes would have opposed this Doctrine in the Start Chamber, if a Parliament of Prelates, and that in the days of King Edward the sixth, had maintained it. For he professeth, that these two only, the Lords Day, and the Lords Supper are called the Lords, to show that Dominicum is alike to be taken in both—and takes upon him to show that in the very Scripture, there is found a precept for observation of the Lords Day; And Bishop Lake ⟨p. 106⟩in like manner professeth that it is not Liberae observatio nis, but necessarily to be observed. Doctor Fulks answer to the Rhemish Testament was set forth in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and dedicated to her Majesty, therein on Re. 1. v. 16. hath he delivered, that to change the Lords Day, and to keep it on Monday, Tuesday or any other day, the Church hath none authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himself delivered to us by his Apostles. Was he ever questioned for this?

Iustly therefore may we say, that the Apostles by the leading of the Holy Ghost for the seventh day of the Law, substituted the first day of the week, which was the first in the Creation of the first World. 11. Hyperius in. 1. Cor. 16. 1. The first day of the weeke in memory of the Lords Resurrection was called the Lords Day, the observation of the Sabbath being translated thereunto through the command of the Holy Ghost by the Apostles. 12. Adde unto these Master Perkins maintaining the same. That which he delivers of the Parliament in the dayes of King Edward the sixt, in that preamble of theirs concerning holy dayes, as left by the authority of Gods Word to the authority of Christs Church, by the discretion of the Rulers, and Ministers therof, as they shall judge most expedient to the true setting forth of Gods Glory, and edification of the people; I say that this should bee understood not of holy dayes onely, but of the Lords Day also, is a thing most incredible; neither doth hee offer to cite any parcell thereof to justifie this so bold an affirmation; onely hee sayth, that by the body of the act it doth appeare; but what that is in the body of that act whereby this doth appeare, hee very judiciously conceales. How improbable is it, that Bishop Andrewes would have opposed this Doctrine in the Starte Chamber, if a Parliament of Prelates, and that in the dayes of King Edward the sixt, had maintained it. For hee professeth, that these two onely, the Lords Day, and the Lords Supper are called the Lords, to shew that Dominicum is alike to bee taken in both—and takes upon him to shew that in the very Scripture, there is found a precept for observation of the Lords Day; And Bishop Lake ⟨p. 106⟩in like manner professeth that it is not Liberae observatio nis, but necessarily to be observed. Doctor Fulks answer to the Rhemish Testament was set forth in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, and dedicated to her Majesty, therein on Re. 1. v. 16. hath hee delivered, that to change the Lords Day, and to keepe it on Munday, Tuesday or any other day, the Church hath none authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe delivered to us by his Apostles. Was hee ever questioned for this?

or was it ever known that the state of this Land excepted against it, for crossing the Doctrine of the Church manifested in a preamble to one of the Acts of Parliament, which I presume was never yet repealed; but leave we him to live on his own juice, and to please himself in his holiness.

or was it ever knowne that the state of this Land excepted against it, for crossing the Doctrine of the Church manifested in a preamble to one of the Acts of Parliament, which I presume was never yet repealed; but leave we him to live on his own juice, and to please himselfe in his holinesse.