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…

From their Doctrine pretended by him he proceeds to their practise, professing it to be devoid of any the least superstitious rigour; esteeming it to be a day left arbitrary, and therefore open to all lawful and honest recreations by which the mind may be refreshed, and the spirit quickened; as in Geneva all honest exercises, shooting in pieces, long Bows, cross Bows are used in the Sabbath day, and that both in the morning before and after the Sermon; And truly I do ⟨p. 146⟩not find my self prone to censure them for any superstition in this. But this author takes liberty to censure them for superstitious, who think these courses unlawful on the Sabbath Day. I make bold to call the Lords Day our Sabbath; because our Saviour plainly gives us to understand that we Christians should have one day in the week for our Sabbath, Ma. 24. 20. as well as the Jews had; and secondly because the book of Homilies professeth that Sunday is our Sabbath. Nobis non licet esse tam disertis. We may not be so elegant as to censure them for profaning the Lords Day by these and such like courses. Yet the act of Parliament, 1. Caroli forbids any man to come out of his Parish on the Lords Day, about any sports and pastimes; which restraint tending to this end, namely to preserve the Sabbath from profanation, doth manifestly give us to understand that to come out of a mans parish on that day about any sports or pastimes is to profane the Sabbath: and seeing as before I have showed, that to come out of a mans parish on that day about such a work as doth not profane the Sabbath, is not to profane the Sabbath, as to hear a sermon, or to fetch a surgeon or Physician to a sick person in case of necessity; but only to come out of a mans own Parish about such a work as doth profane the Sabbath, such a coming out of a mans own Parish on that day, and such alone doth profane the Sabbath; hence it followeth evidently that all manner of sports and pastimes on that day, are so many profanations of the Sabbath in the judgement of all the Prelates of this Kingdom, and of the whole Parliament.

From their Doctrine pretended by him hee proceedes to their practise, professing it to bee devoyd of any the least superstitious rigour; esteeming it to be a day left arbitrary, and therefore open to all lawfull and honest recreations by which the minde may be refreshed, and the spirit quickened; as in Geneva all honest exercises, shooting in pieces, long Bowes, crosse Bowes are used in the Sabbath day, and that both in the morning before and after the Sermon; And truly I doe ⟨p. 146⟩not finde my selfe prone to censure them for any superstition in this. But this author takes liberty to censure them for superstitious, who thinke these courses unlawfull on the Sabbath Day. I make bold to call the Lords Day our Sabbath; because our Saviour plainly gives us to understand that wee Christians should have one day in the weeke for our Sabbath, Ma. 24. 20. as wel as the Jewes had; and secondly because the booke of Homilies professeth that Sunday is our Sabbath. Nobis non licet esse tam disertis. We may not be so elegant as to censure them for prosaning the Lords Day by these and such like courses. Yet the act of Parlament, 1. Caroli forbids any man to come out of his Parish on the Lords Day, about any sports and pastimes; which restraint tending to this end, namely to preserve the Sabbath from profanation, doth manifestly give us to understand that to come out of a mans parish on that day about any sports or pastimes is to profane the Sabbath: and seeing as before I have shewed, that to come out of a mans parish on that day about such a worke as doth not profane the Sabbath, is not to profane the Sabbath, as to heare a sermon, or to fetch a surgeon or Physitian to a sick person in case of necessity; but onely to come out of a mans owne Parish about such a worke as doth profane the Sabbath, such a comming out of a mans own Parish on that day, and such alone doth profane the Sabbath; hence it followeth evidently that all manner of sports and pastimes on that day, are so many profanatious of the Sabbath in the judgement of all the Prelates of this Kingdome, and of the whole Parliament.

Now let every sober Reader judge whether my self as an English man have not better ground from an act of Parliament to censure them of Geneva for profaners of the Sabbath in the case here pretended then this Prefacer from the practise of Geneva by the relation of Robert Johnson, to censure us that do mislike them herein (if this be their practise) for superstitious observers of the Sabbath; especially considering that he cannot fasten this censure upon such as my self, but withal he must pass the same, upon all Prelates of the Kingdom, together with the Lords temporal, and the whole ⟨p. 147⟩house of Commons. And as for the exercises here mentioned, I find them to fall wondrously short, of that which the author avoucheth, as namely, that they esteem the Sabbath to lie open to all honest exercises and lawful recreations; for I make no question but in this Prefacer his opinion there are far more exercises, and lawful recreations then that of shooting which alone is here mentioned; and whereas such things are permitted in the very morning of the Sabbath, and aswell afore as after Sermon, I find no thing answerable hereunto in the practise of our Church. Neither do I find that the exercises here mentioned are so much accommodated to the refreshing of the mind and quickening of the spirit; as to make their bodies active and expedite in some functions which may be for the service of the common Wealth. And lately upon enquiry hereabout I have received information, that at Geneva, after evening prayer, only the youth doth practise shooting in Guns to make them more ready, and expert for the defence of the City, which is never out of danger.

