Section. 1. 1. The ancients are alleged in vain to oppose the Institution of the Sabbath, as from the beginning.
Section 2. 2. The untruth of the Prefacer's legends concerning Peter Bruis, Fulco, and Eustathius and others, discovered.
Section 3.
3. Calvin abused by the Prefacer, and misconstrued.
2. What credit Barclay deserves, relating a consultation of Calvin, about transferring the Sabbath to the Thursday.
3. Of the force of Apostolical example.
Section 4.
4. The vanity of the Prefacers pretence, in saying Catarinus opposed Tostatus with ill success, while he ⟨image 3⟩maintained the Institution of the Sabbath from the Creation. It is made apparent, that his success was far beyond that of Tostatus.
2. Whether Adam fell the first day wherein he was created.
1. Pererius his arguments for the negative. Sect. 4.
2. Doctor Willet his arguments for the affirmative. Sect. 4.
3. Pererius his reasons against the institution of the Sabbath from the Creation, answered.
4. Two Digressions in answer to Rivetus in two particular.
1. By way of reply upon his answer to Walaeus his arguments, justifying the morality of one day in seven.
2. To his arguments opposing the morality of one day in seven to be consecrated to the Lord.
Section 5.
5. A consideration of Walaeus his discourse in answer to those, who conceive the institution of the Lords Day, 1to have been ordered by Christ himself.
2. An examination of that phrase of some of our 2Divines, affirming the ancients to have changed the Jews Sabbath unto the Lords Day for a probable cause: wherein it is showed that the cause hereof was more then probable.
Section 6.
6. An examination of Chemnitius his discourse, concerning the authority of the Lords Day.
⟨image 3⟩2. A reply upon Doctor Rivets answer to Master Perkins his arguments standing for the Divine authority of the Lords Day.
3. That the Lords Day, and the Lords Supper are so called in the same notion. 1. affirmed by Doctor Andrewes, Perkins, Thysius. 2. justified by good reason.
Section. 7. 7. A brief of the arguments on each side for every point.
1. As touching the original institution of the Sabbath.
2. As touching the Morality of one day in seven to be consecrated to Gods solemn worship.
3. As touching the authority of the celebration of the Lords Day, and the immutability thereof.
8. The Prefacer, and M. Rogers opposing D.
Section. 1. 1. The ancients are alleadged in vaine to oppose the Institution of the Sabbath, as from the beginning.
Section 2. 2. The untruth of the Praefacers legends concerning Peter Bruis, Fulco, and Eustathius and others, discovered.
Section 3.
3. Calvin abused by the Prefacer, and misconstrued.
2. What credite Barclay deserves, relating a consultation of Calvin, about transferring the Sabbath to the Thursday.
3. Of the force of Apostolicall example.
Section 4.
4. The vanity of the Prefacers pretence, in saying Catarinus opposed Tostatus with ill successe, while he ⟨image 3⟩maintained the Institution of the Sabbath from the Creation. It is made apparant, that his successe was far beyond that of Tostatus.
2. Whether Adam fell the first day wherein he was created.
1. Pererius his arguments for the negative. Sect. 4.
2. Doctor Willet his arguments for the affirmative. Sect. 4.
3. Pererius his reasons against the institution of the Sabbath from the Creation, answered.
4. Two Digressions in answer to Rivetus in two particular.
1. By way of reply upon his answer to Walaeus his arguments, justifying the moraltty of one day in seven.
2. To his arguments opposing the morality of one day in seven to be consecrated to the Lord.
Section 5.
5. A consideration of Walaeus his discourse in answer to those, who conceave the institution of the Lords Day, 1to have beene ordered by Christ himselfe.
2. An examination of that phrase of some of our 2Davines, affirming the ancients to have changed the Iewes Sabbath unto the Lords Day for a probable cause: wherein it is shewed that the cause hereof was more then probable.
Section 6.
6. An examination of Chemnitius his discourse, concerning the authority of the Lords Day.
⟨image 3⟩2. A reply upon Doctor Rivets answer to Master Perkins his arguments standing for the Divine authority of the Lords Day.
3. That the Lords Day, and the Lords Supper are so called in the same notion. 1. affirmed by Doctor Andrewes, Perkins, Thysius. 2. justified by good reason.
Section. 7. 7. A briefe of the arguments on each side for every point.
1. As touching the originall institution of the Sabbath.
2. As touching the Morality of one day in seven to be consecrated to Gods solemne worship.
3. As touching the authority of the celebration of the Lords Day, and the immutability thereof.
8. The Prefacer, and M. Rogers opposing D.
- 1Pa. 78.
- 2Pa. 70.
