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

this day (meaning the Sabbath) was so changed, that it still remaineth; and for this Master Rogers quotes Doct. Bound, p. 20. only Master Rogers saith, not that all things were changed, as the Prefacer doth, but only that all Jewish things were changed, now judge whether Master Rogers might not have opposed Doctor Andrews as well as Doctor Bound. For in his Catechet. doctrine, pag. 209. having proposed this question. But is not the Sabbath a ceremony, and so abrogated by Christ? He answers it in this manner: Do as Christ did in the cause of divorce, look whether it were so from the beginning; now the beginning of the Sabbath was in Paradise before there was any sin, and so before there needed any Saviour; and so before there was any ceremony or figure of a Saviour. And if they say it prefigured the rest that we shall have from our sins in Christ, we grant it, and therefore the day is not changed, but yet no ceremony proved. He proceeds to prove that it was no ceremony: first from the Law; secondly from the Gospel, Eph. 2.4. thus: All ceremonies were ended in Christ, but so was not the Sabbath; For, Matth. 24.20. Christ bids them pray, that their visitation be not on the Sabbath day: so that there must needs be a Sabbath after Christs death. Now, what doth Doctor Bound affirm forty years ago, which Doctor Andrewes did not in his pattern of Catechetical doctrine? I come to the third and last: That the Sabbath was not any of those ceremonies which were justly abrogated at Christs coming. This very point Doctor Andrewes maintains by divers arguments, as well as D. Bound, which yet is rightly to be understood, to wit, not of the observation of the seventh day from the creation; but of the observation of one day in seven. So that in M. Rogers his Brentian judgement in this particular, Doctor Andrewes, who afterwards became Bishop of Winchester, might be accounted a Sabbatarian as well as D. Bound. All these positions the Prefacer saith, are condemned for contrary to the Articles of the Church of England; but by whom condemned? by none but by M. Rogers; and by the same reason he might say that the ⟨p. 161⟩doctrine of Doctor Andrewes was condemned also for contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, to wit, by M. Rogers. And consider his absurd inference from the seventh Article of the Church of England;