Now let every sober Reader judge whether my selfe as an English man have not better ground from an act of Parliament to censure them of Geneva for prophaners of the Sabbath in the case here pretended then this Praefacer from the practise of Geneva by the relation of Robert Iohnson, to consure us that doe mislike them herein (if this bee their practise) for superstitious observers of the Sabbath; especially considering that hee cannot fasten this censure upon such as my selfe, but withall hee must passe the same, upon all Prelates of the Kingdome, together with the Lords temporall, and the whole ⟨p. 147⟩house of Commons. And as for the exercises here mentioned, I finde them to fall wondrously short, of that which the author avoucheth, as namely, that they esteeme the Sabbath to lie open to all honest exercises and lawfull recreations; for I make no question but in this Praefacer his opinion there are farre more exercises, and lawfull recreations then that of shooting which alone is here mentioned; and whereas such things are permitted in the very morning of the Sabbath, and aswell afore as after Sermon, I finde no thing answerable hereunto in the practise of our Church. Neither doe I finde that the exercises here mentioned are so much accommodated to the refreshing of the minde and quickning of the spirit; as to make their bodies active and expedite in some functions which may be for the service of the common Wealth. And lately upon enquiry hereabout I have receaved information, that at Geneva, after evening prayer, onely the youth doth practise shooting in Guns to make them more ready, and expert for the defence of the City, which is never out of danger.

They have also at four a Clock on the Morning both Service and a Sermon for their servants, and 2. more in every Church; the one in the fore-noon, the other in the After-noon, beside Catechizing the youth on the Sabbath Day: And Bishop Lake wished that such a course were general, as is in his Majesties Court, to have a Sermon in the Morning for the servants on the Sabbath day. And I see no cause to dissent from Gerardus in specifying 4. particulars whereby the Sabbath is not violated. Parva, Necessarium, Respublica, cum pietaete. Undoubtedly hunting is as commendable as, (and more generous exercise) then any of these, and the Kings Majesty though much delighted herein, yet never useth to hunt on the Sabbath Day Morning or Evening. And I have cause to come but slowly to the believing hereof, because it is Calvins Doctrine concerning the Sabbath, that albeit under the Gospel we are not bound to so rigorous a rest as the Jews were, yet that still we are obliged to abstain from all other works, as they are Avocamenta à sacris studiis & meditationibus, Avocations from holy studies and Meditations; ⟨p. 148⟩and their Ministers, I should think do not well if they fail to mind them hereof, unless both they and the people are fallen from Calvins Doctrine in this point, in which case I see no just cause why any should choke us therewith, but give us as much liberty to dissent from him in the Doctrine of the Sabbath as they of Geneva take unto themselves. Again Beza is well known to have professed upon, Revel. 1. 10. that the observation of the Lords Day is, traditionis Apostolicae & vere Divinae, and consequently that the day is not left arbitrary; neither hath this author proved that the Presbytery and states of Geneva, both Ecclesiastical, and political have committed any revolt or apostasy thereto from Beza in this point. It is well he acknowledgeth some recreation not suffered there, as namely dancing; but this he saith they hold unlawful, which simply delivered as by this author it is, is incredible unto me, neither hath this authors word any sufficient authority to deliver me from this incredulity: yet some manner of dancing may perhaps be generally forbidden in the French Protestant Churches. This strictness-(the Prefacer saith) is noted by some to have been a great hinderer to the growth of the reformed Religion;

They have also at foure a Clocke on the Morning both Service and a Sermon for their servants, and 2. more in every Church; the one in the fore-noone, the other in the After-noon, beside Catechizing the youth on the Sabbath Day: And Bishop Lake wished that such a course were generall, as is in his Majesties Court, to have a Sermon in the Morning for the servants on the Sabbath day. And I see no cause to dissent from Gerardus in specifying 4. particulars whereby the Sabbath is not violated. Parva, Necessarium, Respublica, cum pietaete. Undoubtedly hunting is as commendable as, (and more generous exercise) then any of these, and the Kings Majesty though much delighted herein, yet never useth to hunt on the Sabbath Day Morning or Evening. And I have cause to come but slowly to the believing hereof, because it is Calvins Doctrine concerning the Sabbath, that albeit under the Gospell we are not bound to so rigorous a rest as the Jewes were, yet that still wee are obliged to abstaine from all other works, as they are Avocamenta à sacris studiis & meditationibus, Avocations from holy studies and Meditations;

¹Sect. 7.

