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

yet lastly whereas Chemnitius will have it free, and he hath already manifested that he speaks of it in this sense, as not to be so tied to this day, but that we may observe other days; we willingly grant that in this sense it is free. Now let us consider his reason following. For saith he, if we are freed from the Elements, which by God himself in the old Testament were ordained, and commanded, how should we be tied by the decrees of men? But alas this reason of his hath no proportion: the Elements he speaks of were but shadows the body whereof is Christ, and now Christ is revealed, they were wont to be called not only Mortua but mortifera. Yet the observation of one day in seven still continues ⟨p. 131⟩to be the Commandment of God delivered not to Moses, as ceremonies were, but by word of mouth proclaimed on mount Sinai; and natural reason suggests unto us that we must allow unto Gods service as good a proportion of time under the Gospel, as he required of the Jews under the Law. Now if one day in seven must be set apart in common reason, what day is to be preferred for this before the Lords Day, the day of Christs rest from the work of redemption in suffering the sorrows of death; as the day of the Lords rest from the Creation was appointed to the Jews for their Sabbath; And this Resurrection of Christ bringing with it a new Creation; Shall we prefer the Saturday the Jews festival before it, shall we prefer the Friday the day of the Turks festival before it? shall we affect power and liberty to make any other day in the week the Lords holy day, rather then that the Word of God commends unto us for the Lords Day in the time of the Gospel?

yet lastly wheras Chemnitius will have it free, and hee hath already manifested that hee speakes of it in this sense, as not to be so tied to this day, but that we may observe other dayes; wee willingly grant that in this sense it is free. Now let us consider his reason following. For saith hee, if we are freed from the Elements, which by God himselfe in the old Testament were ordained, and commanded, how should we be tyed by the decrees of men? But alas this reason of his hath no proportion: the Elements hee speakes of were but shaddowes the body whereof is Christ, and now Christ is revealed, they were wont to bee called not onely Mortua but mortifera. Yet the observation of one day in seven still continues ⟨p. 131⟩to bee the Commandement of God delivered not to Moses, as ceremonies were, but by word of mouth proclaimed on mount Sina; and naturall reason suggests unto us that wee must allow unto Gods service as good a proportion of time under the Gospell, as hee required of the Jewes under the Law. Now if one day in seven must bee set apart in common reason, what day is to bee preferred for this before the Lords Day, the day of Christs rest from the worke of redemption in suffering the sorrows of death; as the day of the Lords rest from the Creation was appointed to the Jewes for their Sabbath; And this Resurrection of Christ bringing with it a new Creation; Shall wee preferre the Saturday the Jewes festivall before it, shall wee preferre the Friday the day of the Turkes festivall before it? shall wee affect power and liberty to make any other day in the weeke the Lords holy day, rather then that the Word of God commends unto us for the Lords Day in the time of the Gospell?

This I suppose may suffice for answering the rest also, whensoever their suffrages shall be brought to light, for I presume none of them hath said more then Chemnitius hath done. Azorius the Jesuit professeth of two things in this argument, that they are most agreeable to reason. First, that after six work days one entire day should be consecrated to God, 2. that the Lords Day should be it. Doctor Fulke in answer to the Rhemish Testament professeth that to change the Lords Day and keep it on Monday, Tuesday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himself delivered to us by his Apostles. This was printed in the days of Queen Elizabeth and dedicated unto her Majesty; what Bishop as governor in this Church of England hath ever been known to take exception against this? Doctor Andrewes (Bishop of Winchester) in his star Chamber speech in the Case of Traske professeth that the Sabbath (to wit of the Jews) had reference to the old Creation, but in Christ we are now Creatures, (As the Apostle S. Paul speaks) a new Creation, and so to have a new Sabbath. And this he saith is deduced plainly. 1. by practise, 2. by precept, that these two only, the first day ⟨p. 132⟩of the week, and the Sacrament of the Supper are called the Lords, to show that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to be taken in both: So that give power to the Church to alter the one, and you may as well give power to the Church to alter the other. He shows also, it was an usual question put to Christians, Dominicum servasti? Hast thou kept the Lords Day? And their answer was this, Christianus sum, intermittere non possum. I am a Christian, and I cannot intermit it. Lastly, he allegeth the Synod of Laodicea, Can. 29. acknowledged in that of Chalcedon, 133. that Christian men may not Judaize, not make the Saturday their day of rest, but that they are to work on that day, giving their honour of celebration to the Lords Day. Doctor Lake, Bishop of Bath and Wells in his Thesis of the Sabbath—39. The Church hath received it (the Lords Day) not to be liberae observationis (of free observation) as if men might at pleasure, accept or refuse it, 40. But to be perpetually observed to the worlds end: For, as God only hath power to apportion his time:

This I suppose may suffice for answering the rest also, whensoever their suffrages shall bee brought to light, for I presume none of them hath sayd more then Chemnitius hath done. Azorius the Jesuite professeth of two things in this argument, that they are most agreeable to reason. First, that after six worke dayes one entire day should bee consecrated to God, 2. that the Lords Day should bee it. Doctor Fulke in answer to the Remish Testament professeth that to change the Lords Day and keepe it on Munday, Tuesday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe delivered to us by his Apostles. This was printed in the dayes of Queen Elizabeth and dedicated unto her Majesty; what Bishop as gouernour in this Church of England hath ever beene known to take exception against this? Doctor Andrewes (Bishop of Winchester) in his starre Chamber speech in the Case of Traske professeth that the Sabbath (to wit of the Iewes) had reference to the old Creation, but in Christ we are now Creatures, (As the Apostle S. Paul speakes) a new Creation, and so to have a new Sabbath. And this he saith is deduced plainly. 1. by practise, 2. by precept, that these two onely, the first day ⟨p. 132⟩of the weeke, and the Sacrament of the Supper are called the Lords, to shew that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to be taken in both: So that give power to the Church to alter the one, and you may as well give power to the Church to alter the other. He shewes also, it was an usuall question put to Christians, Dominicum servasti? Hast thou kept the Lords Day? And their answer was this, Christianus sum, intermittere non possum. I am a Christian, and I cannot intermit it. Lastly, he allegeth the Synod of Laodicea, Can. 29. acknowledged in that of Chalcedon, 133. that Christian men may not Judaize, not make the Saturday their day of rest, but that they are to worke on that day, giving their honour of celebration to the Lords Day. Doctor Lake, Bishop of Bath and Wells in his Thesis of the Sabbath—39. The Church hath received it (the Lords Day) not to be liberae observationis (of free observation) as if men might at pleasure, accept or refuse it, 40. But to be perpetually observed to the worlds end: For, as God onely hath power to apportion his time:

so hath he power to set out the day that he will take for his portion. For he is Lord of the Sabbath, 46. The work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekly, monthly or yearly, as particulars evince in Scripture and History. 47. No man can translate the works, therefore no man can translate the day. This is an undoubted rule in Theology. Add unto these Junius and Piscator, who maintain the subrogation of the Lords Day into the place of the Jewish Sabbath, to have been made by the ordinance of Christ; and Beza acknowledgeth it to be traditionis Apostolicae & verè divinae. Doctor Brownde in his Treatise of the Sabbath, lib. 1. pag. 47. having recited the opinion of Junius, referring the institution of the Lords Day to Christs ordinance, as who rose from the dead on that day; addeth hereunto after this manner. Like unto the which, because nothing can ever fall out in the world comparable unto it in glory and power; therefore this day must continue in his first honour of sanctification unto the end of all things, and no day be set up like to it, or it changed into any other day, lest the wonderful glory of that thing be darkened, and the infinite power of it weakened, I mean, the glorious and mighty work of our redemption ⟨p. 133⟩which by the sanctification of this Sabbath is commended unto us, and we by keeping that holy still, do commend it to our posterity. And this is it that is alleged as a reason of the observation of this day in the Apostles constitutions: ¹It is called the Lords Day, because it declares unto us Christ crucified and raised up again, and it is worthily commended to be kept as the Lords Day, that we might give thanks unto thee, O Lord Christ, for all these benefits: for, say they, there is that grace bestowed upon us by thee; Qua sua magnitudine omnia beneficia obscurat, which by the greatness, and, as it were, by the brightness of it doth obscure and darken all other. So that though the day was once changed upon these considerations, nay, they being such as they be, it could not but be changed: yet forsomuch as the like cause can never be offered unto men to move them to enter into this consideration, therefore the day must not only not be changed any more, but it must not so much as enter in mens thoughts to go about to change it.

