Of the morality of the fourth commandment as still in force to bind Christians…Of the morality of the fourth commandement as still in force to binde Christians…

To this I answer by denying the consequence, and not contenting ¹my self with a bare denial, I prove it to be inconsequent. For whereas God in commanding the seventh hath therewithal commanded one in seven, and withal specified which of the seven shall be rested on and sanctified unto his service: If it may be made appear that the particularity of rest on the seventh day be abrogated; and no colour can be brought for the abrogation of the proportion of time; to wit, of keeping one day in seven; it will evidently appear herewithall, that this consequence of Doctor Rivetus is unsound. Now this we prove to be most true; forasmuch as the Jews rest on the seventh day was ceremonial prefiguring Christs rest on that day in his grave; as both the fathers of old and modern Divines both Papists, and Protestants, both Lutherans, and Calvinists have acknowledged; but never any man was found to devise a ceremoniality of resting one day in seven; they may as well give themselves to devise a ceremonality in the setting apart of some time in general for Gods holy worship and service.

To this I answer by denying the consequence, and not contenting ¹my selfe with a bare deniall, I prove it to bee inconsequent. For whereas God in commanding the seventh hath therewithall commanded one in seven, and withall specified which of the seven shall bee rested on and sanctified unto his service: If it may bee made appeare that the particularity of rest on the seventh day be abrogated; and no colour can be brought for the abrogation of the proportion of time; to wit, of keeping one day in seven; it will evidently appeare herewithall, that this consequence of Doctor Rivetus is unsound. Now this wee prove to bee most true; forasmuch as the Jewes rest on the seventh day was ceremoniall profiguring Christs rest on that day in his grave; as both the fathers of old and moderne Divines both Papists, and Protestants, both Lutheranes, and Calvinists have acknowledged; but never any man was found to devise a ceremoniality of resting one day in seven; they may as well give themselves to devise a ceremonality in the setting apart of some time in generall for Gods holy worship and service.

1. 1Respon.

2. Now this puts me in mind of another way clearly to demonstrate the inconsequence of Rivetus his argument thus. If it will follow that in case we are bound to such a proportion of time by virtue of this Commandment, therefore we are bound also to keep the seventh day: Then it will follow as well, that because we are bound to set apart some time for the service of God by virtue of this Commandment ⟨p. 76⟩(as all confess) therefore we are bound also to keep such a proportion of time as is here specified, and the seventh day also which is here particulated; For like as God doth not command such a proportion of time in special, but by commanding the observation of the seventh day; in like sort neither doth God Command a time in general to be set apart for his service, but by commanding of such a proportion of time in special, and such a Day in particular.

2. Now this puts me in minde of another way clearely to demonstrate the inconsequence of Rivetus his argument thus. If it will follow that in case wee are bound to such a proportion of time by vertue of this Commandement, therefore wee are bound also to keepe the seventh day: Then it will follow as well, that because wee are bound to set apart some time for the service of God by vertue of this Commandement ⟨p. 76⟩(as all confesse) therefore we are bound also to keepe such a proportion of time as is here specified, and the seventh day also which is here particulated; For like as God doth not command such a proportion of time in speciall, but by commanding the observation of the seventh day; in like sort neither doth God Command a time in generall to bee set apart for his service, but by commanding of such a proportion of time in speciall, and such a Day in particular.

¹2. His second argument runs thus: if the observation of every seventh day be moral it must be known by light of nature, but so it is not. Therefore it is not moral; and seeing it is not political, it must be ceremonial; and therefore doth nor oblige by force of Law moral. To this I answer first.

¹2. His second argument runnes thus: if the observation of every seventh day bee morall it must bee knowne by light of nature, but so it is not. Therefore it is not morall; and seeing it is not politicall, it must bee ceremoniall; and therefore doth nor oblige by force of Law morall. To this I answer first.

1. 1Rivet. 2.

1. 1Resp. 1.

2. Neither doth it follow that because it is not moral nor political, therefore it is ceremonial; for some will say that it is positive as touching the defining of some particular necessarily required to the performance of a moral duty. As for example, not to go further then the matter in hand for instance; it is generally confessed, to be a moral duty by natural instinct, that some time is to be set apart for Gods service; but of our selves we are to seek of the proportion of time; it is fit for none so much as for God himself our Creator, and consequently our great Lord and master to define what proportion of time shall be allowed for his service; now this they call positively moral, as belonging to the execution ⟨p. 77⟩of a moral duty. Yet indeed not so much a circumstance thereof in proper speech as the specification of the general concerning the circumstance of time.

