by God himselfe in the second Commandement yea otherwise than he ordained in the first Creation when he sanctified precisely the Sabbath day and not the day following Such great power did Christ leave to his Church and for such causes gave he the Holy Ghost to be resident in it to guide it into all truthes even such as in the Scripture are not expressed And if the Church had authority and inspiration from God to make Sunday being a working day before an everlasting holy day and the Saturday that before was holy day now a common work-day why may not the same Church prescribe and appoint the other feasts of Easter Whitsontide Christmas and the rest for the same warrant she hath for the one as she hath for the other Now to this Doctor Fulk makes answer after this manner The Apostles did not abrogate the Jewish Sabbath but Christ himselfe by his death as he did all other ceremonies of the Law that were figures and shadowes of things to come whereof he was the body and they were fulfulled and accomplished in him and by him And this the Apostles knew both by the Scriptures and by the Word of Christ and his holy Spirit By the Scriptures also they knew that one day of seven was appointed to be observed for ever during the World as consecrated and hallowed to the publike exercise of the Religion of God Although the ceremoniall rest and prescript day according to the Law were abrogated by the death of Christ Now for the prescription of this day before any other of seven they had without doubt either the expresse commandement of Christ before his ascension when he gave them precepts concerning the Kingdome of God and the order and government of the Church Acts 1. 2. or else the certaine direction of his Spirit that it was his will and pleasure it should be so and that also according to the Scriptures And observe how in the words following he falls in upon the same reason of the change of the day which of old was mentioned by Athanasius formerly rehearsed herein by Beza Doctor Andrews D. Lake as I have already shewed Seeing there is the same reason of sanctifying the day in which our Saviour Christ accomplished our redemption and the restitution of the world by his resurrection from death that was of sanctifying the day in which the Lordrested from the creation of the world And after many lines nothing necessary to be recited he comes to the comparison made betweene the Lords Day and other Festivalls saying Although the Church in dayes or times which are indifferent may take order for some other dayes or times to be solemnized for the exercises of Religion or the remembrance of Christs nativity resurrection ascension or the comming of the holy Ghost may be celebrated either on the Lords Day or any other time yet there is great difference between the authority of the Church in this case and the prescription of the Lords Day by the Apostles for the speciall memory of those things are indifferent of their nature either to be kept on certaine daies or left to the discretion of the Governours of the Church But to change the Lords Day or to keepe it on Munday Tuesday or any other day the Church hath no authority For it is not a matter of indifferency but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe delivered to us by his Apostles And againe in the next place The cause of this change it was not our estimation that either we have or ought to have of our redemption before our creation but the Ordinance of God who as first he sanctified the rest from creation for the glory of that weeke so now also he sanctifieth the day of the restitution of the world for his glory of the accomplishment of our redemption Thus wee have not onely authority Humane but authority Divine for the alteration of the Day and that by the testimony of more Bishops antient and late than this Prefacer makes shew of amongst farre meaner names Yet he doth immodestly abuse Doctor Prideaux in putting it upon him that in the fifth Section he maintaines the alteration of the day to be onely an humane and Ecclesiasticall institution For in that Section he onely opposeth them who would derive the Divine authority which they stand for of the alteration of the Day from the old Testament but as for those who derive the Divine authority thereof from the new they hee confesseth doe carry themselves herein more warily the other more weakly and them alone he disputes against in that Section In the sixth Section he comes to the deriving thereof from the new Testament and first he challengeth them who boast that they have found the institution of the Lords Day in the new Testament expressely to shew the place Then in the often disputations of our Saviour with the Pharisees about their superstitious observation of the Sabbath Day he demands where is the least suspicion of the abrogation of it or any mention that the Lords Day was instituted in the place thereof And indeed the time hereof was not yet come onely the death of Christ setting an end to ceremonies Then he demands whether the Apostles did not keepe the Jewish Sabbath