so hath he power to set out the day that he will take for his portion. For he is Lord of the Sabbath, 46. The worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekely, monethly or yeerely, as particulars evince in Scripture and History. 47. No man can translate the works, therefore no man can translate the day. This is an undoubted rule in Theologie. Adde unto these Iunius and Piscator, who maintaine the subrogation of the Lords Day into the place of the Jewish Sabbath, to have beene made by the ordinance of Christ; and Beza acknowledgeth it to be traditionis Apostolicae & verè divinae. Doctor Brownde in his Treatise of the Sabbath, lib. 1. pag. 47. having recited the opinion of Iunius, referring the institution of the Lords Day to Christs ordinance, as who rose from the dead on that day; addeth hereunto after this manner. Like unto the which, because nothing can ever fall out in the world comparable unto it in glory and power; therefore this day must continue in his first honour of sanctification unto the end of all things, and no day be set up like to it, or it changed into any other day, lest the wonderfull glory of that thing be darkened, and the infinite power of it weakned, I meane, the glorious and mighty worke of our redemption ⟨p. 133⟩which by the sanctification of this Sabbath is commended unto us, and we by keeping that holy still, doe commend it to our posterity. And this is it that is alleged as a reason of the observation of this day in the Apostles constitutions: ¹It is called the Lords Day, because it declares unto us Christ crucified and raised up againe, and it is worthily commended to be kept as the Lords Day, that wee might give thankes unto thee, O Lord Christ, for all these benefits: for, say they, there is that grace bestowed upon us by thee; Qua sua magnitudine omnia beneficia obscurat, which by the greatnesse, and, as it were, by the brightnesse of it doth obscure and darken all other. So that though the day was once changed upon these considerations, nay, they being such as they be, it could not but be changed: yet forsomuch as the like cause can never be offered unto men to move them to enter into this consideration, therefore the day must not onely not be changed any more, but it must not so much as enter in mens thoughts to goe about to change it.

1. 1Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 37.

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

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

¹Their first Argument saith he, is taken from the appellation of the Lords Day; I suppose, saith Master Perkins, it is called the Lords Day, as the last supper of Christ is called the Lords Supper for two causes. First, as God rested the seventh day after the creation, so Christ having finished the work of the new creation, rested on this day from the work of Redemption. Secondly, as Christ did substitute the last supper in room of the passover, so he substituted the first day of the week in room of the Jews Sabbath to be a day set apart to his own worship. To this Doctor Rivet answereth after this manner.² First, he denies that there is the same reason of the Lords supper & the Lords Day, and that for two reasons; first because we have a manifest institution thereof, and Christs Precept for the observing of it. Not so of the Lords Day. Secondly, if there were a Precept for keeping the Lords Day, yet were it Ecclesiastical and so mutable. For men may choose days for the worship of God, as touching the particularity of this day or that. But the institution of the Sacraments is of Divine authority by the ⟨p. 135⟩consent of all. To this I reply that Doctor Rivetus corrupts Master Perkins his answer in the proposing of it;³ for he saith not the same is the reason of the Lords Supper, and of the day which we call the Lords Day; but supposeth, and that most modestly that either of them being called the Lords, they are called so in the same Notion. That like as the Lords Supper is so called because he instituted it; so the first day of the week is called the Lords Day, because he instituted the observation of it. And this Doctor Thysius colleague to Doctor Rivetus maintains as well as Master Perkins, and Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester in his speech against Traske; saying that both these, to wit the first day of the week, and Christ last Supper are called the Lords, to show that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to be taken in both. For what reason can be given why the day of Christs Resurrection, not according to the day of the year wherein he arose, but according to the day of the week wherein he arose, should be called the Lords Day, but to signify. First, that it was to succeed in the place of the Lords Day under the law, which was the Jewish Sabbath. 2.

