1And no more doth D. Rivetus deliver in excepting against his annotations: for as he acknowledgeth M. Perkins scriptorem modestissimum, a most modest writer; so he carrieth himself most modestly towards him. But I hope without any breach of modesty, I may profess, that I find no accurateness in each of his allegations, save one, namely, that wherein ⟨p. 141⟩Christ professeth himself Lord of the Sabbath; and it is enough for the present, that God reserves to himself power of ordering times for his service; yet it cannot be denied, but God hath left power to his Church, upon good occasion, to set some time apart for exercise of piety. But whereas it is apparent, that God himself took upon him the ordering of the time for the Sabbath, and accordingly Christ calls himself The Lord of the Sabbath; as he constituted it, so none but he can abrogate it, and ordain another in the place of it. Now, whereas D. Rivetus saith, that he hath left this power unto his Church; it stands him upon to prove it. We find our Saviour supposeth us Christians to have a Sabbath after his resurrection, Matth. 24.20. as well as the Jews had before: we find that in the Apostles days, the first day of the week was set apart for this; which could not be, but by the joint consent of the Apostles, we find that the day of the week (not the day of the year) wherein Christ rose, by Saint John himself called the Lords Day, an evident argument, that in his time it was so generally received. We find that never any work of God did give better cause to profess, that The day thereof was the day that the Lord had made, let us be glad and rejoice therein; then the day wherein Christ rose from the dead, and thereby was declared to be the Son of God, even that stone which the builders refused to be made the head of the corner. And how strange is it, that the Church for 1500. years space should no where offer to alter it; if in no other respect, yet in this, to manifest that the Church is endued with such liberty and power, and to prevent the superstitious observation of the day as a thing necessary, if it be not necessary. Lastly, if this liberty be still in the Church; in case they should exercise this liberty, what inconvenience would follow upon the exercising of a lawful liberty? But infinite inconvenience would follow hereupon:
1And no more doth D. Rivetus deliver in excepting against his annotations: for as he acknowledgeth M. Perkins scriptorem modestissimum, a most modest writer; so he carryeth himselfe most modestly towards him. But I hope without any breach of modesty, I may professe, that I find no accuratenesse in each of his allegations, save one, namely, that wherein ⟨p. 141⟩Christ professeth himself Lord of the Sabbath; and it is enough for the present, that God reserves to himself power of ordering times for his service; yet it cannot be denied, but God hath left power to his Church, upon good occasion, to set some time apart for exercise of piety. But whereas it is apparant, that God himselfe tooke upon him the ordering of the time for the Sabbath, and accordingly Christ calls himselfe The Lord of the Sabbath; as he constituted it, so none but he can abrogate it, and ordaine another in the place of it. Now, whereas D. Rivetus saith, that hee hath left this power unto his Church; it stands him upon to prove it. We find our Saviour supposeth us Christians to have a Sabbath after his resurrection, Matth. 24.20. as well as the Jewes had before: wee find that in the Apostles dayes, the first day of the weeke was set apart for this; which could not be, but by the joynt consent of the Apostles, we find that the day of the weeke (not the day of the yeere) wherein Christ rose, by Saint Iohn himselfe called the Lords Day, an evident argument, that in his time it was so generally received. We find that never any worke of God did give better cause to professe, that The day thereof was the day that the Lord had made, let us be glad and rejoyce therein; then the day wherein Christ rose from the dead, and thereby was declared to be the Sonne of God, even that stone which the builders refused to be made the head of the corner. And how strange is it, that the Church for 1500. yeeres space should no where offer to alter it; if in no other respect, yet in this, to manifest that the Church is indued with such liberty and power, and to prevent the superstitious observation of the day as a thing necessary, if it be not necessary. Lastly, if this liberty be still in the Church; in case they should exercise this liberty, what inconvenience would follow upon the exercising of a lawfull liberty? But infinit inconvenience would follow hereupon:
- 1Reply.
