<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2007-03-20</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Emma Leeson Huber</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate. Proofed title page(s).  Checked for GROUP tags. Checked ^s. Reviewed structure. Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS, etc.). Checked for signatures. Checked placement and completeness of PBs. Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, --s, and UNCLEARs. Corrected 60 $s and $$word$$s etc. of 106. Converted 46 $$s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="oxf". Checked spacing of foreign GAPs. Checked for EPIGRAPHs and ARGUMENTs.  Checked for LBs. Checked for startqs, endqs, oes, q;s, and Qs. Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there. Checked for CLOSERs, TRAILERs, and BYLINEs. Checked for missing page GAPs. DONE.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="A86302">
<STC T="W">H1732</STC>
<STC T="T">E938_4</STC>
<STC T="T">E938_5</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99873064</BIBNO>
<VID>130903</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P><HI>RESPONDET PETR&V;S:</HI> OR, The ANSWER of PETER HEYLYN <HI>D. D.</HI> To &s;o much of Dr. <HI>Bernard</HI>'s Book Entituled, <HI>The Judgement of the late Primate of Ireland,</HI> &amp;c. As he is made a Party to by the &s;aid Lord Primate in the Point of the <HI>SABBATH,</HI> And by the &s;aid DOCTOR in &s;ome others. To which is added AN APPENDIX In An&s;wer to certain Pa&s;&s;ages in M^r <HI>Sander&s;ons</HI> HISTORY of the Life and Reign of K. CHARLES, Relating to The Lord PRIMATE, The ARTICLES of <HI>Ireland,</HI> And the EARL of <HI>Strafford,</HI> In which the <HI>RESPONDENT</HI> is concerned.</P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for <HI>R. Roy&s;ton</HI> at the Angel in <HI>Ivy-lane,</HI> and <HI>R. Marriot</HI> in S. <HI>Dun&s;tans</HI> Church-yard, <HI>Fleet-street.</HI> M DC LVIII.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="preface">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>THE AUTHORS PREFACE To the Reader.</HEAD>
<P>IT was upon the 2. of <HI>January</HI> that Doctor <HI>Bernards</HI> Book entituled <HI>The judgment of the late Primate of Ireland,</HI> &amp;c. came to me from a friend in <HI>London,</HI> which I had no &s;ooner cau&s;ed to be read over to me, but I lookt upon it as the mo&s;t unwelcome New-years-gift that could have been &s;ent me from an enemy. So far I found my &s;elf concerned in it, that without a manife&s;t betraying of my Fame and Innocence, I was not to defer my An&s;wer, notwith&s;tanding all the difficulties which appeared before me. I con&s;idered of my own unfit|ne&s;s to enter into new di&s;putes, having &s;o little u&s;e of my eyes and hands for &s;uch imployments; the eminence of the name which I was to deal with in reference to whom I could be lookt upon no otherwi&s;e then as a Gra&s;|hopper compared with the &s;on, of <HI>Anak;</HI> and finally the di&s;agreeablene&s;s of &s;ome part of the &s;ubject to the complexion and temper of the pre&s;ent times. But on the other &s;ide, that &s;aying of S. <HI>Hierom, Se nolle quen|quam in &s;u&s;picione Haere&s;eos &s;ilentem e&s;&s;e,</HI> That he would have no man hold his peace when &s;u&s;pected of Here&s;ie, over-ballanc'd all. And in this Book of Doctor <HI>Bernards</HI> I found my &s;elf accu&s;ed of <HI>Heterodoxie</HI> at the lea&s;t, if not of <HI>Here&s;ie,</HI> reproacht with violating my &s;ub&s;cription, and running cro&s;s unto the publick Doctrines of the Church of <HI>England</HI> in the Book of Homilies. Reproches not to be endured but by guilty per|&s;ons, &s;uch as &s;ink under the calamity of an <GAP DESC="foreign"> or <HI>&s;elf-con|viction.