1. 1Pref.

Which being so, the judgement and practice of so many men, and of such several persuasions in the controverted point of the Christian faith, concurring unanimously together; the miracle is the greater, that we in England should take up a contrary opinion, and thereby separate our selves from all that ⟨p. 149⟩are called Christian; yet so it is, I skill not how it comes to pass, but so it is, that some among us have revived again the Jewish Sabbath, though not the day it self, yet the name and thing. Teaching that the commandment of sanctifying every seventh day, as in the Mosaical Decalogue, is natural, moral and perpetual; that whereas all things else in the Jewish Church were so changed, that they were clean taken away, This day (meaning the Sabbath) was so changed, that it still remaineth; and lastly, that the Sabbath was not any of those ceremonies which were justly abrogated at Christs coming. All which positions are condemned for contrary to the Articles of the Church of England; as in a comment on those Articles perused, and by the lawful authority of the Church allowed to be public, is most clear and manifest; which doctrinals, though dangerous in themselves, and different from the judgement of the ancient Fathers, and of the greatest Clerks of the later times, are not yet half so desperate as that which followeth thereupon in point of practice: For these positions granted and entertained as orthodox, what can we else expect, but such strange paradoxes, as in the consideration of the premisses have been delivered from some pulpits in this kingdom, as viz. That to do any servile work or business on the Lords Day, is as great a sin as to kill a man, or to commit adultery; that to throw a bowl, to make a feast, or dress a wedding dinner on the Lords Day, is as great a sin, as for a man to take a knife and cut his child's throat; that to ring more bells than one on the Lords Day, is as great a sin, as to commit murder. The author which reports them all, was present when the broacher of the last position was convented for it. And I believe him in the rest; the rather, since I have heard it preached in London, that the law of Moses whereby death temporal was appointed for the Sabbath-breaker was yet in force, and that who ever did the works of his calling on the Sabbath day, was to die therefore.

Which being so, the judgement and practice of so many men, and of such severall perswasions in the controverted point of the Christian faith, concurring unanimously together; the miracle is the greater, that we in England should take up a contrary opinion, and thereby separate our selves from all that

And I know also, that in a town of mine acquaintance, the Preachers there had brought the people to that pass, that neither baked nor roast meat was to be found in all the parish for a Sundays dinner throughout the year. These are the ordinary ⟨p. 150⟩fruits of such dangerous doctrines; and against these, and such as these, our Author in this following Treatise doth address himself, accusing them that entertain the formal doctrinals every where, of no less than Judaism, and pressing them with that of Austin, that they who literally understand the fourth Commandment, do not yet savour the Spirit: Section the third.

And I know also, that in a towne of mine acquaintance, the Preachers there had brought the people to that passe, that neither baked nor rost meat was to be found in all the parish for a Sundayes dinner throughout the yeere. These are the ordinary ⟨p. 150⟩fruits of such dangerous doctrines; and against these, and such as these, our Author in this following Treatise doth addresse himselfe, accusing them that entertaine the formall doctrinalls every where, of no lesse than Judaisme, and pressing them with that of Austin, that they who literally understand the fourth Commandement, doe not yet savour the Spirit: Section the third.

Exam.

