A64001:224
A64001:224
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.
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 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.
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⟩
this day of the week, and not this day of the year, (which is remarkable) being called by Saint John, The Lords Day, the day wherein Christ appeared unto him, and gave unto him the book of Revelation, concerning the secrets of his providence to be fulfilled upon the world for the time to come, even till his second coming to destroy the world with fire, and to bless us with new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness; the metropolis of which new world, shall be new Jerusalem. And albeit Doctor Rivetus according to his pious ingenuity which crowns his ⟨p. 143⟩learning and cathedral sufficiencies, professeth, that what hitherto hath been spoken by him of the choice and possible change of that day; he hath not to any such end ventilated, as to favour their profaneness who on holy days and chiefly on that day, which by so universal a consent even from the beginning of Christianity hath been consecrated to such use, neglecting Gods Service, not only refuse to omit one day in prosecuting works tending to the use of life temporal: but also by unnecessary actions, as by pleasant sports, stage plays, by intemperance also and riot profane the day, not without reason dedicated to the Lord. Yet what just occasion hereby may be in all places and like enough is taken in most places by this doctrine of his who seeth not? For albeit public authority in some places hath by laws countenanced the solemnization of the Lords Day; for which we of this land have cause to bless God so as I think no Nation more; in consideration of many Laws one after another and by degrees made to restrain abuses on that day, as tending to the manifest profanation thereof; and by none more then by that act of Parliament in the first of King Charles, wherein all men are forbidden to come out of their Parishes upon that day about any sports and pastime, evidently manifesting hereby (as formerly hath been proved) that all sports and pastimes are profanations of our Christian Sabbath observed on that day, and that in the judgement of the whole Parliament consisting of the Kings Majesty the head thereof, with his Lords spiritual (all the Bishops of the Kingdom) and temporal, together with the House of Commons; yet if once it shall be received according to D.
this day of the weeke, and not this day of the yeere, (which is remarkable) being called by Saint Iohn, The Lords Day, the day wherein Christ appeared unto him, and gave unto him the booke of Revelation, concerning the secrets of his providence to be fulfilled upon the world for the time to come, even till his second comming to destroy the world with fire, and to blesse us with new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousnesse; the metropolis of which new world, shall be new Jerusalem. And albeit Doctor Rivetus according to his pious ingenuity which crownes his
Rivets doctrine of the Sabbath, that it is in the power of each Church to set apart what proportion of time they think fit for Divine Service, and what day they think fit, who perceives not that they may if they will, order it in such a manner, as that twice a day they shall come to Church, and the rest of the day spend as they think good, either in the works of their calling, or upon their pleasures: And whence all this zeal (so opposite to holiness in the issue) proceeds, I know not, save only to uphold the credit of Calvin; who professeth that he doth not so regard the number of seven, as that he would tie any to the servitude thereof; ⟨p. 144⟩and yet I have endeavoured to show that neither this nor other passages taken out of his institutions, makes any thing for them. And withal it is a wonder to behold how this of Calvin is taken up, and obtruded upon us, by them who otherwise hate both the name and memory of Calvin. And as for Doctor Rivets honest and pious instructions as concerning the duties and our demeanours to be performed on this day, we may easily perceive how little worth they are and how easily they vanish into smoke, after that he hath in the doctrinal part of the Sabbath laid so unhappy a foundation, and that by so poor reasons and mean carriage of himself, that as I verily think, throughout all his writings there is not to be found the like.
Rivets doctrine of the Sabbath, that it is in the power of each Church to set apart what proportion of time they thinke fit for Divine Service, and what day they thinke fit, who perceives not that they may if they will, order it in such a manner, as that twise a day they shall come to Church, and the rest of the day spend as they thinke good, either in the works of their calling, or upon their pleasures: And whence all this zeale (so opposite to holinesse in the issue) proceeds, I know not, save onely to uphold the credit of Calvin; who professeth that he doth not so regard the number of seaven, as that he would tie any to the servitude thereof; ⟨p. 144⟩and yet I have endeavored to shew that neither this nor other passages taken out of his institutions, makes any thing for them. And withall it is a wonder to behold how this of Calvin is taken up, and obtruded upon us, by them who otherwise hate both the name and memory of Calvin. And as for Doctor Rivets honest and pious instructions as concerning the duties and our demeanors to bee performed on this day, we may easily perceive how little worth they are and how easily they vanish into smoake, after that hee hath in the doctrinall part of the Sabbath layd so unhappy a foundation, and that by so poore reasons and meane cariage of himselfe, that as I verily thinke, throughout all his writings there is not to bee found the like.
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.