</HI> So that being forced upon an an&s;wer, I was re&s;olved to make it as &s;peedy as I could before <HI>prejudice</HI> and <HI>prepo&s;&s;e&s;&s;ions</HI> had made too &s;trong a head again&s;t me in the minds of men. I never lov'd to have &s;uch work &s;tick long in my fingers; and therefore notwith&s;tanding the extremity of the &s;ea&s;on and the tyrannie of a Quartan Ague under which I langui&s;hed, I gave it &s;uch a quick di&s;patch that it might ea&s;ily have been publi&s;ht by the middle of the Term then following. But contrary to my expectation it met with &s;o many rubs between the Pen and the Pre&s;s, that the Term was pa&s;t before it could be undertaken; And then the undertakers were not willing to make too much ha&s;te, a <HI>dead vacation</HI> being held to be no fit time to quicken and give life to the &s;ale of new books, not extremely popular.</P>
<P>But to &s;ay truth, what I have lo&s;t one way by the&s;e delayes, I have gained in another: For by this means I have had the opportunity of &s;ee|ing my &s;elf abu&s;ed, and reprochfully handled in the late <HI>Hi&s;tory of the</HI>
<PB REF="3">
<HI>Life and Reign of King Charles;</HI> the Author whereof hath been enter|tained by Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> as a &s;ouldier of Fortune to undertake this <HI>Pen-combat</HI> for him, though he would rather be &s;uppo&s;ed to &s;erve under the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> Colours, as the nobler General. But &s;erve he under whom he will, tis all one to me, who am de&s;ign'd to bear the blowes, not made the gentler by the Name and Reputation of the party who engaged him in it. The be&s;t is, that he hath not found me unprovided for my own defence, and if he chance to fall back with &s;ome lo&s;s of Honour, he mu&s;t blame him&s;elf. It hath been alwayes my de&s;ire not to die in debt, and therefore I have <HI>paid</HI> this <HI>Creditor</HI> with an an&s;wer al&s;o. For though I know well that neglected calumnies are of lea&s;t continu|ance, <HI>Convicia &s;preta exole&s;cunt,</HI> as it is in <HI>Tacitus:</HI> yet this is to be un|der&s;tood of &s;uch common fames as pa&s;s upon the breath of rumor, and are taken up on hear-&s;ay onely, or from &s;hort-liv'd Pamphlets; not of &s;uch calumnies as are enrolled upon Record, or pa&s;&s;e into the body of a publick Hi&s;tory. If contumelies of this nature were to go unan&s;wered, the party wronged mu&s;t live defamed, and die remedile&s;&s;e; a &s;corn un|to the pre&s;ent times, and a perpetual ignominy to the ages following. To prevent which, I have taken the be&s;t cour&s;e I could to right my &s;elf again&s;t all opponents, to let both Doctor <HI>Bernard,</HI> and this fre&s;h <HI>Adven|turer</HI> under&s;tand the hazard which they &s;o wilfully run into by provoking an unwilling <HI>Adver&s;ary,</HI> who was re&s;olv'd never to have looked back up|on tho&s;e Di&s;putes, which formerly had too much exerci&s;ed both his Pen and Patience. But being what is pa&s;t cannot be recalled, we mu&s;t all &s;ubmit our &s;elves and our performances to the Readers judgment, who I de&s;ire may be impartial and unbia&s;&s;ed on either &s;ide, that &s;o the truth onely may obtain the victory, and let the people &s;hout and &s;ay with them in <Q>E&s;dras, Magna e&s;t veritas &amp; praevalet,</Q> that is to &s;ay, <Q>Great is truth and mighty above all things,</Q> <BIBL>1 E&s;dr. c. 4. v. 41.</BIBL></P>
<CLOSER><DATELINE><HI>From</HI> Lacies <HI>Court in</HI> Abingdon, <DATE>March 18. 1657.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<HEAD><PB N="1" REF="3"><HI>RESPONDET PETR&V;S,</HI> Or the An&s;wer of <HI>PETER HEYLYN,</HI> D. D. TO So much of Doctor BERNARDS Book entitled <HI>The Judgement of the late</HI> Primate <HI>of</HI> Ireland, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV1 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. I.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The priviledges of the dead infringed by Dr. <HI>Bernard;</HI> The <HI>An|&s;werer</HI> drawn unwillingly to this encounter. The occa&s;ion and ne|ce&s;&s;ity of it. The <HI>Fathers</HI> generally declared again&s;t the <HI>mora|lity</HI> of the <HI>Sabbath.