A64001:217
A64001:217
London: printed by E.G. for John Rothwell, 1641London: printed by E.G. for Iohn Rothwell, 1641
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
1Their first Argument saith he, is taken from the appellation of the Lords Day; I suppose, faith Master Perkins, it is called the Lords Day, as the last supper of Christ is called the Lords Supper for two causes. First, as God rested the seventh day after the creation, so Christ having finished the work of the new creation, rested on this day from the work of Redemption. Secondly, as Christ did substitute the last supper in room of the passover, so he substituted the first day of the week in room of the Jews Sabbath to be a day set apart to his own worship. To this Doctor Rivet answereth after this manner. 2First, he denies that there is the same reason of the Lords supper & the Lords Day, and that for two reasons; first because we have a manifest institution thereof, and Christs Precept for the observing of it. Not so of the Lords Day. Secondly, if there were a Precept for keeping the Lords Day, yet were it Ecclesiastical and so mutable. For men may choose days for the worship of God, as touching the particularity of this day or that. But the institution of the Sacraments is of Divine authority by the ⟨p. 135⟩consent of all. To this I reply that Doctor Rivetus corrupts Master Perkins his answer in the proposing of it; for he saith not the same is the reason of the Lords Supper, and of the 3day which we call the Lords Day; but supposeth, and that most modestly, that either of them being called the Lords, they are called so in the same Notion. That like as the Lords Supper is so called because he instituted it; so the first day of the week is called the Lords Day, because he instituted the observation of it. And this Doctor Thysius colleague to Doctor Rivetus maintains as well as Master Perkins, and Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester in his speech against Traske; saying that both these, to wit the first day of the week, and Christ last Supper are called the Lords, to show that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to be taken in both. For what reason can be given why the day of Christs Resurrection, not according to the day of the year wherein he arose, but according to the day of the week wherein he arose, should be called the Lords Day, but to signify, First, that it was to succeed in the place of the Lords Day under the law, which was the Jewish Sabbath. 2.
1THeir first Argument saith he, is taken from the appellation of the Lords Day; I suppose, faith Master Perkins, it is called the Lords Day, as the last supper of Christ is called the Lords Supper for two causes. First, as God rested the seventh day after the creation, so Christ having finished the worke of the new creation, rested on this day from the work of Redemption. Secondly, as Christ did substitute the last supper in roome of the passeover, so hee substituted the first day of the weeke in roome of the Jewes Sabbath to be a day set apart to his owne worship. To this Doctor Rivet answereth after this manner. 2First, hee denies that there is the same reason of the Lords supper & the Lords Day, and that for two reasons; first because we have a manifest institution thereof, and Christs Precept for the observing of it. Not so of the Lords Day. Secondly, if there were a Precept for keeping the Lords Day, yet were it Ecclesiasticall and so mutable. For men may choose daies for the worship of God, as touching the particularity of this day or that. But the institution of the Sacraments is of Divine authority by the ⟨p. 135⟩consent of all. To this I replie that Doctor Rivetus corrupts Master Perkins his answer in the proposing of it; for he sayth not the same is the reason of the Lords Supper, and of the 3day which wee call the Lords Day; but supposeth, and that most modestly, that either of them being called the Lords, they are called so in the same Notion. That like as the Lords Supper is so called because he instituted it; so the first day of the weeke is called the Lords Day, because hee instituted the observation of it. And this Doctor Thysius collegue to Doctor Rivetus maintaines as well as Master Perkins, and Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester in his speech against Traske; saying that both these, to wit the first day of the weeke, and Christ last Supper are called the Lords, to shew that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to bee taken in both. For what reason can bee given why the day of Christs Resurrection, not according to the day of the yeare wherein hee arose, but according to the day of the weeke wherein hee arose, should bee called the Lords Day, but to signifie, First, that it was to succeed in the place of the Lords Dayunder the law, which was the Jewish Sabbath. 2.