2. Neither doth it follow that because it is not morall nor politicall, therefore it is ceremoniall; for some will say that it is positive as touching the defining of some particular necessarily required to the performance of a morall duty. As for example, not to go further then the matter in hand for instance; it is generally confessed, to be a morall duty by naturall instinct, that some time is to bee set apart for Gods service; but of our selves wee are to seeke of the proportion of time; it is fit for none so much as for God himselfe our Creator, and consequently our great Lord and master to define what proportion of time shall be allowed for his service; now this they call positively morall, as belonging to the execution ⟨p. 77⟩of a morall duty. Yet indeed not so much a circumstance thereof in proper speech as the specification of the generall concerning the circumstance of time.

¹3. Yet to draw nearer to the morality of it; what? shall nothing be moral that is not known to be so, by light of nature, for what I pray? is not our nature now corrupt? nay hath not Aristotle professed that matter of morality is not capable of demonstration, but only of [Greek or Hebrew] persuasion? Nay how is it known by the light of nature, that some time is to be set apart to the worship of God that made us; but upon presupposition that God is known to be our Creator? and is this known by the light of nature? How came Aristotle then the greatest Philosopher that ever was, and his whole school, how I say came they to be ignorant of it? but upon presupposition of the History of the Creation known unto us, Doctor Field spares not to profess as Master Broad reports him, that by light of nature it is known that one day in seven ought to be consecrated to Divine Service? Yet I am not forward to say so much, but rather with Chrysostom, that now from the Creation God hath manifested that one day in a week is to be apportioned for his service; and with Azorius that it is most agreeable to reason, ²after six days of work, to set apart one to his service. And seeing God did require such a portion of time to be consecrated unto him under the Law. Undoubtedly and by the very light of nature it is clear and evident, that no less proportion of time can we in conscience allow unto him under the Gospel.

¹3. Yet to draw nearer to the morality of it; what? shall nothing bee morall that is not knowne to bee so, by light of nature, for what I pray? is not our nature now corrupt? nay hath not Aristotle professed that matter of morality is not capable of demonstration, but onely of 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 perswasion? Nay how is it knowne by the light of nature, that some time is to bee set apart to the worship of God that made us; but upon presupposition that God is knowne to bee our Creatour? and is this knowne by the light of nature? How came Aristotle then the greatest Philosopher that ever was, and his whole schoole, how I say came they to be ignorant of it? but upon presupposition of the History of the Creation knowne unto us, Doctor Feild spares not to professe as Master Broad reportes him, that by light of nature it is known that one day in seven ought to bee consecrated to Divine Service? Yet I am not forward to say so much, but rather with Chrysostome, that now from the Creation God hath manifested that one day in a weeke is to bee appōrtioned for his service; and with Azorius that it is most agreeable to reason,

3. I come to his third argument which is this, the necessity of one day in seven cannot consist with that liberty which the Apostle intimates, Col. 2. 16. Let no man judge you in meat and drink, or in the part of a day, or of Sabbaths, which are shadows of things to come. Which they explicate by a similitude. As nature requires meats and drink, but Christian liberty is not tied to choice of meats according to Moses his Laws: so reason dictates that some time is to be set apart for Gods public worship, but the Gospel freeth us from the necessity of the Jewish Sabbath.

3. I come to his third argument which is this, the necessity of one day in seven cannot consist with that liberty which the Apostle intimates, Col. 2. 16. Let no man judge you in meate and drinke, or in the part of a day, or of Sabbaths, which are shadowes of things to come. Which they explicate by a similitude. As nature requires meates and drinke, but Christian liberty is not tied to choise of meates according to Moses his Lawes: so reason dictates that some time is to be set apart for Gods publique worship, but the Gospell freeth us from the necessity of the Iewish Sabbath.

To this I answer.

