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…

Now when was this manifested, namely, that the stone which the builders refused became the head of the corner, but by Christs ⟨p. 122⟩Resurrection from the dead, being thereby mightily declared to be the Son of God. Rom. 14. and was there ever work more marvellous in the eyes of Gods Servants, then the Resurrection of Christ, especially considering the disconsolate condition of his Disciples? Luke 24. 21. We trusted it had been he, that should have delivered Israel. The women departed from the Sepulchre, though with fear, by reason of the consternation received from Angelical presence, their countenance being like lightning, yet with great joy by reason of the news they heard from them of Christs Resurrection; upon the noise whereof (for they were commanded to carry word of it to his Disciples,) the Apostles as it seems were gathered together; and in the evening after he had showed himself to his Disciples going to Emmaus, Christ presented himself in the midst of them. Eight days after they were met together, and Thomas with them who being absent the time before, gave out speeches of peremptory incredulity concerning his Resurrection; therefore then and not till then also the doors being shut, Christ came before them, and calls unto Thomas to see his hand, and to put his finger into his side. These apparitions of our Saviour twice on the first day of the week might well add somewhat to the confirmation of them in the festivity of this day; and howsoever between his ascension, and the day of Pentecost they had their meetings, yet how improbable is it they should put no difference; between such a festival and other days of the week. A second answer Walaeus gives, namely that others say, that from the day of Pentecost it was not necessary that the Lords Day should be observed: but that at the first the Apostles together with the Jews observed their Sabbath not as a ceremony of the Old Testament, but as a free circumstance of divine worship, as for a while they retained Circumcision and difference of meats; which they gave over, after the Jews were found obstinately to refuse the Gospel. So that in these mens judgements the Lords Day was no festival to the Apostles, till by occasion of the Jews obstinateness, a proper occasion for the institution of a new festival.

Now when was this manifested, namely, that the stone which the builders refused became the head of the corner, but by Christs ⟨p. 122⟩Resurrection from the dead, being thereby mightily declared to bee the Sonne of God. Rom. 14. and was there ever worke more marvellous in the eyes of Gods Servants, then the Resurrection of Christ, especially considering the disconsolate condition of his Disciples? Luke 24. 21. We trusted it had beene he, that should have delivered Israel. The women departed from the Sepulcher, though with feare, by reason of the consternation receaved from Angelicall presence, their countenance being like lightning, yet with great joy by reason of the newes they heard from them of Christs Resurrection; upon the noise whereof (for they were commanded to carry word of it to his Disciples,) the Apostles as it seemes were gathered together; and in the evening after hee had shewed himselfe to his Disciples going to Emaus, Christ presented himselfe in the midst of them. Eight dayes after they were met together, and Thomas with them who being absent the time before, gave out speeches of peremptory incredulity concerning his Resurrection; therefore then and not till then also the dores being shut, Christ came before them, and calls unto Thomas to see his hand, and to put his finger into his side. These apparitions of our Saviour twice on the first day of the weeke might well adde somewhat to the confirmation of them in the festivity of this day; and howsoever betweene his ascension, and the day of Pentecost they had their meetings, yet how improbable is it they should put no difference; betweene such a festivall and other dayes of the weeke. A second answer Walaeus gives, namely that others say, that from the day of Pentecost it was not necessary that the Lords Day should bee observed: but that at the first the Apostles together with the Jewes observed their Sabbath not as a ceremony of the Old Testament, but as a free circumstance of divine worship, as for a while they reteyned Circumcision and difference of meats; which they gave over, after the Jewes were found obstinately to refuse the Gospell. So that in these mens judgements the Lords Day was no festivall to the Apostles, till by occasion of the Jewes obstinatenesse, a proper occasion for the institution of a new festivall.

And give me leave to differ from them in yoking ⟨p. 123⟩Circumcision and difference of meats with the Jews Sabbath, neither of them prefiguring Christ as to come, like as the Jews Sabbath did, prefiguring his rest that day in the grave; as the ancients have conceived it, without any contradiction that I know. Had they permitted sacrifices for a time, their comparison had been more congruous. I see no reason to withhold me from concurring with Austin, and in him with all the ancients, for ought I know to the contrary, that Dies Dominicus Resurrectione Domini declaratus est Christianis, & ex illo coepit habere festivitatem suam, yea with the very words of Scripture Psal. 118. 22. The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner 23. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoice and be glad in it. Neither is it credible to me that the Apostles were ignorant of it or of its application, to the day of Christs Resurrection, from the very day thereof. Heresbachius upon these words, Haec dies quam fecit dominus. They are (saith he) the words of the people exulting in the Kingdom of David, most of all of the glorious Resurrection of Christ, which of all others was most glorious to mankind: as whereon Christ redeemed us in a triumphant manner, from the Tyranny of Satan, and from everlasting death, and restored unto us everlasting righteousness. Arnobius interprets it of the Lords Day.