And that it was the good pleasure of God and not of man, only that it should be consecrate to his service. For consider, we have many other days consecrated by the Church unto Divine service, which yet were never called the Lords Days; And the Lords Day and the Lords feasts in the Old Testament, and in the language of the Holy Ghost are no other then such that are of the Lords institution. Secondly, Doctor Rivetus omits the main force of Master Perkins his argument, or at least slightly passeth it over, which is this. As God rested the seventh day after the Creation, so Christ having ended the work of the new Creation rested on this day from his work of redemption. Athanasius of old considers a first and a second Creation; and so accordingly a first and a second Sabbath: our Saviour himself speaks of a Christian Sabbath, Math. 24. 20. and what should that be but the Lords Day under the Gospel? And Beza and Junius and Bishop Andrewes work upon the same. And I wonder that men should think the Sabbath should be altered, and another brought into the place of it by any ⟨p. 136⟩other authority then of him who is Lord of the Sabbath. And as Bishop Lake observes in all feasts both Divine and humane that we read of in Scripture, the work of the day was the ground of hallowing the day. And never was known to the World a more wonderful work in the way of grace, and mercy, then Christs Resurrection from the dead, manifesting thereby the redemption of the World as then wrought by him How doth Christ take upon him to alter the Sacraments but as Lord of the Sacraments? and apparently he shows that upon the same ground he takes upon him power to dispense or change the Sabbath, as he is Lord of the Sabbath. But what is his ground to deny the parity of reason here? merely his own prejudicate conceit that the obligation of the Lords Day, is not so great as the observation of the Sabbath. The contrary whereunto (saith he) omnes refugimus we all avoid. But who and how many are those all? what one of the ancients can he produce to have thought as he thinks? He may as well say according to the current of his private opinion, that we under the Gospel are not as much bound to the observation of one day in seven as the Jews were under the Law. It is true, that rigorous rest enjoined to the Jews we utterly disclaim as well as he;
And that it was the good pleasure of God and not of man, onely that it should bee consecrate to his service. For consider, wee have many other dayes consecrated by the Church unto Divine service, which yet were never called the Lords Dayes; And the Lords Day and the Lords feasts in the Old Testament, and in the language of the Holy Ghost are no other then such that are of the Lords institution. Secondly, Doctor Rivetus omits the maine force of Master Perkins his argument, or at least slightly passeth it over, which is this. As God rested the seventh day after the Creation, so Christ having ended the worke of the new Creation rested on this day from his worke of redemption. Athanasius of old considers a first and a second Creation; and so accordingly a first and a second Sabbath: our Saviour himselfe speakes of a Christian Sabbath,
again the circumstance of the day we make no part of Gods worship nor to have any mysterious signification, as the Sabbath had to the Jews. We acknowledge no other use of this day then for order and policy sake; in which case we judge it far better the Lord should prescribe it, then we unto our selves, least if there were twenty days in the week, there would be twenty differences amongst Christians about the setting apart of one day in the week for Divine Service.
againe the circumstance of the day wee make no part of Gods worship nor to have any mysterious signification, as the Sabbath had to the Jewes. Wee acknowledge no other use of this day then for order and policy sake; in which case wee judge it farre better the Lord should prescribe it, then wee unto our selves, least if there were twenty dayes in the weeke, there would bee twenty differences amongst Christians about the setting apart of one day in the weeke for Divine Service.
2. Master Perkins his second argument is this, The Church of Corinth every first day of the week made a collection for the 1poor, 1 Cor. 16. 2. and this collection for the poor in the primitive Church followed the preaching of the Word, Prayer and the Sacraments as a fruit thereof, Acts 2. 42. and Paul commands the Corinths to do this as he had ordained in the Churches of Galatia: whereby he makes it to be an Apostolical, and therefore a Divine Ordinance. Yea that very Text doth in some part ⟨p. 137⟩manifest thus much, that it is an ordinance and institution of Christ that the first day of the week should be the Lords Day. For Paul commands nothing but what he received from Christ.