1. By granting the conclusion; for the Jewish Sabbath Christians observe not. 2. but one day in seven they always ¹have observed, a manifest evidence that they never conceived this to be any impeachment to their Christian liberty. And no marvel; for they manifestly perceived that God required this proportion of time under the Law, and from the beginning of the World; how much more should we be careful to perform no less under the Gospel? And indeed rest on the seventh day did pregnantly represent before hand Christs rest that day, and that day alone full and whole in the grave. But as for any ceremoniality to be found in the special proportion of time, to wit, as one day in seven, never any man devised any ceremoniality therein more then in the time in general, which all confess by the very light of nature is to be consecrated unto God. So that we have no need of Doctor Rivetus, his answer to help us in the solution of this his argument. And whereas he conceives our Christian liberty to be impeached if any proportion of time be observed of necessity by force of precept, and of free choice. 1. This is as much as to say that our liberty is impeached, if we suffer our Lord and master, to prescribe unto us his servants what proportion of service we shall perform unto him, and not rather have him leave it to the servant to cut out unto him as little, or as much as he thinks good, yet we do not deny but he may allow unto him more; all that we stand for is that we ought not to allow him less under the Gospel, then he required under the Law; and then he required from the beginning of the World. 2. I marvel that Doctor Rivetus doth not observe how herein he contradicts himself; for hath he not formerly rested in this answer of Gomarus, that by virtue of the fourth Commandment, we must allow unto him days sufficient for his service; and that these days must be rather Frequentiores then Rariores, more rather then fewer; and if it be no prejudice to our Christian liberty to be tied, and that by virtue of the fourth Commandment, to allow unto him a better proportion of time, for his service, then that of one day in seven, how can it be prejudicial to our ⟨p. 79⟩Christian liberty to allow unto him this, and that by virtue of the fourth Commandment.

1. By granting the conclusion; for the Iewish Sabbath Christians observe not. 2. but one day in seven they alwayes

Now whether Doctor Rivetus his answers to the arguments of Wallaeus, or his own arguments to the contrary be ¹of any force to hold him to that opinion which he conceives to be Calvin's in opposition to the Doctrine delivered by Wallaeus, I am consent the indifferent may judge; as also whether the two causes mentioned by him for the observation of the Sabbath contained in the Commandment, doth not infer the third also which Rivetus opposeth, namely the proportion of one day in seven. And that this is as free from all colour of ceremoniality as any of the other two. The first was that some time is to be set apart for Gods Service; now this general is not commanded there but as contained in the special, to wit, the proportion of one day in seven. Both of them being equally contained in the particularity of the seventh day in that Commandment expressed. And as for the morality of rest to be allowed to servants after six days of labour; this doth clearly draw with it the confinement of the time appointed for Gods Service to the proportion of one day in seven; unless the day of rest for servants shall not be the day consecrated to the exercises of piety. And I much wonder that Doctor Rivetus a man of such judgement, and perspicacity doth not observe this. The only way to help this anomaly is in plain terms to profess that some rest is to be allowed to servants by their Masters, but in what proportion, that is not defined, but left at large to the pleasure of their Masters. And as for ceremoniality in the proportion of one day in seven, never any man devised any such thing more then in the setting apart of some time in general for Gods Service, all confessing this to be a duty known by the very light of nature. But I do not find that Calvin hath any other meaning then that we are not so tied to one day in seven, but that more time then this may be consecrated to Divine Service; which as I have disputed before, so now I am the more confirmed herein, Doctor Rivetus manifesting this to be his opinion also, as well as it was the opinion of Gomarus; For in this he rests, as may appear by his ⟨p. 80⟩answer to the first argument of Doctor Wallaeus. Neither is it true that Calvin did censure them who simply maintained, that the observation of one day in the week doth still remain as moral;

Now whether Doctor Rivetus his answers to the arguments of Wallaeus, or his owne arguments to the contrary bee

but that so maintained it as in reference to some mysterious signification; as Doctor Wallaeus hath manifested, and the words immediately following in Calvin do evince, which are these; but this is no other thing then in contumely of the Jews to change the day, and in heart to retain the same holiness of the day. Here commonly the allegers of Calvin to the same intent that Doctor Rivetus doth, use to make a period; as if Calvin delivered this absolutely; whereas Calvin proposeth it only conditionally, as appears by the other half of the sentence thus. If so be there remain yet unto us a signification in the days equally mysterious, to that which had place among the Jews. And though I marvel not at others who dealing in this argument dismember Calvins sentence, so to make him to deliver that absolutely which he delivers only conditionally; yet I cannot sufficiently marvel that Rivetus of rough improvidence should do so too, especially considering the good pains that Doctor Walaeus hath taken to clear Calvins meaning in this point.