now I doe not find they did although they tooke occasions of their meetings on that day to dispute with them and to instruct them in the Faith of Christ Then he demands whether the Primitive Church did not designe as well the Sabbath as the Lords Day to sacred meetings I find in Baronius that Orthodoxi Orientales did and the occasion also to wit in detestation of the Marcionites yet without any such respect it had been nothing strange considering that even now adayes Saturday is counted halfe holy day and that the Jewes had a preparation for the Sabbath in such sort that on their behalfe Augustus made a rescript that no Jewes should be compelled to make good their suretiships as much to say they should not be arrested either on the Sabbath dayes or after three a clocke of the day going before Hereupon which is yet a very weake ground in my judgement he saith that Papists inferre that the Lords Day is not of Divine institution he doth not make any such inference himselfe Yet notwithstanding he confesseth that even in the Church of Rome Anchoranus Panormitane Angelus and Sylvester all which this Prefacer conceals very judiciously for his owne advantage have stoutly set themselves against these luke-warme Advocates in affirmation of the Divine authority of the Lords Day And I find that Azorius in his institutions makes mention of them to the same purpose and addes that Sylvester professeth hanc esse opinionem communem that this is the common opinion And after this Doctor Prideaux in that Section disputes for the Divine institution thereof rather than against it After this he takes notice of Pauls fact Acts 20. 7. and disputes therehence for a custome to celebrate on
professeth it a thing most agreeable to reason that after six worke dayes one intire day should bee consecrated to Divine worship so withall saith that it is most agreeable to reason that the Lords Day should be that Day Adde unto these Sixtus Senensis but that which they object saith hee concerning the Lords Day not as yet instituted in the time of Iohn is most false the consent of the whole Church disclaiming it which doth beleeve the solemnity of the Lords Day was appointed by the Appostles themselves in memory of the Lords Resurrection concerning the institution whereof by the Apostles Austin Ser. 25. de temp testifyeth in these words therefore the Apostles themselves Apostolicall men appointed that the Lords Day should for that reason bee religiously solemnized because on it our Redeemer rose from the dead In the last place come wee to our Divines Now Bucer I have already shewed to stand for us rather then for him 2. And Calvin expresly acknowledgeth that the Apostles did change the day 3. Beza upon Re. 1. v. 10. hath an excellent passage to the same purpose For hee considers Christs resurrection to bee as it were a second creation of a World spirituall and thereupon doubts not but that the spirit of God did suggest unto them the change of the seventh day into the Lords day as to bee consecrated to Divine Service 4. Iunius on Gen. 2. writes that the cause of the change of the day was the resurrection of Christ and the benefit of instauration of the Church in Christ The commemoration of which benefit succeeded to the commemoration of the Creation not by humane tradition but by the observation of Christ himselfe and his institution 5. Piscator on Exod. 20. 10. It is to bee observed that the circumstance of the seventh day in celebrating the Sabbath is abolished by Christ as who for that day ordained the first day of the weeke which wee call the Lords Day and that in remembrance of the Lords Resurrection performed on that day And upon Luk. 14. v. 2. He makes this observation By occasion of this story it is fit to consider what was the religion of the Sabbath in the new Testament and what place it hath at this day among us Christians and how it is to be observed And first we must hold that the Sabbath is abrogated by Christs comming as touching the seventh or last day in the week and that in the place thereof is ordained the first day which we call the Lords Day because on that day the Lord rose from the dead and shewed himselfe alive to his Disciples and divers times speaking with them of the Kingdom of God aod so by his own example consecrating that day to Church assemblies and for the performance of the outward service of God The reason of the abrogation is because that ceremoniall rest observed in the Law was a type of that rest which the Lord made in his grave as is perceived by the words of Paul Col. 2. 16. 17. Now of the apparitions of the Lord S. John testifies Chap. 21. where he shewes how first he appeared to them gathered together on that very day whereon he rose And againe eight dayes after Now that in these dayes he spake unto them of the Kingdom of God Luke shewes Acts 1. 