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…

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, Math. 24. 20. and what should that bee but the Lords Day under the Gospell? And Beza and Iunius and Bishop Andrewes worke upon the same. And I wonder that men should thinke the Sabbath should bee 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 wee reade of in Scripture, the worke of the day was the ground of hallowing the day. And never was known to the World a more wonderfull worke 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 shewes that upon the same ground hee takes upon him power to dispense or change the Sabbath, as hee is Lord of the Sabbath. But what is his ground to deny the parity of reason here? meerely his owne 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 avoyd. But who and how many are those all? what one of the ancients can hee produce to have thought as hee thinks? Hee may as well say according to the current of his private opinion, that wee under the Gospell are not as much bound to the observation of one day in seaven as the Jewes were under the Law. It is true, that rigorous rest enjoyned to the Jewes wee utterly disclaime as well as hee;

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.

1. 1Perkins.

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.

1. 1Perk.

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.

1. 1Rivet. Answ.

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.

1. 1Reply.

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.

1. 1Perk.

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.

1. 1Rivet. Answ.

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 then it appeared to be true which Peter said of Christ, that God had made him both Lord and Christ, Act. 2. 36. And whereas he saith the Fathers do so construe the place by way of accommodation, that hath place only when the Text it self doth not so accommodate it. But the Text it self in this place doth manifestly evince, that this is spoken in reference to the day of Christs resurrection.

For then it appeared to be true which Peter said of Christ, that God had made him both Lord and Christ, Act. 2. 36. And whereas he saith the Fathers doe so construe the place by way of accommodation, that hath place onely when the Text it selfe doth not so accommodate it. But the Text it selfe in this place doth manifestly evince, that this is spoken in reference to the day of Christs resurrection.

The last reason of Master Perkins is this: God is Lord of times and seasons, and therefore in all equity, the altering and disposing ¹thereof is in his hands, and belongs to him alone, Act. 1. 10. Times and seasons the Father hath kept in his own hands. Again, Christ is called the Lord of the Sabbath. And Antiochus Epiphanes is condemned by the Holy Ghost, because he took upon him to alter times: Besides that, Daniel saith, it is God alone that changeth times and seasons, Dan. 2. 4. Now, if it be proper unto ²God as to create, so to determine and dispose of times, then he hath not left the same to the power of any creature; And therefore, as the knowledge thereof, so the appointment and alteration of the same either in general or particular, belongs not to the Church, but is reserved to him. The Church then neither may nor can alter the Sabbath Day.

The last reason of Master Perkins is this: God is Lord of times and seasons, and therefore in all equity, the altering and disposing ¹thereof is in his hands, and belongs to him alone, Act. 1. 10. Times and seasons the Father hath kept in his own hands. Againe, Christ is called the Lord of the Sabbath. And Antiochus Epiphanes is condemned by the Holy Ghost, because hee tooke upon him to alter times: Besides that, Daniel saith, it is God alone that changeth times and seasons, Dan. 2. 4. Now, if it be proper unto ²God as to create, so to determine and dispose of times, then he hath not left the same to the power of any creature; And therefore, as the knowledge thereof, so the appointment and alteration of the same either in generall or particular, belongs not to the Church, but is reserved to him. The Church then neither may nor can alter the Sabbath Day.

To this D. Rivetus answereth, that the words of Daniel touching the change of times and opportunities, are delivered in reference ¹to the periods and changing of Kingdoms and Monarchies, as appears by the argument of the Prophecy.

To this D. Rivetus answereth, that the words of Daniel touching the change of times and opportunities, are delivered in reference ¹to the periods and changing of Kingdomes and Monarchies, as appeares by the argument of the Prophecy.

1. 1Rivet. Answ.

And no more doth D. Rivetus deliver in excepting against his annotations: for as he acknowledgeth M. Perkins scriptorem ¹modestissimum, a most modest writer; so he carrieth himself most modestly towards him. But I hope without any breach of modesty, I may profess, that I find no accurateness in each of his allegations, save one, namely, that wherein ⟨p. 141⟩Christ professeth himself Lord of the Sabbath; and it is enough for the present, that God reserves to himself power of ordering times for his service; yet it cannot be denied, but God hath left power to his Church, upon good occasion, to set some time apart for exercise of piety. But whereas it is apparent, that God himself took upon him the ordering of the time for the Sabbath, and accordingly Christ calls himself The Lord of the Sabbath; as he constituted it, so none but he can abrogate it, and ordain another in the place of it. Now, whereas D. Rivetus saith, that he hath left this power unto his Church; it stands him upon to prove it. We find our Saviour supposeth us Christians to have a Sabbath after his resurrection, Matth. 24. 20. as well as the Jews had before: we find that in the Apostles days, the first day of the week was set apart for this; which could not be, but by the joint consent of the Apostles, we find that the day of the week (not the day of the year) wherein Christ rose, by Saint John himself called the Lords Day, an evident argument, that in his time it was so generally received. We find that never any work of God did give better cause to profess, that The day thereof was the day that the Lord had made, let us be glad and rejoice therein; then the day wherein Christ rose from the dead, and thereby was declared to be the Son of God, even that stone which the builders refused to be made the head of the corner. And how strange is it, that the Church for 1500. years space should no where offer to alter it; if in no other respect, yet in this, to manifest that the Church is endued with such liberty and power, and to prevent the superstitious observation of the day as a thing necessary, if it be not necessary. Lastly, if this liberty be still in the Church; in case they should exercise this liberty, what inconvenience would follow upon the exercising of a lawful liberty? But infinite inconvenience would follow hereupon:

for seeing this liberty is equally communicated to each particular Church, it will follow, that it is lawful for our English Church to institute the Monday, the French Church the Tuesday, the Hollanders the Wednesday, the Germans Thursday, the Danes Friday, the Swedes the Saturday, and the Polonians the Sunday; what an intolerable scandal were this amongst Christians? ⟨p. 142⟩Thus our liberty opens way to revive the Jews Sabbath, or to concur with the Turks, who make Friday their holy day, nay, what scandal also to all the Heathens throughout the world? For, suppose that as the Jews keep the Saturday, and the Turks their Friday; so other heathenish nations according to their several religions should divide the other days of the week to be hallowed between them; each religion keeping to their own day most exactly: When they should find no agreement amongst Christians, what an intolerable scandal were this unto them, to harden them against the profession of the Gospel, when they see so little agreement among the professors of it? And what should move us to affect liberty in this which opens a way to such dissension and confusion; and not rather rejoice in this, that to prevent such miserable inconveniences, God himself hath marked out unto us the first day of the week to be the Lords Day, in place of the Jewish Sabbath, which was the Lords holy day unto them, by the most wonderful and comfortable work that ever was wrought, even the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour from the dead, thereby manifesting him to be the Son of God, and fulfilling that prophecy of old concerning the stone which the builders refused, and making him the head of the corner on that day; all power being given unto him both in heaven and in earth. Matth. 28. thus drawing us in the Prophets language to profess and say first, This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes: and secondly, to conclude there-hence in the words immediately following; This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us be glad and rejoice in it; this undoubtedly is our Christian festival;

for seeing this liberty is equally communicated to each particular Church, it will follow, that it is lawfull for our English Church to institute the Munday, the French Church the Tuesday, the Hollanders the Wednesday, the Germans Thursday, the Danes Friday, the Swedes the Saturday, and the Polonians the Sunday; what an intolerable scandall were this amongst Christians? ⟨p. 142⟩