but that so maintained it as in reference to some mysterious signification; as Doctor Wallaeus hath manifested, and the words immediatly following in Calvin doe evince, which are these; but this is no other thing then in contumely of the Jewes to change the day, and in heart to retaine the same holinesse of the day. Here commonly the alleagers of Calvin to the same intent that Doctor Rivetus doth, use to make a period; as if Calvin delivered this absolutely; whereas Calvin proposeth it onely conditionally, as appeares by the other halfe of the sentence thus. If so bee there remaine yet unto us a signification in the dayes equally mysterious, to that which had place among the Iewes. And though I marvell not at others who dealing in this argument dismember Calvins sentence, so to make him to deliver that absolutely which hee delivers onely conditionally; yet I cannot sufficiently marvell that Rivetus of rough improvidence should do so too, especially considering the good paines that Doctor Walaeus hath taken to cleare Calvins meaning in this point.

Neither is Master Robert Low, in his effigiation of the true Sabbatism, of any such authority as to counterpoise the concurrent testimonies of so many of our English Divines to the contrary; not to speak of the multitude of outlandish Divines whom Doctor Walaeus mustereth up, concurring in the same opinion, and whereas he saith as Doctor Rivetus reports him, that some great men, who vehemently contend, that the perpetual sanctity of manners doth require, that one day in seven should be celebrated, have more authority then reason; I may be bold to say that they who with him have hitherto opposed the Doctrine we maintain, what authority they have I know not, but as for their reasons, they are of so hungry a nature; that hereby they manifest that nothing but affection and their private ends they have, to bear them out in this. And whereas I doubt not but Rivetus hath brought on the Stage the best reasons he could pick both out of ⟨p. 81⟩master Robert Low, and out of Gomarus; let every indifferent person judge of them as they deserve; though I verily think that nothing but his affection to Calvin, to hold up his credit, and reputation hath carried him all along; and yet either my self, and Walaeus mistake Calvin, or Rivetus miserably mistaketh him.

Neither is Master Robert Low, in his effigiation of the true Sabbatisme, of any such authority as to counterpoise the concurrent testimonies of so many of our English Divines to the contrary; not to speake of the multitude of outlandish Divines whom Doctor Walaeus mustereth up, concurring in the same opinion, and whereas hee saith as Doctor Rivetus reports him, that some great men, who vehemently contend, that the perpetuall sanctity of manners doth require, that one day in seven should be celebrated, have more authority then reason; I may bee bold to say that they who with him have hitherto opposed the Doctrine we maintaine, what authority they have I know not, but as for their reasons, they are of so hungry a nature; that hereby they manifest that nothing but affection and their private ends they have, to beare them out in this. And whereas I doubt not but Rivetus hath brought on the Stage the best reasons hee could picke both out of ⟨p. 81⟩master Robert Low, and out of Gomarus; let every indifferent person judge of them as they deserve; though I verily thinke that nothing but his affection to Calvin, to hold up his credite, and reputation hath carried him all along; and yet either my selfe, and Walaeus mystake Calvin, or Rivetus miserably mystaketh him.

But as for our reason, we call all the World to judge of it; God did require one day in seven to be set apart for his public service under the Law; how much more doth he require as good a proportion of time under the Gospel? Nay from the beginning of the World he hath required it, and to this day both Jews, and Christian Gentiles have observed the same proportion. Again God in his moral Law hath required this, and that not as ceremonial, never any man hitherunto having set his wits on work to devise any ceremoniality herein; neither was it ever known that God abrogated this proportion of time to be allowed unto him for his service; therefore it continueth still as a moral Law to bind us, and shall continue until God himself set an end unto it: now let master Lows reasons be compared with these in every indifferent conscience, and let them have that authority which they deserve, because being well conceited of the strength of his reasons, he sensibly complains of his want of authority. It seems Pope Alexander the third was a man of more authority then reason. For he maintains in Cap. licet. de feriis, as Doctor Rivetus relates it, that both the old and new Testament have in special manner appointed the seventh day for man to rest thereon, and he takes it out of Suarez. de relig. l. 2. c. 2. but Rivetus cannot assent unto him, if he delivers this of any moral institution; yet that it was so appointed by the fourth Commandment unto the Jews it cannot be denied; and that not as ceremonial; for we have seen how oddly Rivetus hath carried himself in coming to speak of the ceremoniality. For to make this good he flies to the particularity of the seventh day; and if the ceremoniality thereof, be enough to infer the ceremoniality of such a special proportion of time as of one day in seven; it may suffice as well to constitute a ⟨p. 82⟩ceremoniality in the general, namely in this that some time is to be set apart for Gods Service, which yet all account to be moral by the very light of nature.