¹THeir first Argument saith he, is taken from the appellation of the Lords Day; I suppose, saith Master Perkins, it is called the Lords Day, as the last supper of Christ is called the Lords Supper for two causes. First, as God rested the seventh day after the creation, so Christ having finished the worke of the new creation, rested on this day from the work of Redemption. Secondly, as Christ did substitute the last supper in roome of the passeover, so hee substituted the first day of the weeke in roome of the Jewes Sabbath to be a day set apart to his owne worship. To this Doctor Rivet answereth after this manner.² First, hee denies that there is the same reason of the Lords supper & the Lords Day, and that for two reasons; first because we have a manifest institution thereof, and Christs Precept for the observing of it. Not so of the Lords Day. Secondly, if there were a Precept for keeping the Lords Day, yet were it Ecclesiasticall and so mutable. For men may choose daies for the worship of God, as touching the particularity of this day or that. But the institution of the Sacraments is of Divine authority by the ⟨p. 135⟩consent of all. To this I replie that Doctor Rivetus corrupts Master Perkins his answer in the proposing of it;³ for he sayth not the same is the reason of the Lords Supper, and of the day which wee call the Lords Day; but supposeth, and that most modestly that either of them being called the Lords, they are called so in the same Notion. That like as the Lords Supper is so called because he instituted it; so the first day of the weeke is called the Lords Day, because hee instituted the observation of it. And this Doctor Thysius collegue to Doctor Rivetus maintaines as well as Master Perkins, and Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester in his speech against Traske; saying that both these, to wit the first day of the weeke, and Christ last Supper are called the Lords, to shew that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to bee taken in both. For what reason can bee given why the day of Christs Resurrection, not according to the day of the yeare wherein hee arose, but according to the day of the weeke wherein hee arose, should bee called the Lords Day, but to signifie. First, that it was to succeed in the place of the Lords Dayunder the law, which was the Jewish Sabbath. 2.

1. 1Perkins.
2. 2Rivet. Answ.
3. 3Repl.

And that it was the good pleasure of God and not of man, only that it should be consecrate to his service. For consider, we have many other days consecrated by the Church unto Divine service, which yet were never called the Lords Days; And the Lords Day and the Lords feasts in the Old Testament, and in the language of the Holy Ghost are no other then such that are of the Lords institution. Secondly, Doctor Rivetus omits the main force of Master Perkins his argument, or at least slightly passeth it over, which is this. As God rested the seventh day after the Creation, so Christ having ended the work of the new Creation rested on this day from his work of redemption. Athanasius of old considers a first and a second Creation; and so accordingly a first and a second Sabbath: our Saviour himself speaks of a Christian Sabbath, Math. 24.20. and w••t should that be but the Lords Day under the Gospel? And Beza and Junius and Bishop Andrewes work upon the same. And I wonder that men should think the Sabbath should be altered, and another brought into the place of it by any ⟨p. 136⟩other authority then of him who is Lord of the Sabbath. And as Bishop Lake observes in all feasts both Divine and humane that we read of in Scripture, the work of the day was the ground of hallowing the day. And never was known to the World a more wonderful work in the way of grace, and mercy, then Christs Resurrection from the dead, manifesting thereby the redemption of the World as then wrought by him How doth Christ take upon him to alter the Sacraments but as Lord of the Sacraments? and apparently he shows that upon the same ground he takes upon him power to dispense or change the Sabbath, as he is Lord of the Sabbath. But what is his ground to deny the parity of reason here? merely his own prejudicate conceit that the obligation of the Lords Day, is not so great as the observation of the Sabbath. The contrary whereunto (saith he) omnes refugimus we all avoid. But who and how many are those all? what one of the ancients can he produce to have thought as he thinks? He may as well say according to the current of his private opinion, that we under the Gospel are not as much bound to the observation of one day in seven as the Jews were under the Law. It is true, that rigorous rest enjoined to the Jews we utterly disclaim as well as he;