And give mee leave to differ from them in yoking ⟨p. 123⟩Circumcision and difference of meats with the Jewes Sabbath, neither of them prefiguring Christ as to come, like as the Jewes Sabbath did, prefiguring his rest that day in the grave; as the ancients have conceived it, without any contradiction that I know. Had they permitted sacrifices for a time, their comparison had beene more congruous. I see no reason to withhold me from concurring with Austin, and in him with all the ancients, for ought I know to the contrary, that Dies Dominicus Resurrectione Domini declaratus est Christianis, & ex illo coepit habere festivitatem suam, yea with the very words of Scripture Psal. 118. 22. The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner 23. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoyce and be glad in it. Neither is it credible to mee that the Apostles were ignorant of it or of its application, to the day of Christs Resurrection, from the very day thereof. Heresbachius upon these words, Haec dies quam fecit dominus. They are (saith hee) the words of the people exulting in the Kingdome of David, most of all of the glorious Resurrection of Christ, which of all others was most glorious to mankinde: as whereon Christ redeemed us in a triumphant manner, from the Tyarnny of Satan, and from everlasting death, and restored unto us everlasting righteousnesse. Arnobius interprets it of the Lords Day.

Eighthly, the last argument, and which he acknowledgeth of greatest moment is that, which is taken out of Apoc. 1. 10. Where the first day of the week is called the Lords Day, whence they conclude, that it is of the Lords institution. And indeed Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester in his Star Camber speech professeth, that this denomination is given only to the first day of the week, as called in Scripture the Lords day, and to the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, as called the Lords Supper, and that to show that the word Dominicum (the Lords) is to be taken alike in both. In the same sense we call the Prayer which our Saviour taught his Disciples the Lords Prayer. But let us hear Walaeus his answer, that we may consider it. This consequence ⟨p. 122⟩(saith he) is not necessary, for it may be called the Lords, not only that which is of his institution, but even that which is made to the remembrance, or in the honour of him, or for his worship, as the ancients speak, as the altar of the Lord, and feast of the Lord are often so called. And that in this sense it was taken of the ancients it appears by this, that the ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin, called Temples by the name of Dominica, and [Greek or Hebrew]. That which we urge is the language of the Holy Ghost, now throughout the holy Scripture, it is not the language of the Holy Ghost, to call either Altars the Lords Altars, or Feasts the Lords Feasts, but such as are of the Lords institution. Neither do the fathers (in my observation) call the first day of the week the Lord's day otherwise then in reference to Christs Resurrection, as the cause of the festival nature thereof. Temples indeed they call [Greek or Hebrew] as consecrated to the Lord; but the denomination is not to distinguish it from other Temples; as the Lords Day hath its denomination to distinguish it from other days. But the day of Christs Resurrection being called the Lords Day not as such a day in the year, but as such a day in the week, this to my understanding doth manifestly infer the succession of it into the place of the Lords day of the week amongst the Jews. Both ancient and modern Divines do hold it lawful to consecrate other days to the service of of God, such as we usually call holy days. But never any man (I think) was found that durst call any of them Diem dominicum the Lords Day.

Eightly, the last argument, and which hee acknowledgeth of greatest moment is that, which is taken out of

Lastly, when he saith, pray that your flight be not in the winter nor on the Sabbath day, what is the reason hereof, but religio Sabbati? as all confess the religious observation of the Sabbath; and did they understand any other religion of the Sabbath but as from Divine institution? Now the time concerning which our Saviour delivers this, now about the destruction ⟨p. 125⟩of the Temple by Titus, after that no other Sabbath but of the Lords Day, was generally established in the Churches.

Lastly, when he saith, pray that your flight be not in the winter nor on the Sabbath day, what is the reason hereof, but religio Sabbati? as all confesse the religious observation of the Sabbath; and did they understand any other religion of the Sabbath but as from Divine institution? Now the time concerning which our Saviour delivers this, now about the destruction ⟨p. 125⟩of the Temple by Titus, after that no other Sabbath but of the Lords Day, was generally established in the Churches.