2. Master Perkins his second argument is this, The Church of Corinth every first day of the weeke made a collection for the 1poore, 1 Cor. 16. 2. and this collection for the poore in the primitive Church followed the preaching of the Word, Prayer and the Sacraments as a fruite thereof, Acts 2. 42. and Paul commands the Corinths to doe this as he had ordained in the Churches of Galatia: whereby he makes it to be an Apostolicall, and therefore a Divine Ordinance. Yea that very Text doth in some part ⟨p. 137⟩manifest thus much, that it is an ordinance and institution of Christ that the first day of the weeke should be the Lords Day. For Paul commandes nothing but what he receaved from Christ.
To this Doctor Rivetus allegeth the answer of Doctor Prideaux, demanding how that we contend for his inferred 1herehence? we answer, the general practise of the Church in the Apostles days argues it manifestly, that this order was established by the joint consent of the Apostles; otherwise it is incredible it should have been so universally received, and persevered in as it hath been to this day. Secondly, whereas the Jews Sabbath was by divine authority, the abrogation thereof and substituting another day in the place thereof could be done by no less authority then Divine; which also we conceive to be fairly represented by the denomination of our Christian Sabbath, S. John calling it the Lords Day. Secondly, he showeth what Gomarus answereth hereunto; but this answer himself taketh off in this very place in part, and much more in his reply to Gomarus. But these places being granted to denote the first day of the week in the Apostles days set apart to Divine Service; he saith it follows not herehence that it is called the Lords Day, as destinated to Gods Service, much less that so it was by Divine ordination. Yet Walaeus thinks it his safest course to say tis called the Lords Day as destinated to Gods Service, as before we have heard, so to avoid (as he thinks) the implication of Divine Ordination. But to him I have answered before. And Doctor Rivetus in my opinion doth not well consider that not the day of the year, but the day of the week, whereon Christ rose, is called the Lords Day by S. John. Like as the Sabbath in the Old Testament is called the Lords Day: which which if he had, and withal considered how strange it were for us to set any day in the week apart for the exercises of Piety rather then the Lords Day; I am persuaded he would not have contented himself with this answer. For certainly many other holy days have been and are set apart for Divine Service, yet never were called any one of them the Lords day.
To this Doctor Rivetus alledgeth the answer of Doctor Prideaux, demanding how that we contend for his inferred 1herehence? we answer, the generall practise of the Church in the Apostles dayes argues it manifestly, that this order was established by the joynt consent of the Apostles; otherwise it is incredible it should have beene so universally receaved, and persevered in as it hath beene to this day. Secondly, wheras the Jewes Sabbath was by divine authority, the abrogation thereof and substituting another day in the place thereof could bee done by no lesse authority then Divine; which also wee conceave to bee fairely represented by the denomination of our Christian Sabbath, S. Iohn calling it the Lords Day. Secondly, he sheweth what Gomarus answereth hereunto; but this answer himselfe taketh off in this very place in part, and much more in his reply to Gomarus. But these places being granted to denote the first day of the weeke in the Apostles dayes set apart to Divine Service; hee sayth it followes not herehence that it is called the Lords Day, as destinated to Gods Service, much lesse that so it was by Divine ordination. Yet Walaeus thinkes it his safest course to say tis called the Lords Day as destinated to Gods Service, as before wee have heard, so to avoyd (as hee thinkes) the implication of Divine Ordination. But to him I have answered before. And Doctor Rivetus in my opinion doth not wel consider that not the day of the yeare, but the day of the weeke, whereon Christ rose, is called the Lords Day by S. Iohn. Like as the Sabbath in the Old Testament is called the Lords Day: which which if he had, and withall considered how strange it were for us to set any day in the weeke apart for the exercises of Piety rather then the Lords Day; I am perswaded hee would not have contented himselfe with this answer. For certainly many other holy dayes have beene and are set apart for Divine Service, yet never were called any one of them the Lords day.