And that it was the good pleasure of God and not of man, onely that it should bee consecrate to his service. For consider, wee have many other dayes consecrated by the Church unto Divine service, which yet were never called the Lords Dayes; And the Lords Day and the Lords feasts in the Old Testament, and in the language of the Holy Ghost are no other then such that are of the Lords institution. Secondly, Doctor Rivetus omits the maine force of Master Perkins his argument, or at least slightly passeth it over, which is this. As God rested the seventh day after the Creation, so Christ having ended the worke of the new Creation rested on this day from his worke of redemption. Athanasius of old considers a first and a second Creation; and so accordingly a first and a second Sabbath: our Saviour himselfe speakes of a Christian Sabbath, Math. 24.20. and w••t should that bee but the Lords Day under the Gospell? And Beza and Iunius and Bishop Andrewes worke upon the same. And I wonder that men should thinke the Sabbath should bee altered, and another brought into the place of it by any ⟨p. 136⟩other authority then of him who is Lord of the Sabbath. And as Bishop Lake observes in all feasts both Divine and humane that wee reade of in Scripture, the worke of the day was the ground of hallowing the day. And never was known to the World a more wonderfull worke in the way of grace, and mercy, then Christs Resurrection from the dead, manifesting thereby the redemption of the World as then wrought by him How doth Christ take upon him to alter the Sacraments but as Lord of the Sacraments? and apparently he shewes that upon the same ground hee takes upon him power to dispense or change the Sabbath, as hee is Lord of the Sabbath. But what is his ground to deny the parity of reason here? meerely his owne prejudicate conceit that the obligation of the Lords Day, is not so great as the observation of the Sabbath. The contrary whereunto (saith he) omnes refugimus we all avoyd. But who and how many are those all? what one of the ancients can hee produce to have thought as hee thinks? Hee may as well say according to the current of his private opinion, that wee under the Gospell are not as much bound to the observation of one day in seaven as the Jewes were under the Law. It is true, that rigorous rest enjoyned to the Jewes wee utterly disclaime as well as hee;

again the circumstance of the day we make no part of Gods worship nor to have any mysterious signification, as the Sabbath had to the Jews. We acknowledge no other use of this day then for order and policy sake; in which case we judge it far better the Lord should prescribe it, then we unto our selves, least if there were twenty days in the week, there would be twenty differences amongst Christians about the setting apart of one day in the week for Divine Service.

againe the circumstance of the day wee make no part of Gods worship nor to have any mysterious signification, as the Sabbath had to the Jewes. Wee acknowledge no other use of this day then for order and policy sake; in which case wee judge it farre better the Lord should prescribe it, then wee unto our selves, least if there were twenty dayes in the weeke, there would bee twenty differences amongst Christians about the setting apart of one day in the weeke for Divine Service.

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

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

1. 1Perkins.

To this Doctor Rivetus allegeth the answer of Doctor Prideaux, ¹demanding how that we contend for his inferred herehence? we answer, the general practise of the Church in the Apostles days argues it manifestly, that this order was established by the joint consent of the Apostles; otherwise it is incredible it should have been so universally received, and persevered in as it hath been to this day. Secondly, whereas the Jews Sabbath was by divine authority, the abrogation thereof and substituting another day in the place thereof could be done by no less authority then Divine; which also we conceive to be fairly represented by the denomination of our Christian Sabbath, S. John calling it the Lords Day. Secondly, he showeth what Gomarus answereth hereunto; but this answer himself taketh off in this very place in part, and much more in his reply to Gomarus. But these places being granted to denote the first day of the week in the Apostles days set apart to Divine Service; he saith it follows not herehence that it is called the Lords Day, as destinated to Gods Service, much less that so it was by Divine ordination. Yet Walaeus thinks it his safest course to say tis called the Lords Day as destinated to Gods Service, as before we have heard, so to avoid (as he thinks) the implication of Divine Ordination. But to him I have answered before. And Doctor Rivetus in my opinion doth not well consider that not the day of the year, but the day of the week, whereon Christ rose, is called the Lords Day by S. John. Like as the Sabbath in the Old Testament is called the Lords Day: which which if he had, and withal considered how strange it were for us to set any day in the week apart for the exercises of Piety rather then the Lords Day; I am persuaded he would not have contented himself with this answer. For certainly many other holy days have been and are set apart for Divine Service, yet never were called any one of them the Lords day.