Austin somewhere saith, that he who looks for miracles in these days for confirmation of the truth, Magnum ipse prodigium est, himselfe may go for a monster; he doth not say; It is a miracle that men so should do. Men may be sottish, even to admiration, and such if this Prefacer proves; we will not say it is a miracle: mira, wonderful things may be wrought not only by the practice of Satan, but in the very courses of men, but God is he alone that worketh miracles. He talks of unanimous concurrence of men of several persuasions otherwise in the controverted points of Christian faith, and that both in judgement and practice with him in his way; he loves to speak with a full mouth, and to make a great noise, as the Hogs in Aelian did, when their owner shore them; which gave him occasion to say, That there was a great deal of cry, but a little wool. And let the indifferent judge whether the wool be answerable to the noise this Prefacer makes. Now, the men of several persuasions whom he avoucheth are Papists, and Protestants, and amongst the Protestants, both Lutherans and Calvinists. And hitherto he hath spoken of four particulars; I desire the reader would take notice of the modesty of this author in each of them compared with the noise here he makes concerning them; as if he were as much cracked in his brain, as he who standing upon the key at Athens, with a note book in his hands, set down every ship that entered into the road as his, when he was not owner of any one of them. So I shall make it appear, that this Prefacer hath title to none of the sides he boasts of for the countenancing of his way in any one of the particulars mentioned. The first particular is about the original institution of the Sabbath; as whether God commanded it immediately upon the creation. This author denies the institution of it before the promulgation of the law upon mount ⟨p. 151⟩Sinai; And what strength of suffrages doth he bring for this amongst the Protestants, whether Lutherans or Calvinists? Surely not one Lutheran that I know; but of others all that he avoucheth by himself are but Doctor Prideaux and Gomarus, and by his assistance, Vatablus and Musculus; on the contrary are alleged by Walaeus: 1. Luther himself: 2. Zuinglius: 3. Calvin: 4. Beza: 5. Peter Martyr: 6. Bullinger: 7. Zanchius: 8. Ursinus: 9. Gualterus: 10. Aretius: 11. Bertramus: 12. Mercerus: 13.

Austin somewhere saith, that he who lookes for miracles in these dayes for confirmation of the truth, Magnum ipse prodigium est, himselfe may goe for a monster; he doth not say; It is a miracle that men so should doe. Men may be sottish, even to admiration, and such if this Prefacer proves; we will not say it is a miracle: mira, wonderful things may be wrought not only by the practice of Satan, but in the very courses of men, but God is he alone that worketh miracles. He talkes of unanimous concurrence of men of severall perswasions otherwise in the controverted points of Christian faith, and that both in judgement and practice with him in his way; he loves to speake with a full mouth, and to make a great noise, as the Hogs in Aelian did, when their owner shore them; which gave him occasion to say, That there was a great deale of cry, but a little wooll. And let the indifferent judge whether the wooll be answerable to the noise this Prefacer makes. Now, the men of severall perswasions whom hee avoucheth are Papists, and Protestants, and amongst the Protestants, both Lutherans and Calvinists. And hitherto he hath spoken of foure particulars; I desire the reader would take notice of the modesty of this author in each of them compared with the noise here hee makes concerning them; as if he were as much crackt in his braine, as hee who standing upon the key at Athens, with a note booke in his hands, set downe every ship that entred into the road as his, when he was not owner of any one of them. So I shall make it appeare, that this Prefacer hath title to none of the sides he boasts of for the countenancing of his way in any one of the particulars mentioned. The first particular is about the originall institution of the Sabbath; as whether God commanded it immediatly upon the creation. This author denies the institution of it before the promulgation of the law upon mount

Antonius Fayus: 14. Junius: 15. Zepperus: 16. Martinius: 17. Alstedius. The same is justified by Rivetus, who voucheth no less than thirty Writers of note to concur in this; Now let the indifferent judge on whose side is the miracle this Prefacer speaks of, in his rhetorical amplifications, on his side, or on ours. Yet not one English Divine is mentioned, either by Walaeus or Rivetus amongst this number. 2. Then as for Papists: Tostatus indeed disputes against this opinion of ours, but his reasons I have answered; and Catarinus a Popish Prelate, as well as Abulensis, is acknowledged by this Author to oppose Tostatus in this; neither hath he or Doctor Prideaux undertaken to answer him. Only this Prefacer, after his bold fashion, saith, that Catarinus took up arms against Tostatus with ill success, it hath been manifest that for ought doth appear, Catarinus hath had better success than Tostatus; For Pererius takes Tostatus his part, yet all the Rhemists on Apoc. 1. 10. do manifest themselves to take part with Catarinus, and Gomarus acknowledgeth as much of Marius. And Rivetus also allegeth Augustinus Steuchus, Genebrard, Jacobus Solianus, Cornelius de Lapide, Emmanuel Sa, and Ribera, all concurring against Tostatus and all Papists, yea, many of them Jesuits. Hereby let the reader judge of the modesty of this Author; and on whose side the feigned miracle is, on his side, or on ours. For it is manifest hitherto, that the men he speaks of, of several persuasions otherwise, are by far, more for us than for him. But it may be in this particular, his glory is, that the Fathers are rather for his opinion than for us. But upon what ground? Is it from any evidence of Scripture? nothing less, not one of them building hereupon; and as for evidences, they ⟨p. 152⟩bring none, save that the Scripture doth not particulate, that the Patriarchs of old observed the Sabbath. Yet it was not to be held a general rule, that Argumentum non valet ab authoritate negativè; the argument drawn from authority doth not hold negatively in matter of fact. Secondly, not only our Divines, as Hospinian and Walaeus, that the meaning of the Fathers is only this, that the Patriarchs did not observe it after a Jewish manner, but Jacobus Salianus a Papist affirms the same particularly of Tertullian; as Rivetus voucheth him in his answer to Gomarus, pag. 21.