He talks of a bare custom of the Church, for it; a thing ⟨p. 138⟩incredible that both Jews and Gentiles throughout all Nations should so universally concur without the guidance of some authoritative constitution or some generally convincing evidence by the very light of common Christian evidence or both. And as for liberty left to the Church hereabout, it seemeth so unreasonable unto my poor judgement, that if it were, it should become us by earnest and hearty prayer to seek unto God to take that liberty from us and be pleased himself to guide us by some manifest ordinance, to prevent dissension and confusion; yet well fare Doctor Rivetus; he will not have this liberty extend any further then provided that some reason and necessity should urge the changing of the day; for in the next column he professeth that a sufficient cause of the change and abrogation of the day cannot be given.—The observation of other days and particularly of the Sabbath as well as the Lords Day by some in the Primitive Church, is no evidence at all, that it was indifferent unto them, whether they would observe the Lords Day or no.
He talkes of a bare custome of the Church, for it; a thing ⟨p. 138⟩incredible that both Jewes and Gentiles throughout all Nations should so universally concurre without the guidance of some authorative constitution or some generally convincing evidence by the very light of common Christian evidence or both. And as for liberty left to the Church hereabout, it seemeth so unreasonable unto my poore judgement, that if it were, it should become us by earnest and hearty prayer to seeke unto God to take that liberty from us and bee pleased himselfe to guide us by some manifest ordinance, to prevent dissension and confusion; yet well fare Doctor Rivetus; hee will not have this liberty extend any further then provided that some reason and necessity should urge the changing of the day; for in the next columne hee professeth that a sufficient cause of the change and abrogation of the day cannot bee given.—The observation of other dayes and particularly of the Sabbath as well as the Lords Day by some in the Primitive Church, is no evidence at all, that it was indifferent unto them, whether they would observe the Lords Day or no.
The third argument Rivetus omits: the fourth is this. That 1which was prefigured, in that it was prefigured was prescribed: But the Lords Day was prefigured in the eighth day, wherein the children of the Jews were circumcised—therefore it was prescribed to be kept the eighth day. This the ancient Fathers, by name Cyprian and Austin have reasoned and taught.
The third argument Rivetus omits: the fourth is this. That 1which was prefigured, in that it was prefigured was prescribed: But the Lords Day was prefigured in the eighth day, wherin the children of the Iewes were circumcised—therefore it was prescribed to be kept the eighth day. This the ancient Fathers, by name Cyprian and Austin have reasoned and taught.
To this Doctor Rivetus answers by denying the assumption 1and saying, that no probable reason can be brought to prove that day was prefigured by the eighth day wherein children were circumcised.
And indeed that day being the eighth day after birth doth 1not so conveniently denote the first day of the week. But Master Perkins his argument hath another part far more principal drawn from Psal. 118. 22. 23. 24. Which Doctor Rivetus relates after this manner.
And indeed that day being the eighth day after birth doth 1not so conveniently denote the first day of the weeke. But Master Perkins his argument hath another part farre more principall drawne from Psal. 118. 22. 23. 24. Which Doctor Rivetus relates after this menner.
The day of the Resurrection was prefigured by that day, wherein 1the Stone which the builders refused was made the head of the Corner. But that day was the Sabbath Day, therefore by the Sabbath was prefigured the Lords Day.
To this he answers, by denying that the Sabbath day was the day wherein the builders refused that stone; For the Scribes, Pharisees and rulers of the people did always reject Christ, and not 1the Sabbath day only. And if Austin and Cyprian before him apprehended any such figure, that was by way of accommodation only, not that herein they acknowledged any proper figure.