</HI> The day of wor&s;hip not transferred from the <HI>&s;eventh</HI> day of the Week to the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> by <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> our Saviour, as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;eems to make it. The word <HI>Sabbatum</HI> not u&s;ed to &s;igni&s;ie the <HI>Lords Day,</HI> by the Ancient Writers. The <HI>Lord Primates</HI> great mistake in the meaning of <HI>Sidonius Apollina|ris. Sabbatarius Luxus,</HI> what it was, and of the riotous fea&s;tings of the <HI>Jews</HI> on the <HI>Sabbath day.</HI> The <HI>Lords day</HI> vulgarly (though but lately) called the <HI>Sabbath</HI> by the artifice of the <HI>Sabbatarians,</HI> contrary to the known meaning of the word <HI>Sabbatum</HI> in the <HI>Latine</HI> tongue.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>_IT was a pious wi&s;h of <HI>Tacitus,</HI> that renouned Hi|&s;torian, when he had brought <HI>Agricola</HI> to the funeral Pile, <HI>ut in loco Piorum manibus de&s;tina|to placid&egrave; quie&s;cat,</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Tacit. in vit. Agric.</NOTE> that he might re&s;t with|out di&s;turbance in the place appointed for the &s;ouls of vertuous per&s;ons. Thus <HI>Dido</HI> with like piety prayed, <HI>ut &s;enis Anchi&s;ae molliter o&s;&s;a cubent;</HI> <NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">In <HI>Epi&s;t. ad Aenae.</HI></NOTE> that the
<PB N="2" REF="4">
bones of old <HI>Anchi&s;es</HI> might re&s;t in peace; and King <HI>Jo&s;ia</HI> gave command, that the <HI>Bones of the Prophet which prophe&s;ied again&s;t the Altar of</HI> Bethel, <HI>&s;hould not be removed.</HI> <NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">2 Kings 23. 18.</NOTE> In which re&s;pect the grave is called by <HI>Tertullian, A&s;ylum Mortis,</HI> <NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Tertul. Apolog.</NOTE> the <HI>San|ctuary</HI> of the dead; and great complaint is by him made, that the priviledges of that Sanctuary were infringed by the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> and the bodies of dead <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> mo&s;t barbarou&s;ly ravi&s;hed by them, <HI>de requie Sepulturae,</HI> from the re&s;ting places of the grave. A thing &s;o odious in it &s;elf, and to all man-kind, that grievous puni&s;hments have been inflicted, even by <HI>Heathen</HI> Emperours, upon offendors of this nature; <HI>Et cert&egrave; gravi&s;&s;imae poenae in Sepulcrorum violatores vel ab ip&s;is Ethnicis Imperatoribus &s;ta|tu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ae &s;unt&punc;</HI> as <HI>Pamelius</HI> notes upon the place. In this re&s;pect al&s;o <HI>&s;ollicitare umbras&punc;</HI> as <HI>Manilius</HI> hath it, to di&s;turb the &s;pirits of the dead, and &s;orce them by Charmes and Incantations from the place of their repo&s;e and re&s;t, to the end that we or others may ask coun&s;el of them, hath been alwayes held for execrable, both by God and man. For that this is a trouble and di&s;tur|bance to them, appears plainly by the pa&s;sionate words which <HI>Samuel</HI> &s;pake to <HI>Saul,</HI> &s;aying, <HI>Cu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> inquietasti me? why ha&s;t</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Sam. 28. 15.</NOTE> <HI>thou di&s;quieted me, and brought me up?</HI> that is to &s;ay, di&s;quieted my &s;pirit, and brought up my body by the Charmes and Sor|ceries of this accur&s;ed woman, the Witch of <HI>Endor.</HI> The crime is prohibited by God him&s;elfe in the Book of <HI>Deuteronomy, Let</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Deut. 18. 11.</NOTE> <HI>none be found amongst you that is a Charmer, or that coun&s;elleth with &s;pirits,</HI> aut qui quaerit &agrave; mortuis veritatem, <HI>or that asketh coun&s;el of the dead, a Necromancer, as we read in our la&s;t Tran&s;|lation.