Antonius Fayus: 14. Iunius: 15. Zepperus: 16. Martinius: 17. Alstedius. The same is justified by Rivetus, who voucheth no lesse than thirty Writers of note to concurre in this; Now let the indifferent judge on whose side is the miracle this Prefacer speakes of, in his rhetoricall amplifications, on his side, or on ours. Yet not one English Divine is mentioned, either by Walaeus or Rivetus amongst this number. 2. Then as for Papists: Tostatus indeed disputes against this opinion of ours, but his reasons I have answered; and Catarinus a Popish Prelate, as well as Abulensis, is acknowledged by this Author to oppose Tostatus in this; neither hath he or Doctor Prideaux undertaken to answer him. Onely this Prefacer, after his bold fashion, saith, that Catarinus tooke up armes against Tostatus with ill successe, it hath beene manifest that for ought doth appeare, Catarinus hath had better successe than Tostatus; For Pererius takes Tostatus his part, yet all the Rhemists on

And it may be made apparent from Tertullian himself, otherwise he cannot be freed from contradiction, as who plainly manifesteth his opinion in our side, as Rivetus citeth him; pag. 23. So that the Fathers alleged by our adversaries, being rightly understood, make nothing for them; yet we want not variety of Fathers making expressly for us, and against them; and that grounding themselves upon express Scripture, Gen. 2. 3. therefore The Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, which our adversaries have no other means to avoid, than by saying that it is spoken by anticipation; according whereunto the meaning of Moses must be thus; because the Lord rested the seventh day from creation, therefore he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, but would you know when? to wit, 2000. and 4. or 500. years after. And lastly, the dividing of times into weeks, proved to be the most ancient division of times in the world, received by all nations, and made a festival day thereupon; as many have most learnedly proved it, do justify the sanctification of the Sabbath to have had its beginning and course from the very creation. So that in this particular we have on our side both Scripture and reason, and Fathers, and the opinion of men of several professions, as this author presseth it, both Papists and Protestants, both Lutherans and Calvinists; and this Prefacer can lay no just title to any one of them in this particular. The second point he hath insisted upon, is about the morality of one day in seven. For this he pretends, only Papists in the first place, and not a Father throughout, (and as Chrysostom to the contrary hath professed, that God from the beginning hath manifested, that on that day in the circle of the week must ⟨p. 153⟩be consecrated unto his service) much less Scripture. And it is apparent that God commanded that the proportion of one day in seven should be allotted to his service; and it was never to be abrogated, nor ever did any man devise any ceremoniality therein. And to this day it hath continued in the Church of God. To Tostatus we have opposed Azorius the Jesuit; professing that it is most agreeable to reason after six work days to consecrate one to Gods service.

And it may be made apparant from Tertullian himselfe, otherwise hee cannot be freed from contradiction, as who plainly manifesteth his opinion in our side, as Rivetus citeth him; pag. 23. So that the Fathers alleged by our adversaries, being rightly understood, make nothing for them; yet we want not variety of Fathers making expressely for us, and against them; and that grounding themselves upon expresse Scripture,