3. Whence it was undoubtedly that the Apostles observed that day by the Lords ordinance to keep their Ecclesiasticall assemblies thereon as it appeares they did Acts 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 2. And hence it was without doubt on the Lords day John was in the spirit and receaved the Revelation To the same purpose is that which Doctor Walaeus alleageth out of Piscators Aphoris 18. It may be doubted concerning the Lords Day whether it be appointed by God for his service in the New Testament My opinion hereof is this although we read no expresse Commandement concerning it yet that such an institution may be gathered from the example of Christ and his Disciples For on that day whereon the Lord rose from the dead therefore called the Lords Day he shewed himselfe alive to his Disciples and spake to them of the Kingdom of God And Paul on that day in an assembly of the faithfull met together to celebrate the Lords Supper preached to them on that day Acts 20. 7. and that the Christians at Corinth were wont to meet on that day for publique prayer appeares 1 Cor. 16. 2. Now it cannot be doubted but Paul ordained that day amongst them as also the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper and that according to the Commandement of Christ Math. 28. the last Teach them to wit as many as receave the Gospell to keep all those things which I have commanded unto you On the Lords Day also John was in the spirit and in the spirit saw and heard the Revelation concerning the state of the Church that was to come Apoc. 1. 10. whence we may gather that even then he rested to holy meditations such as became the Lords Day There is not a passage in all this but of great weight and very considerable 6. As for Doctor Fulk upon the Re. 1. 10. I have represented him formerly at large that for the prescription of this day before any other of the seven they had without doubt ether the expresse Commandement of Christ before his Ascension when he gave them precepts concerning the Kingdom of God and the ordering and government of the Church Acts 1. 2. or else the certaine direction of his spirit that it was his will and pleasure that it should so be and that also according to the Scriptures And observe how hee falls upon the same reason that Athanasius and the ancient Fathers insist upon Seeing there is the same reason of sanctifying that day in which our Saviour Christ accomplished our redemption and the restitution of the World by his resurrection from death that was of sanctifying the day in which the Lord rested from the Creation of the World 7. Doctor Andrewes in like manner Bishop of Winchester in his Starre Chamber speech in the case of Traske hee not onely professeth that the Sabbath had reference to the old Creation but in Christ we are a new Creature a new Creation and so to have a new Sabbath and that this new Sabbath is the Lords Day declared unto us by the resurrection of Christ for which he alleageth Austin Ep. 119. ad Ianuarium But also for the confirmation of it saith it is deduced plainly by practise adding that these two onely the day of the weeke whereon Christ rose and the Supper are called the Lords to shew that the word Dominicum is taken alike in both Nay hee goes farther as namely to alleage not onely practise but precept also for it from the first of the Epistle to the Corin. cap. 16. 2. For albeit the Apostle there doth expressely constitute onely an order for collections for the poore on the day of their meeting yet as Piscator
Walaeus hath represented Chrysostome Theophilus Antiochenus Austin Theodor maintaining that the justification of the Sabbath hath beene from the Creation To these Rivetus addes Tertullian as of the same mind howsoever alleged on the adversaries part And he also acknowledgeth the Jewes to be of the same opinion Beda is alleged indeed by Perenius as on the part of Tostatus but no such thing appeares in his Hexameron but rather expressely the contrary his words being these of the Sabbath semper celebrari solebat as I have shewed in my answer to the preface Sect. 1. Where also are represented the testimonies of Athanasius and Epiphanius as maintaining the institution of the Sabbath to have beene from the Creation which also hath beene shewed to have beene the opinion of Philo and Iosephus and divers of the Jewish Rabbins and of the author of the Chaldee-Paraphrase upon the Psalms and of divers others Againe concerning the passages alleged out of some Fathers to the contrary not onely Hospinian answereth that those proceed of the rigorous observation of the Sabbath but Iacobus Salianus a Papist in particular thus interpreteth Tentullian and Tertullian must be in some such sense understood as namely either of observation of other Sabbaths in use among the Jewes or of the rigorous observation of the Jewish Sabbath or of the Jewish manner in observing it by particular sacrifices appointed for that day for as much as he clearely professeth that the Sabbath day was à primordio sanctus as Rivetus sheweth and that the other Fathers which are but foure truly alleged are to be interpreted by some such manner I have endeavoured to evince by divers reasons in my answer to the Preface And though some are willing to admit that of Torniellus that in the accomplishment