</HI> The criminal Party, by the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es&punc;</HI> to be <HI>&s;toned to death,</HI> Levit. 20. 27. nor were le&s;s puni&s;hments inflicted on them by the <HI>Laws Imperial,</HI> though differing in the kind of death which was ordained by God in the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> it being or|dered by the Edict of the Emperour <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> that &s;uch as were guilty of this crime, as of all other kinds of Witchcraft (though otherwi&s;e priviledged by their birth, from all &s;orts of tortures) <HI>tormenta &amp; cruciatas non fugerent,</HI> &s;hould fir&s;t be put upon the Rack, and endure &s;everal &s;orts of torments, and then be broken on the Wheele, and there end their mi&s;eries; for which &s;ee the <HI>Codex. 1. 9. Ad Taurum.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="3" REF="4">Which pa&s;&s;ages, had they been &s;eriou&s;ly con&s;idered by Do|ctor <HI>Bernard,</HI> as they &s;hould have been, he would not have of|fered the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> his decea&s;ed Patron, &s;o great an inju|ry, as to force him from the place of Repo&s;e, and di&s;turb his Re&s;t, that either he or any others might ask coun&s;el of, or re|ceive it from him; to bring him back upon the Stage, from whence he had made his <HI>Exit</HI> with a general <HI>Plaudite;</HI> e&s;peci|ally to bring him back to &s;o ill a purpo&s;e, as either to begin new <HI>Controver&s;ies,</HI> or revive the old: His memory (by this means) mu&s;t needs become le&s;s precious then before it was, with all knowing men, whom either in the point of <HI>Epi&s;copacy,</HI> or in that of <HI>&V;niver&s;al Redemption by the death of Chri&s;t,</HI> or in the Doctrine of the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> or finally in defence of the Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies of the Church of <HI>England</HI> (to which the Doctors Book declares him to be no great friend) he hath made his Adver&s;aries. I know well how unworthy a thing it is to rake into the graves of men decea&s;ed, and (like Vultures) to prey on dead bodies; and that of all combats, there is none more fruitle&s;s and ignoble, then that which the Greeks call, <GAP DESC="foreign">, to fight with &s;hadows. But if the <HI>dead</HI> be made to <HI>&s;peak,</HI> and by writings publi&s;hed in their names, &s;hall di&s;turb the Church, and &s;end out Chartels of de&s;iance to particular men (to my &s;elfe for one) it is all the rea&s;on in the world, that their writings &s;hould be called to an account, though their per&s;ons cannot; and that the parties &s;o defied &s;hould &s;tand upon their guard, and defend them&s;elves, and u&s;e all hone&s;t Arts and Means for <HI>conjuring</HI> down a <HI>&s;pirit</HI> &s;o unhappily rai&s;ed. No man of courage will be frighted with an <HI>Apparition,</HI> or terrified with the <HI>Gho&s;t</HI> or <HI>Shadow</HI> (for the word <HI>&V;mbra</HI> takes in both) of the greate&s;t Clerk. But much more rea&s;on is there for it, when the <HI>dead</HI> are not onely made to <HI>&s;peak&punc;</HI> but to give ill language, to tax a mode&s;t man with <HI>Sophi&s;try &amp; Shamele&s;&s;ne&s;s,</HI> and I know not what; reproches not to be endured with patience from the dead or living. <HI>A worm if trod upon, will turn again,</HI> as the Proverb is; and &s;eeing I may &s;ay in the P&s;almi&s;ts language, that <HI>I am a Worm and no Man,</HI> I hope I &s;hall not be condemned if I <HI>turn again;</HI> and rather chu&s;e to plead <HI>not guilty</HI> to the whole <HI>Indict|ment,</HI> then by a wilful &s;tanding mute, to betray both my own
<PB N="4" REF="5">