Add to him Stella upon Luke, Jacobus de Valentia, & Dominicus Bannes.—As for Aquinas, that which he accounts ceremonial in the fourth Commandment was expressed by him to be not one day in seven, but the particulating of the seventh day: But whereas he goes no farther in illustrating the morality of this Commandment then in saying that some time must be set apart for Gods service, I appeal to every mans conscience, whether the very light of nature doth not suggest that not only some time but a convenient proportion of time ought to be consecrated unto God; and when God hath manifested this to be one day in seven under the Law; doth not the very light of nature suggest, that we should sin against God if we should not allow unto him as good a proportion of time under the Gospel? And further if the Lords Day, be of Divine institution amongst us Christians, is it not still the Law of God even unto us, to allow unto him one day in seven? Now Doctor Prideaux himself allegeth more Papists for this opinion than for the contrary, and one of them, to wit, Sylvester professeth it is the common opinion, as Azorius voucheth him. And as for Protestants to side with him herein, he allegeth none but Gomarius and Rivet; it may seem by his carriage, that Vatablus •nd Musculus also are for him in this, but that is untrue, they are alleged by Gomarus on the first point only as touching the original institution of the Sabbath. Now Rivet is opposed herein by his two Colleagues, Walaeus and Thysius; and whereas he takes upon him to answer Walaeus his reasons to the contrary, and represent his own reasons for his opinion herein; I have taken into consideration both the one and the other; and I trust have represented the weakness of his discourse throughout, ⟨p. 154⟩though otherwise a very learned and worthy Divine. Now Waleus hath not only alleged amongst the Fathers Chrysostom, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Augustine, Theodoret, but a multitude of Protestant writers, maintaining the morality of one day in seven as Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Zanchius, Junius, Viretus, Danaeus, Fayus, Martinius, Ursinus, Alstedius, Lornsegius, Festus Hommius, besides English and Scottish writers, whom he might have produced more then enough: yea of Bishops in this Kingdom;

Adde to him Stella upon Luke, Jacobus de Valentia, & Dominicus Bannes.—As for Aquinas, that which hee accounts ceremoniall in the fourth Commandement was expressed by him to bee not one day in seven, but the particulating of the seaventh day: But whereas he goes no farther in illustrating the morality of this Commandement then in saying that some time must be set apart for Gods service, I appeale to every mans conscience, whether the very light of nature doth not suggest that not onely some time but a convenient proportion of time ought to be consecrated unto God; and when God hath manifested this to bee one day in seaven under the Law; doth not the very light of nature suggest, that wee should sin against God if wee should not allow unto him as good a proportion of time under the Gospell? And further if the Lords Day, be of Divine institution amongst us Christians, is it not still the Law of God even unto us, to allow unto him one day in seven? Now Doctor Prideaux himselfe alleageth more Papists for this opinion than for the contrary, and one of them, to wit, Silvester professeth it is the common opinion, as Azorius voucheth him. And as for Protestants to side with him herein, hee alleageth none but Gomarius and Rivet; it may seeme by his carriage, that Vatablus nd Musculus also are for him in this, but that is untrue, they are alleaged by Gomarus on the first point onely as touching the originall institution of the Sabbath. Now Rivet is opposed herein by his two Collegues, Walaeus and Thysius; and whereas he takes upon him to answer Walaeus his reasons to the contrary, and represent his owne reasons for his opinion herein; I have taken into consideration both the one and the other; and I trust have represented the weaknesse of his discourse throughout,

as Bishop Babington, Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Lake, yea and Master Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy. Now let the readers judge by this of the modesty of this Prefacer in this particular also, and whether the miracle (as he phraseth it) be on our side in dissenting from others unreasonably, or on his rather.

as Bishop Babington, Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Lake, yea and Master Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy. Now let the readers judge by this of the modesty of this Prefacer in this particular also, and whether the miracle (as he phraseth it) be on our side in dissenting from others unreasonably, or on his rather.

The third particular is touching the celebration of the Lords Day, as whether it be by authority humane or divine rather: we say it is of divine; he will have it to be left arbitrary: yet was it never known, that any earthly Master did leave the proportion of service, to be performed unto him, to the pleasure of his servant; neither did God leave it thus from the beginning of the World-until Christ, as hath been proved. Yet this Prefacer will have it thus left unto us in these latter days; of which the Apostle hath prophesied, that Men should be lovers of pleasure more then lovers of ¹God. For this, he boasts of all sorts of Papists, this he begins withal; which was not wont to be the course of English Divines; yet he belies Doctor Prideaux in this; who allegeth more Papists standing for the divine right hereof, then for the contrary; and one of them (as formerly I said) professeth that it is the common opinion. And Azorius the Jesuit professeth that it is most agreeable to reason, that as after six days work one should be consecrate unto the Lord, so the Lords Day should be it. That many of our Protestants Divines call the observation of the Lords Day, Ecclesiae consuetudinem, and that it was left free unto the Church to choose another, after the Jews Sabbath was abrogated, I have showed how little all this makes for him, answering to every passage ⟨p. 155⟩punctually, as they are alleged by him. For it is confessed that the Church they spake of was the apostolical Church; and the cause moving them to choose this day was the Resurrection of Christ, and whereas some two of them call this Causam probabilem; I have discussed that, and proved it to be more then probable. I have showed withal how the ancient fathers have acknowledged it, some expressly divine, some equivalently, and expressly apostolical constitution or sanction, as Athanasius (whose reason drawn from the congruity between the first creation and the second Creation by virtue of Christs death is remarkable, and followed by many both English and outlandish Divines.