To this he answers, by denying that the Sabbath day was the day wherein the builders refused that stone; For the Scribes, Pharises and rulers of the people did alwayes reject Christ, and not 1the Sabbath day onely. And if Austin and Cyprian before him apprehended any such figure, that was by way of accommodation onely, not that herein they acknowledged any proper figure.
For answer whereunto I say first; that Master Perkins delivers 1not this simply of the Sabbath day, but of the Sabbath of the new Testament, as much as to say, the first day of the week whereon Christ rose; For this was the day wherein the stone which the builders refused, was made the head of the corner; and of this day the Prophet speaks, when he saith, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoice in it. That like as the Jews had cause to make that day festival and to rejoice therein, wherein God advanced David to the kingdom, who was as a stone, refused before by the builders: in like sort, Christians had as great cause, nay, far greater, to keep that day festival, and to rejoice therein, when God raised Christ from the dead, and gave all power unto him, and making him the head of his Church, as being now manifested to be the son of God, who was before as a stone despised and refused of the builders, but as on this day was made the head of the corner. And not Cyprian and Austin only, but Ambrose upon the Psalms so understands it, and Arnobius also upon the Psalms, as Heresh bachius observeth. And Doctor Rivetus is too blame in construing Perkins in such manner, as if he should confine the builders rejection of Christ to the Sabbath day, whereof there is no colour in Master Perkins, but that which he insists upon is this, that the day wherein Christ (formerly rejected by the builders) was made head of the corner, was the day of Christs resurrection, and of this day it is said by the Psalmist, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it; Which is most remarkable for the justification of our celebration of the Lords Day, as by▪ Divine authority. Especially considering what Bishop Lake, that learned and pious, and most rational Divine hath observed, that always the work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, and for proof hereof, ⟨p. 140⟩he appeals to the due consideration of all festivals in the observation thereof, whether Divine or humane. Master Perkins his words are these (but I know not how Doctor Rivetus might be deceived by a mis-translation of them) The day of Christs resurrection was prefigured by that day wherein the stone which the builders refused was made the head of the corner, Psal. 118. 24. and in that it was prefigured, it was appointed by God.
For answer whereunto I say first; that Master Perkins delivers 1not this simply of the Sabbath day, but of the Sabbath of the new Testament, as much as to say, the first day of the weeke whereon Christ rose; For this was the day wherein the stone which the builders refused, was made the head of the corner; and of this day the Prophet speakes, when he saith, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoyce in it. That like as the Jewes had cause to make that day festivall and to rejoyce therein, wherein God advanced David to the kingdome, who was as a stone, refused before by the builders: in like sort, Christians had as great cause, nay, farre greater, to keepe that day festivall, and to rejoyce therein, when God raised Christ from the dead, and gave all power unto him, and making him the head of his Church, as being now manifested to be the sonne of God, who was before as a stone despised and refused of the builders, but as on this day was made the head of the corner. And not Cyprian and Austin onely, but Ambrose upon the Psalmes so understands it, and Arnobius also upon the Psalmes, as Heresh bachius observeth. And Doctor Rivetus is too blame in construing Perkins in such manner, as if he should confine the builders rejection of Christ to the Sabbath day, whereof there is no colour in Master Perkins, but that which he insists upon is this, that the day wherein Christ (formerly rejected by the builders) was made head of the corner, was the day of Christs resurrection, and of this day it is said by the Psalmist, This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoyce and be glad in it; Which is most remarkable for the justification of our celebration of the Lords Day, as by▪ Divine authority. Especially considering what Bishop Lake, that learned and pious, and most rationall Divine hath observed, that alwayes the worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, and for proofe hereof, ⟨p. 140⟩hee appeales to the due consideration of all festivalls in the observation thereof, whether Divine or humane. Master Perkins his words are these (but I know not how Doctor Rivetus might be deceived by a mis-translation of them) The day of Christs resurrection was prefigured by that day wherein the stone which the builders refused was made the head of the corner, Psal. 118. 24. and in that it was prefigured, it was appointed by God.