fame, and the cau&s;e together; let the wor&s;t come that can be|fal me, it will be thought no di&s;credit to me, to be vanqui&s;ht by &s;o great an Adver&s;ary; whom to contend with, is an ho|nour, and to be overcome by him would be no di&s;grace, &s;hould it &s;o fall out: &s;o that I may affirm with him in <HI>Ovid,</HI> and per|haps more ju&s;tly then he did,</P>
<Q>&mdash;Nec tam Turpe mihi vinci est, qu&agrave;m contendi&s;&s;e decorum.</Q>
<P>For I mu&s;t needs &s;ay that the Doctor hath engaged me with a Noble Adver&s;ary, who by his indefatigable indu&s;try, and un|wearied &s;tudies, had made him&s;elf the Ma&s;ter of as great a Trea&s;ury, both of Divine and Humane Learning, as any man living in this la&s;t age could pretend unto; and which is more, he had it all ready at command, by the benefit of an excellent memory: but no Abilities not governed by an infallible Spirit can exempt a man from being many ways obnoxious to mi&s;takes and errors (the common incidences to humane frailty) men of the greate&s;t eminence in point of learning, being as &s;ubject thereunto as tho&s;e of weaker parts, and le&s;s reputation. <HI>Ter|tullian, Cyprian, Origen,</HI> and <HI>Lactantius,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, men of renown for Learning in the Primitive times, &s;hall atte&s;t to this, as in the general Rule or <HI>The&s;is;</HI> but whether it will hold good al&s;o in the application, the matter in di&s;pute be|fore us, the event mu&s;t &s;hew. The matter in di&s;pute occa&s;ion|ed by publi&s;hing certain Letters of the late Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> in which he excepteth again&s;t &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages in a Book of mine, entitled, <HI>The Hi&s;tory of the Sabbath,</HI> and &s;ignified tho&s;e ex|ceptions to &s;ome &s;pecial friends; that is to &s;ay, to Doctor <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> of <HI>Newberry,</HI> Mr. <HI>Ley</HI> of <HI>Badworth,</HI> Presbyterians both, and to an <HI>Honourable Friend</HI> not named, but like to be of the &s;ame &s;tamp with the other two. The Letters writ many years ago, <HI>Anno</HI> 1640 and writ with no intent (as I verily think) to have been publi&s;ht; but lately publi&s;ht how&s;oever by Do|ctor <HI>Bernard</HI> of <HI>Grayes Inne,</HI> and publi&s;ht to no other purpo&s;e, for ought I can find, but to engage me in this nece&s;&s;ary, but unequal Duel. The pa&s;&s;ages excepted again&s;t are but five in
<PB N="5" REF="5">
number, in which I am concerned by name, and but one more, or two at the mo&s;t, in which I am intere&s;&s;ed on the <HI>By.</HI> And of tho&s;e five, there is but one material, and of any con&s;equence in the main concernments of the Cau&s;e; the other four being either extrin&s;ecal, or of le&s;s importance, more then to &s;hew that nothing in that Hi&s;tory, which was found liable to excep|tion, &s;hould e&s;cape uncen&s;ured. A&s;&s;uredly it had been a work more proper for &s;o great an Antiquary, a man &s;o ver&s;t and &s;tudied in all parts of Learning, to have returned a full and com|plete An&s;wer to that Hi&s;tory, had he found it an&s;werable; then to except again&s;t &s;ome few pa&s;&s;ages in it of no greater moment; and by &s;o doing to ju&s;tifie and confirm the Author in all the re&s;t. <HI>Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis,</HI> is a good old rule, and which I might crave leave to u&s;e to my be&s;t advantage; but that I am re&s;olved to try my fortune, and make good tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages again&s;t which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> hath excepted. To the defence whereof (with all due reverence to his Name and Me|mory) I &s;hall now proceed. <HI>No&s;ter duorum eventus o&s;tendat utra gens &s;it melior.</HI></P>