of the Creation the Angels did observe the Sabbath provided he recompence them in this particular now in question and adde that the observance of it here upon the earth was not till many ages after Yet this naked authority being little worth his reason is so weake in the former that we have cause to suspect it will not prove any thing stronger in the latter though I should have beene content to afford it due consideration had it been proposed As for the Angels singing and shouting for joy this was performed as Torritallus acknowledgeth the day wherein the foundation of the earth was laid which undoubtedly could not be after the first day of the creation For if the foundation of the earth was not laid then when the Lord said that it was without forme and voyd and the waters covered it I cannot devise when it should be It is granted that it may be probably conjectured that the sanctification of the Sabbath was before the Law as concurring herein with Calvin but that Calvin saith that no more is not proved neither is that passage exhibited wherein Calvin should deliver his mind so coldly thereof but Calvin in his harmony upon the foure bookes of Moses and on the fourth Precept is expresse that Diem septimū sibi sumpsit Deus ac consecravit completa mundi creatione that God assumed and consecrated the seventh day unto himselfe upon the finishing of the worlds creation And it is enough for us that then it was instituted and hereupon let every sober reader judge whether it be not more then probable that the holy Patriarches at least observed it Neither doe we affect that any man should rest satisfied with our conjectures but let our reasons be considered and the plaine Text of Scripture professing that because God rested the seventh day therefore hee blessed the seventh day and sanctified it and let them yeeld thereunto no more in this particular then whereof it doth convince a man in conscience Yet who those late Writers be who are so unsatisfied in this point I know not well I verily thinke they are very few Protestants Gomarus as I remember allegeth but two Vatablus and Musculus whereas Walaus and Rivetus between them have alleged no lesse than thirty maintaining the contrary As for the Papists we shall take notice of them in the next Section It is confessed that this proofe is good God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it therefore he commanded it to be kept holy by his people The sanctifying of the day in the true notion thereof being nothing but Gods commanding man to sanctifie it which yet if any man deny I appeale to my former argument delivered in the former Section for the justifying thereof Onely it is said that therence it followeth not that Then or at that time to wit the very day whereon God rested he commanded it to be kept holy by his people Now this exception also I have remooved in the former Section And it is very strange we should be to seeke of the time in reference whereunto this is delivered most of all if spoken onely in reference to 2500 yeares after and not the least intimation of so strange an anticipation beyond all example as Walaeus and Rivetus have proved When Abulensis saith that Moses spake this by anticipation rather to shew the equity of the Commandement then the Originall If the booke of Genesis were written before the Commandement was given on mount Sina this interpretation must suppose that the Lord had already revealed to Moses what hee would doe on Mount Sina and what ground is produced for the building of so much as any conjecture hereof thereupon And what wise man would expect that any man should be satisfied herewith Doth it not concerne them who maintaine this affirmative to make it good by Texts of Scripture If after the Commandements were delivered on Mount Sina what neede of representing the equity thereof seeing the equity and that in this very way is expressed in the Commandement it selfe and that in such manner as to manifest evidently that God did not now begin to command this but that hee commanded it of old even from the Creation as already I have disputed and proved And though Abulensis were of this opinion yet Catarinus was not and though Pererius the Jesuite tooke part with Tostatus yet Rivetus hath shewed that Cornelius de lapide Emmanuel Sa. Ribera all Jesuites do not but with Catarinus rather or that Steuchus Eugubinus Genebrard and Iacobus Salianus concurre with them against the opinion of Tostatus Gomarus acknowledgeth Marius also to be of the same minde all Papists and let mee adde unto these all the Remists as appeares in their notes upon Apoc. 1. 10. Enosh might call upon the Lord and Abraham offer sacrifice without relation to a set and appointed time oftner and seldomer as they had occasion It was in the former Section signified to be Torniellus his reason which here is answered now Torniellus was of a contrary opinion to us in this particular yet hee confesseth that it seemed hardly credible neither doth the Doctor deny it onely hee saith that Enosh might so doe hee doth not say hee did