But as for our reason, we call all the World to judge of it; God did require one day in seven to be set apart for his publique service under the Law; how much more doth he require as good a proportion of time under the Gospell? Nay from the beginning of the World he hath required it, and to this day both Iewes, and Christian Gentiles have observed the same proportion. Againe God in his morall Law hath required this, and that not as ceremoniall, never any man hitherunto having set his wits on worke to devise any ceremoniality herein; neyther was it ever knowne that God abrogated this proportion of time to be allowed unto him for his service; therefore it continueth still as a morall Law to bind us, and shall continue untill God himselfe set an end unto it: now let master Lowes reasons be compared with these in every indifferent conscience, and let them have that authority which they deserve, because being well conceited of the strength of his reasons, hee sensibly complaines of his want of authority. It seemes Pope Alexander the third was a man of more authority then reason. For hee maintaines in Cap. licet. de feriis, as Doctor Rivetus relates it, that both the old and new Testament have in speciall manner appointed the seventh day for man to rest thereon, and hee takes it out of Suarez. de relig. l. 2. c. 2. but Rivetus cannot assent unto him, if he delivers this of any morall institution; yet that it was so appointed by the fourth Commandement unto the Iewes it cannot bee denied; and that not as ceremoniall; for we have seene how odly Rivetus hath carried himselfe in comming to speake of the ceremoniality. For to make this good hee flyes to the particularity of the seventh day; and if the ceremoniality thereof, bee enough to inferre the ceremoniality of such a speciall proportion of time as of one day in seven; it may suffice as well to constitute a

If Zanchy hath no better argument to prove that the Decalogue as given by Moses to the Israelites doth not pertain to us but only so far forth as it agrees with the Law of nature; then by instancing in the Sabbath, which the Gentiles were not bound to sanctify: it stands Rivetus upon to oppose him as much as any, who maintains that the Law concerning the sanctifying of the Sabbath was given to Adam, and who brings diverse authorities to prove the observation of it generally by the Gentiles; This I speak upon consideration of his reply to Gomarus taking exception against somewhat in this argument delivered by him in his explication of the Decalogue. But I hope the moral Law shall be sufficient to bind us Christians if no other way, yet by this argument of proportion. If God required of the Jews under the Law that one day in seven should be set apart to his service: how much more doth it become us Christians to allow as good a proportion of time for his service under the Gospel? This I say shall suffice until Rivetus answereth it, which never will be, for he as good as confesseth that we are bound to allow God for his service, rather a better proportion of time then a worse. And as for Doctor Prideaux, I nothing doubt but he will clear us from Judaism in arguing thus; as who Sect. 7. professeth that if they (against whom he disputes) required no more, but the Analogy, the equity or the reason of that Commandment, we would not stick to yield unto it. And whereas Rivetus adds that the argument which he annexeth seems to him of great weight, namely that he who sticks to the Commandment must exactly observe it: And that therefore into the place of the seventh from the Creation, no day is to be substituted. But this argument I have answered before, all for the most part grant some ceremoniality in that Commandment; now if rest on the seventh be found to be ceremonial, but not the rest of one day in seven in an indefinite consideration; it will follow herehence, that the seventh must not be observed as ⟨p. 83⟩accomplished in Christ; and that the proportion of time is still to continue, as indeed by experience we find it verified in each. For the observation of the seventh is ceased as prefiguring Christs rest in his Grave, but the observation of one day in seven still continueth unto this day.

If Zanchy hath no better argument to prove that the Decalogue as given by Moses to the Israelites doth not pertaine to us but onely so farre forth as it agrees with the Law of nature; then by instancing in the Sabbath, which the Gentiles were not bound to sanctifie: it stands Rivetus upon to oppose him as much as any, who maintaines that the Law concerning the sanctifying of the Sabbath was given to Adam, and who brings diverse authorities to prove the observation of it generally by the Gentiles; This I speake upon consideration of his reply to Gomarus taking exception against somewhat in this argument delivered by him in his explication of the Decalogue. But I hope the morall Law shall be sufficient to binde us Christians if no other way, yet by this argument of proportion. If God required of the Iewes under the Law that one day in seven should bee set apart to his service: how much more doth it become us Christians to allow as good a proportion of time for his service under the Gospell? This I say shall suffice untill Rivetus answeareth it, which never will be, for he as good as confesseth that we are bound to allow God for his service, rather a better proportion of time then a worse. And as for Doctor Prideaux, I nothing doubt but he will cleare us from Judaisme in arguing thus; as who Sect. 7. professeth that if they (against whom he disputes) required no more, but the Analogy, the equity or the reason of that Commandement, we would not sticke to yeeld unto it. And whereas Rivetus addes that the argument which hee annexeth seemes to him of great weight, namely that hee who stickes to the Commandement must exactly observe it: And that therefore into the place of the seventh from the Creation, no day is to bee substituted. But this argument I have answered before, all for the most part grant some ceremoniality in that Commandement; now if rest on the seventh be found to bee ceremoniall, but not the rest of one day in seven in an indefinite consideracion; it will follow herehence, that the seventh must not be observed as