<P>And fir&s;t the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> tells us this, that <HI>when he gave him&s;elfe to the reading of the</HI> Fathers, <HI>he took no heed unto any thing that concerned this</HI> Argument, <HI>as little dreaming that any &s;uch</HI> Controver&s;ie <HI>would have ari&s;en among&s;t us,</HI> p. 74. And I concur with him in words, though perhaps not in meaning al|&s;o; there being none who reads the <HI>Fathers</HI> with care and cau|tion, who can &s;uppo&s;e that any <HI>Controver&s;ie</HI> &s;hould ari&s;e about the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> again&s;t the morality whereof the Fathers gene|rally declare upon all occa&s;ions. The Lord <HI>Primate</HI> tells us of Saint <HI>Augustin,</HI> pag. 75. <HI>That purpo&s;ely &s;electing tho&s;e things which appertained unto us Chri&s;tians, he doth wholly pretermit that Precept in the recital of the Commandments of the Decalogue.</HI> To which Te&s;timony (though this alone may &s;eem &s;ufficient to confirme the point) I &s;hall adde &s;ome more. And fir&s;t the &s;aid Saint <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> tells us, that it is no part of the <HI>Moral</HI> Law; for he divides the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> into the&s;e two parts, <HI>viz. Sa|craments</HI> and <HI>Moral Duties,</HI> accounting Circumci&s;ion, the New Moons, <HI>Sabbaths,</HI> and the Sacrifices, to appertain unto the fir&s;t; <HI>ad mores autem, Non occides, &amp;c.</HI> and the&s;e Commandments,
<PB N="6" REF="6">
<HI>Thou &s;halt not kill, Thou &s;halt not commit Adultery,</HI> and the re&s;t to be contained within the &s;econd. The like &s;aith <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI> that this Commandment is not any of tho&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign">, which naturally were implanted in us, or<NOTE PLACE="marg">Andriant. 12. Tom. 6.</NOTE> made known unto our con&s;cience; <GAP DESC="foreign">, but that it was temporary, and occa&s;ional, and &s;uch as was to have an end, where all the re&s;t were nece&s;&s;ary and perpetual. <HI>Tertullian</HI> al&s;o in his Treati&s;e again&s;t the <HI>Jewes</HI> &s;aith, that it<NOTE PLACE="marg">Contra Judaeos.</NOTE> was not <HI>Spirituale &amp; aeternum Mandatum, &s;ed temporale, quod quando&abque; ce&s;&s;aret,</HI> not a &s;piritual and eternal in&s;titution, but a temporal onely. Finally, to a&s;cend no higher, <HI>Ju&s;tine Mar|tyr</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Dial. cum Try|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">hone.</NOTE> more expre&s;ly in his Di&s;pute with <HI>Trypho</HI> a learned <HI>Jew,</HI> maintains the <HI>Sabbath</HI> to be onely a <HI>Mo&s;aical</HI> Ordinance; and that it was impo&s;ed upon the <HI>I&s;raelites,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <GAP DESC="foreign">, becau&s;e of their hard-heartedne&s;s and irre|gularity. And as for the Lords day which &s;ucceeded in the place thereof, the Fathers generally think no otherwi&s;e of it, then as an <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical</HI> In&s;titution, not founded upon any pre|cept, either of Chri&s;t or his Apo&s;tles, but built perhaps upon &s;ome <HI>Apo&s;tolical</HI> practice, which gave the Church authority to change the day, and to tran&s;late it from the <HI>Seventh</HI> on which God re&s;ted, to the <HI>Fir&s;t day</HI> of the week, the day of our Savi|ours Re&s;urrection.</P>
<P>And though the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> to gain unto the <HI>Lords day</HI> the Reputation of having &s;omewhat in it of Divine In&s;titution, a&s;cribes the alteration of the day to our Lord and Saviour, <HI>page</HI> 76. yet neither the Author whom he cites, nor the Au|thority by him cited will evince the point. And fir&s;t, the Au|thor will not do it; the Homily <HI>De Semente,</HI> out of which the following proof is taken, being &s;uppo&s;ed by the Learned not to have been writ by <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> but put into his Works as his, by &s;ome that had a mind to entitle him to it; as generally all the Works of the Ancient Fathers have many &s;uppo&s;ititious wri|tings intermingled with them. Secondly, the Authority or Words cited will not do it neither, though at fir&s;t &s;ight they &s;eem to come home to make proof thereof. The words are the&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign">, that is to &s;ay, the Lord tran&s;lated the Sabbath from the &s;eventh