¹Last of all, for the third, and last conclusion, that still the Church hath power to change the day our Doctor in the 7. Section, bringeth in Bullinger, Bucer, Brentius, Ursinus, and Chemnitius, aliisque nostris with divers others not named particularly, as they are which think no otherwise thereof then Calvin did, and shows by what distinction Suarez, though otherwise no friend unto the men, doth defend their Doctrine.

¹Last of all, for the third, and last conclusion, that still the Church hath power to change the day our Doctor in the 7. Section, bringeth in Bullinger, Bucer, Brentius, Ursinus, and Chemnitius, aliisque nostris with divers others not named particularly, as they are which thinke no otherwise thereof then Calvin did, and shewes by what distinction Suarez, though otherwise no friend unto the men, doth defend their Doctrine.

1. 1Pref.

Now as the doctrine was, such also is the practise of those men and Churches, devoid of any the least superstitious rigour, esteeming it to be a day left arbitrary, and therefore open to all honest exercises and lawful recreations; by which the mind may be refreshed, and the spirits quickened. Even in Geneva it self according as it is related in the enlargement of Boterus by Robert Johnson, all honest exercises, shooting in pieces, long Bows, crossbows, &c. are used on the Sabbath Day, and that both in the morning, before and after Sermon; neither do the Ministers find fault therewithal, so that they hinder not from hearing of the word at the time appointed.

Now as the doctrine was, such also is the practise of those men and Churches, devoid of any the least superstitious rigour, esteeming it to bee a day left arbitrary, and therefore open to all honest exercises and lawfull recreations; by which the mind may bee refreshed, and the spirits quickened. Even in Geneva it selfe according as it is related in the enlargement of Boterus by Robert Johnson, all honest exercises, shooting in pieces, long Bowes, crossebowes, &c. are used on the Sabbath Day, and that both in the morning, before and after Sermon; neither doe the Ministers finde fault therewithall, so that they hinder not from hearing of the word at the time appointed.

Dancing indeed they do not suffer; But this is not in relation to the Sunday, but the sport it self, which is held unlawful, and generally forbidden in the French Churches: which strictness as some note, considering how the French do delight in dancing, hath been a great hinderance to the growth of the reformed religion in that Kingdom.

Dancing indeed they doe not suffer; But this is not in relation to the Sunday, but the sport it selfe, which is held unlawfull, and generally forbidden in the French Churches: which strictnesse as some note, considering how the French doe delight in dancing, hath beene a great hinderance to the growth of the reformed religion in that Kingdome.

Exam.

The Doctor indeed saith, that Calvin, Bullenger, Bucerus, Brentius, Chemnitius, Ursine and others of the reformed Churches affirm, that still the Church hath power to change the Lords Day to some other; but he neither cites their words, nor quotes any place out of their writings. And as for Calvin, whom this Prefacer proposeth as chief, and the rest as thinking no otherwise thereof, then he did; I make no doubt but the passage in Calvin is instit. 2. cap. 8. sect. 34. ⟨p. 126⟩where thus he writeth, Neque sic tamen septenarium numerum moror, ut ejus servituti Ecclesiam astringerem, I do not so regard the number of seven; as to tie the Church to the servitude thereof; which considered in it self, might intimate that in his opinion, it is indifferent whether we keep holy one day in seven, or one day in fourteen; but the words immediately following do manifest his meaning to be far otherwise, as namely, that we are not so tied to a seventh, but that we may solemnize other days also, by our holy assemblies. For thus it follows, Neque enim damnavero qui alios conventibus suis solennes dies habeant. I condemn not them that keep other days holy: will any man suppose that some there were, well known to Calvin, who kept other days solemn, and not the Lords Day; and that these men Calvin would not condemn? And Gomarus, who is most opposite to us in this argument, professeth, that seeing not only a time, but a sufficient proportion of time is to be set apart for Divine service, therefore we must now under the Gospel, allow rather a better proportion of time for Divine service than a worse. And in this also Rivetus rests, in his answer to the first argument of Walaeus, contending for one day in seven, as necessarily to be allowed to the worship of God. For Bullinger, I know not where to seek that ¹which the Doctor aims at. As for Bucer, I have showed before out of him, that the Lords Day was by the Apostles themselves consecrated to Divine actions; which ordinance the ancient Churches observed most religiously, and that one of the chief causes hereof was, that they might celebrate the memory of Christs resurrection, which fell out on the first day of the week;