Preface.

Next for the second Thesis, that the alteration of the day is only an humane and Ecclesiastical constitution, the Doctor showeth in the first Section, the general consent of all sorts of Papists, Jesuits, Canonists, and Schoolmen; of some great Lutherans by names, and generally of the remonstrant or Arminian Divines in their confession, whose tendries in this point, we may conceive with reason, not to be different from the Doctrine of the Belgic Churches, in that four professors of Leiden, in their examination or review of that confession, have passed them over without note or opposition. To these besides are added diverse of our own, Et è nostris non pauci, as he speaks it in the general, that is, as I conceive his meaning such as are neither of the Lutheran, nor of the Arminian party: of which since he hath instanced in none particularly, I will make bold to borrow two or three testimonies, out of the tractate of Gomarus before remembered. And first he brings in Bullenger, who in his comment on the first of the Revelation, calls it Ecclesiae consuetudinem, an Ecclesiastical Ordinance, and after adds, Sponte Ecclesiae receperunt illum diem. The Church did of its own accord agree upon that day; for we read not any where that it was commanded. Next Ursinus telling us, that God had abrogated the Jewish Sabbath, adds presently, that he left it free unto the Church, Alios dies eligere, to make choice of any other day to be selected for his service: and that the Church made choice of this in honour of our Saviours Resurrection. Zanchius affirms the same; Nullibi legimus Apostolos, &c. We read not any where, saith he that the Apostles did command this day to be observed in the Church of God; only we find what the Apostles, and others of the faithful used to do upon it, Liberum ergo reliquerunt, which is an argument that they left it holy to the disposition of the Church. Arotius, Simler, David Paraeus, ⟨p. 84⟩and Bucerus, which are all there alleged, might be here produced, were not these sufficient. Add hereunto the general consent of our English Prelates, the Architects of our reformation in the time of King Edward the sixth, who in the Act of Parliament about keeping holy days have determined thus, together with the rest of that grand assembly, viz.

Next for the second Thesis, that the alteration of the day is onely an humane and Ecclesiasticall constitution, the Doctor sheweth in the first Section, the generall consent of all sorts of Papists, Jesuites, Canonists, and Schoolemen; of some great Lutheranes by names, and generally of the remonstrant or Arminian Divines in their confession, whose tendries in this point, wee may conceave with reason, not to bee different from the Doctrine of the Belgicke Churches, in that foure professors of Leyden, in their examination or review of that confession, have passed them over without note or opposition. To these besides are added diverse of our own, Et è nostris non pauci, as hee speakes it in the generall, that is, as I conceave his meaning such as are neither of the Lutheran, nor of the Arminian party: of which since he hath instanced in none particularly, I will make bold to borrow two or three testimonies, out of the tractate of Gomarus before remembred. And first hee brings in Bullenger, who in his comment on the first of the Revelation, calls it Ecclesiae consuetudinem, an Ecclesiasticall Ordinance, and after addes, Sponte Ecclesiae receperunt illum diem. The Church did of its owne accord agree upon that day; for wee reade not any where that it was commanded. Next Ursinus telling us, that God had abrogated the Iewish Sabbath, addes presently, that hee left it free unto the Church, Alios dies eligere, to make choise of any other day to be selected for his service: and that the Church made choyse of this in honour of our Saviours Resurrection. Zanchius affirmes the same; Nullibi legimus Apostolos, &c. We reade not any where, saith hee that the Apostles did command this day to bee observed in the Church of God; onely wee finde what the Apostles, and others of the faithfull used to doe upon it, Liberum ergo reliquerunt, which is an argument that they left it holy to the disposition of the Church. Arotius, Simler, David Paraeus,