To this Doctor Rivetus alledgeth the answer of Doctor Prideaux, ¹demanding how that we contend for his inferred herehence? we answer, the generall practise of the Church in the Apostles dayes argues it manifestly, that this order was established by the joynt consent of the Apostles; otherwise it is incredible it should have beene so universally receaved, and persevered in as it hath beene to this day. Secondly, wheras the Jewes Sabbath was by divine authority, the abrogation thereof and substituting another day in the place thereof could bee done by no lesse authority then Divine; which also wee conceave to bee fairely represented by the denomination of our Christian Sabbath, S. Iohn calling it the Lords Day. Secondly, he sheweth what Gomarus answereth hereunto; but this answer himselfe taketh off in this very place in part, and much more in his reply to Gomarus. But these places being granted to denote the first day of the weeke in the Apostles dayes set apart to Divine Service; hee sayth it followes not herehence that it is called the Lords Day, as destinated to Gods Service, much lesse that so it was by Divine ordination. Yet Walaeus thinkes it his safest course to say tis called the Lords Day as destinated to Gods Service, as before wee have heard, so to avoyd (as hee thinkes) the implication of Divine Ordination. But to him I have answered before. And Doctor Rivetus in my opinion doth not wel consider that not the day of the yeare, but the day of the weeke, whereon Christ rose, is called the Lords Day by S. Iohn. Like as the Sabbath in the Old Testament is called the Lords Day: which which if he had, and withall considered how strange it were for us to set any day in the weeke apart for the exercises of Piety rather then the Lords Day; I am perswaded hee would not have contented himselfe with this answer. For certainly many other holy dayes have beene and are set apart for Divine Service, yet never were called any one of them the Lords day.

1. 1Rivets Ans. Reply.

He talks of a bare custom of the Church, for it; a thing ⟨p. 138⟩incredible that both Jews and Gentiles throughout all Nations should so universally concur without the guidance of some authoritative constitution or some generally convincing evidence by the very light of common Christian evidence or both. And as for liberty left to the Church hereabout, it seemeth so unreasonable unto my poor judgement, that if it were, it should become us by earnest and hearty prayer to seek unto God to take that liberty from us and be pleased himself to guide us by some manifest ordinance, to prevent dissension and confusion; yet well fare Doctor Rivetus; he will not have this liberty extend any further then provided that some reason and necessity should urge the changing of the day; for in the next column he professeth that a sufficient cause of the change and abrogation of the day cannot be given.—The observation of other days and particularly of the Sabbath as well as the Lords Day by some in the Primitive Church, is no evidence at all, that it was indifferent unto them, whether they would observe the Lords Day or no.

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

¹The third argument Rivetus omits the fourth is this. That: which was prefigured, in that it was prefigured was prescribed: But the Lords Day was prefigured in the eighth day, wherein the children of the Jews were circumcised—therefore it was prescribed to be kept the eighth day. This the ancient Fathers, by name Cyprian and Austin have reasoned and taught.

¹The third argument Rivetus omits the fourth is this. That: which was prefigured, in that it was prefigured was prescribed: But the Lords Day was prefigured in the eighth day, wherin the children of the Iewes were circumcised—therefore it was prescribed to be kept the eighth day. This the ancient Fathers, by name Cyprian and Austin have reasoned and taught.

1. 1Perk.

¹To this Doctor Rivetus answers by denying the assumption and saying, that no probable reason can be brought to prove that day was prefigured by the eighth day wherein children were circumcised.

1. 1Rivet. Answ.

¹And indeed that day being the eighth day after birth doth not so conveniently denote the first day of the week. But Master Perkins his argument hath another part far more principal drawn from Psal. 118.22.23.24. Which Doctor Rivetus relates after this manner.

¹And indeed that day being the eighth day after birth doth not so conveniently denote the first day of the weeke. But Master Perkins his argument hath another part farre more principall drawne from Psal. 118.22.23.24. Which Doctor Rivetus relates after this menner.

1. 1Reply.

¹The day of the Resurrection was prefigured by that day, wherein the Stone which the builders refused was made the head of the Corner. But that day was the Sabbath Day, therefore by the Sabbath was prefigured the Lords Day.

1. 1Perk.

To this he answers, by denying that the Sabbath day was the day wherein the builders refused that stone; For the Scribes, ¹Pharisees and rulers of the people did always reject Christ, and not the Sabbath day only. And if Austin and Cyprian before him apprehended any such figure, that was by way of accommodation only, not that herein they acknowledged any proper figure.

To this he answers, by denying that the Sabbath day was the day wherein the builders refused that stone; For the Scribes, ¹Pharises and rulers of the people did alwayes reject Christ, and not the Sabbath day onely. And if Austin and Cyprian before him apprehended any such figure, that was by way of accommodation onely, not that herein they acknowledged any proper figure.

1. 1Rivet. Answ.