The Doctor indeed saith, that Calvin, Bullenger, Bucerus, Brentius, Chemnitius, Ursine and others of the reformed Churches affirme, that still the Church hath power to change the Lords Day to some other; but hee neither cites their words, nor quotes any place out of their writings. And as for Calvin, whom this Prefacer proposeth as chiefe, and the rest as thinking no otherwise thereof, then hee did; I make no doubt but the passage in Calvin is instit. 2. cap. 8. sect. 34.

of power to abrogate this day left unto the Church he saith nothing, but to the contrary rather, that all they who desire the restoring of Christs Kingdom, ought to labour, that the religion of the Lords Day may be soundly called back and be of force. Yet (saith he) it is agreeable to our piety to sanctify other festivals also, to the commemoration of the Lords chief works, whereby he perfected our redemption as the day of his incarnation, nativity, the Epiphany, the passion, the resurrection, ascension and Pentecost. And the place which Doctor Rivet explic. decal. pag. 189. col. 2. allegeth out of Bucer in Mat. 10. ⟨p. 127⟩to prove that he maintained the day to be alterable, is nothing to the purpose, and as little do they make for it which he allegeth out of Musculus. To find out what Chemnitius saith hereupon, I turn to his Examen of the council of Trent, concerning festivals; There pag. 154. col. 2. he saith, that Christ, to show that he kept the Jews Sabbath freely, and not of necessity;- against the opinion of necessity, touching the abrogation of the Mosaical Sabbath, he taught both by word and deed. By word, in saying, that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath; and by his deeds, as in healing on the Sabbath day, and defending his Disciples in plucking the ears of corn. Now, hereby I take it to be manifest, and acknowledged by Chemnitius that none hath power to abrogate the Sabbath, but he that is Lord of the Sabbath. And seeing even Christians were to have their Sabbath, as appeareth by those words of our Saviour, pray that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the Sabbath day, which is delivered of the time about the destruction of the Temple by Titus; at what time Paul had suffered martyrdom divers years before, by whose writings it doth appear that the Lords Day was kept in place of the Jews Sabbath, both by the practice of the Apostles, and the Churches of Galatia and Achaia, as Chemnitius acknowledgeth from the force of those places, Acts 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 2. and Apoc. 1. 10. in the next column it followeth, that the Lords Day was the Christian Sabbath, and so to this day continueth, and consequently, that none hath power to alter it, but he that is Lord of the Sabbath, which is Christ himself, it being accordingly called the Lords Day.

Therefore if any pretend that Christ hath delegated this power of his unto the Church, it stands upon them to make it good. But Chemnitius proceeds, pag. 155. col. 1. and shows how the Apostles at the first tolerated their weak faith, who without superstition observed days Mosaical, Rom. 14. and that such as were stronger in faith, after the abrogation of the old Testament, judged all days to be equal in themselves, and none more holy then another. We willingly grant as much, and add the reason hereof; to wit, because the holiness of the day preferred before his fellows consisted in some mysterious signification which had reference ⟨p. 128⟩unto Christ as to come; all which kind of shadows, the body being come, are now vanished away. He proceeds, saying. The Apostles also manifested by their example that in the new Testament it was free to come together, either every day, or what day soever they thought good, to handle the Word and Sacraments, and to the public or common exercises of piety. So the Sabbath day, and other festival days they taught. All this we willingly grant, but here-hence it followeth not, that one day of the week was not of more necessary observation for the exercises of piety than another. Farther (saith he) that they might manifest that the exercises of Ecclesiastical assemblies were not tied to certain days: they daily persevered in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in breaking bread, Act. 2. and 5. and 1 Cor. 5. Now we willingly acknowledge that we Christians are not so bound to one day in the week, as namely, to the Lords Day, as that we may not have our holy assemblies more often than once, but only so, that we may not keep them less often, nor omit the celebration of the Lords Day: like as the Jews might not omit the celebration of their weekly Sabbath, though sometimes many days together besides were kept holy by them. So we Christians also having our Sabbath as our Saviour signified we should have when he said, Pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day; which Sabbath of ours, we keep on the Lords Day; though we may keep other days holy, yet we may not omit this; and if any shall take upon them to alter this Sabbath, we may be bold to demand of them quo warranto, by what warrant from the Lord of Sabbath? But Chemnitius proceeds thus:

Now, whereas afterwards the false Apostles did so urge those free observations of the Mosaical Sabbath, and other feasts, as by law, and with opinion of necessity, as to condemn their consciences who observed them not. Paul forbade the observation of them. All which we willingly acknowledge, but that hereupon they began first to ordain another day in the week for their Ecclesiastical assemblies and exercises of piety, which yet Chemnitius proves not, I leave it to the indifferent to judge; by comparing his opinion with that of Austins, who professeth, as Chemnitius well knew, that the Lords Day was declared ⟨p. 129⟩unto Christians by the Lords resurrection, and from thence began to have its festivity, alleged by Chemnitius himself, p. 156. especially considering the reason moving them hereunto, which Chemnitius confesseth to have been on that day the Lord rose from the dead. And seeing all festivals, as Bishop Lake observes, have been observed in regard of some great work done on such a day for the good of man; whether ever any day brought forth a more wonderful or more comfortable work to mankind than the first day of the week, which was the day of our Saviours resurrection from the dead, let the Christian world judge. This day Chemnitius saith, seems to be called by Saint John the Lords Day, which appellation all antiquity did afterwards retain and use: yet notwithstanding (saith he) we do not read that the Apostles did impose upon mens consciences in the new Testament the observation of that day by any Law or Precept, but the observation was free, for order sake. Let us duly weigh and consider this, together with the reasons following: Calvin distinguisheth the observation of a day for order sake, and the observation of a day for some mysterious signification sake: had Chemnitius thus distinguished, we would have subscribed thereunto, and confessed, that now adays we observe no day for any mysterious signification sake, but only for order sake. And thus under the Gospel we are freed from observation of days for mysteries sake, not free from observation of one certain day in the week for order sake. As for his phrase of imposing the observation of the Lords day upon mens consciences; this phrase is most improper and unseasonable, in this case;

Now, whereas afterwards the false Apostles did so urge those free observations of the Mosaicall Sabbath, and other feasts, as by law, and with opinion of necessity, as to condemne their consciences who observed them not. Paul forbad the observation of them. All which we willingly acknowledge, but that hereupon they began first to ordaine another day in the weeke for their Ecclesiasticall assemblies and exercises of piety, which yet Chemnitius proves not, I leave it to the indifferent to judge; by comparing his opinion with that of Austins, who professeth, as Chemnitius well knew, that the Lords Day was declared

it is only proper and seasonable in case the thing imposed be of a burdensome nature, like unto that Saint Peter speaks of, Acts 15. 10. saying, Now therefore, why tempt ye God to lay a yoke on the Disciples necks which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear? Such indeed was the yoke of circumcision; which provoked Zippora (according to common opinion) driven to circumcise her son to save her husbands life, to throw the fore-skin at her husbands feet calling him a bloody husband for urging her thereunto. But what burden is it (save unto the flesh) to rejoice in the Lord, to sabbatize with him, to walk with him in holy meditation? Was it no ⟨p. 130⟩burden to the godly Jews to consecrate one day in seven to the exercises of Piety under the Law; and shall it be a burden to us in the time of the Gospel? Or can it be conceived to be a greater burden unto us to keep our Christian Sabbath on the Lords Day, then on any other day of the week? was there ever any day of the week marked out unto us with a more honourable or more wonderful work to draw us to rejoice in the Lord thereon, then the first day of the week whereon our Saviour rose, by his Resurrection to bring life and immortality to light? yet we confess we read of no Law nor Precept for this in the new Testament, but, we read that ever under the Gospel we must have a Sabbath to observe, Math. 24. 20. And we know, and Chemnitius knew full well, that it belongs to the Lord of the Sabbath to change it, and consequently to ordain it, and that it was changed, and the Lords Day observed generally in the Apostles days, none that I know makes question of; and how could this be, but by the Apostles ordinance; and is it likely they would take upon them this authority without a calling? And why should that day of the week (and not that day of the year) be called the Lords Day, if not for the same use under the Gospel that the Lords Day, was of under the Law, especially that day under the Law (which was the Jews Sabbath) being now abrogated? and lastly we find it manifestly spoken of the day of Christs Resurrection, Psal. 118. 24. This is the day that the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it:

it is onely proper and seasonable in case the thing imposed be of a burthensome nature, like unto that Saint Peter speakes of,

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 new 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 new 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