The third particular is touching the celebration of the Lords Day, as whether it bee by authority humane or divine rather: wee say it is of divine; hee will have it to be left arbitrary: yet was it never knowne, that any earthly Master did leave the proportion of service, to bee performed unto him, to the pleasure of his servant; neither did God leave it thus from the beginning of the World-untill Christ, as hath beene proved. Yet this Prefacer will have it thus left unto us in these latter dayes; of which the Apostle hath prophecied, that Men should be lovers of pleasure more then lovers of

Austin, Sedulius, Gregory, and others; And with them the concurrence of our Protestant divines, Bucer, Calvin, Beza, Junius, Piscator, Wolsius, Fulke against the Rhemish, Doctor Andrewes bishop of Winchester, Doctor Lake bishop of Bath and Wells, in expressing it to be observationis not liberae, but necessariae, Master Fox, Walaeus, Fayus, Hyperius, Perkins, Brownde. By this let the reader judge of the modesty of the Prefacer in this particular also; and whether the miracle be on our side in dissenting from others in an unreasonable manner, and not on his rather.

Austin, Sedulius, Gregory, and others; And with them the concurrence of our Protestant divines, Bucer, Calvin, Beza, Junius, Piscator, Wolsius, Fulke against the Remish, Doctor Andrewes bishop of Winchester, Doctor Lake bishop of Bath and Wells, in expessing it to be observationis not liberae, but necessariae, Master Fox, Walaeus, Fayus, Hyperius, Perkins, Brownde. By this let the reader judge of the modesty of the Praefacer in this particular also; and whether the miracle bee on our side in dissenting from others in an unreasonable manner, and not on his rather.

The fourth and last particular is the mutability of the day which this Prefacer stands for, we on the contrary professing it to be unchangeable. Now the resolution of this followeth upon the resolution of the former; for this, only names are produced both by the Prefacer and Doctor Prideaux. Yet I have endeavoured to find out Chemnitius his discourse thereon, and enter upon a discussion thereof. Bucer I am sure, alleged by Rivet, is nothing for this purpose. Doctor Fulke directly opposeth it, Doctor Andrewes, Doctor Lake above mentioned, Doctor Brownde, Doctor Willet, Master Perkins. The Christian Church anciently being demanded whether they had kept the Lords Day, were wont to answer; I am a Christian, I cannot intermit it. Besides I have showed in reason the unreasonableness both of changing the day, and the intolerable scandal that would follow upon it, and the unreasonableness of not changing it, if it be not of divine institution; considering ⟨p. 156⟩how prone we are through the continual observation thereof to conceive that to be a necessary duty, and so to be plunged into superstition, ere we are aware, if it prove to be no necessary duty.

The fourth and last particular is the mutability of the day which this Prefacer stands for, we on the contrary professing it to be unchangeable. Now the resolution of this followeth upon the resolution of the former; for this, onely names are produced both by the Prefacer and Doctor Prideaux. Yet I have endeavored to finde out Chemnitius his discourse thereon, and enter upon a discussion thereof. Bucer I am sure, alleaged by Rivet, is nothing for this purpose. Doctor Fulke directly opposeth it, Doctor Andrewes, Doctor Lake above mentioned, Doctor Brownde, Doctor Willet, Master Perkins. The Christian Church anciently being demanded whether they had kept the Lords Day, were wont to answer; I am a Christian, I cannot intermit it. Besides I have shewed in reason the unreasonablenesse both of changing theday, and the intollerable scandall that would follow upon it, and the unreasonablenesse of not changing it, if it be not of divine institution; considering ⟨p. 156⟩how prone wee are through the continuall observation thereof to conceave that to be a necessary duty, and so to be plunged into superstition, ere we are aware, if it prove to be no necessary duty.