<PB N="7" REF="6">
day of the week, to the Lords day, or fir&s;t day of the week. Which words are to be under&s;tood, not as if done by his Com|mandment, but on his occa&s;ion; the Re&s;urrection of our Lord upon that day, being the principal motive, which did induce his Church to make choice thereof for a day of Wor&s;hip. For otherwi&s;e the fal&s;e <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> who&s;oever he was, mu&s;t cro&s;s and contradict the true, who having told us, that it was <HI>com|manded</HI> at the fir&s;t, that the <HI>Sabbath</HI> &s;hould be ob&s;erved (<GAP DESC="foreign">, as his own words are) in memory of the accom|pli&s;hment of the worlds Creation; a&s;cribes the in&s;titution of the Lords day to the voluntary u&s;age of the Church of God, with|out any Commandment from our Saviour, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. <HI>We celebrate,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>the Lords day, as a memorial of the beginning of a new Creation,</HI> which is plain enough.</P>
<P>In the next place it is acknowledged by the Lord <HI>Primate, That generally the word</HI> Sabbatum, <HI>in the writings of the Fathers, doth denote our Saturday,</HI> p. 74. Which notwith&s;tanding, either becau&s;e it was affirmed by the Hi&s;torian, <HI>Hi&s;tory of the Sabbath,</HI> Part 2. Chap. 2. Num. 12. that the word <HI>Sabbatum</HI> was not u&s;ed to &s;ignifie the Lords day by any approved Writer, for the &s;pace of a thou&s;and years and upward; or not to leave the <HI>Sab|batarian</HI> Brethren at &s;o great a lo&s;s in that particular, he would fain find out one (though but one of a thou&s;and) who hath u&s;ed it to <HI>denote our Chri&s;tian Fe&s;tivities al&s;o.</HI> Where not that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> doth not &s;ay (as indeed he could not) that the word <HI>Sabbatum</HI> was u&s;ed to &s;ignifie the <HI>Lords day,</HI> but onely to &s;ignifie the other Fe&s;tivals of the Church, the Chri&s;tian Fe|&s;tivities, as he calls them, in which how much he is mi&s;taken we &s;hall &s;ee anon. That one here meant and mentioned is <HI>Si|donius Apollinaris</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Auvergne</HI> in <HI>France,</HI> who de&s;cribing the moderation of the Table of <HI>Theoderick</HI> King of the <HI>Goths</HI> upon the <HI>Eves,</HI> and the exce&s;s on the <HI>Holy-day</HI> following; he<NOTE PLACE="marg">Lib. 1. Epi&s;t. 2.</NOTE> writeth of the one, that his <HI>Convivium diebus profe&s;tis &s;imile pri|vato e&s;t,</HI> that his Table on the working-dayes was furni&s;hed like the Table of private men; but of the other dayes, or Fe|&s;tivals, he telleth us this, <HI>De luxu autem illo Sabbatario narra|tioni m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ae &s;uper&s;edendum e&s;t, qui nec latentes pote&s;t latere per&s;onas,</HI> that is to &s;ay, that his exce&s;s, or Sabbatarian luxury required
<PB N="8" REF="7">
not to be &s;poken of, becau&s;e it could not be concealed from tho&s;e who lived mo&s;t retiredly. If either the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> or <HI>Sirmondus</HI> the <HI>Je&s;uite</HI> could infer from hence, that the word <HI>Sabbatum</HI> was u&s;ed by <HI>Apollinaris,</HI> to &s;ignifie, or denote our Chri&s;tian <HI>Fe&s;tivities,</HI> much le&s;s the Sunday, or Lords day, I &s;hall mi&s;s my mark. They &s;ay, it is a &s;ign of ill luck for a man to <HI>&s;tumble at the thre&s;hold,</HI> and never was &s;uch a &s;tumble made by a man of learning, in the fir&s;t beginning of a work: for clearly <HI>Sabbatarius luxus,</HI> relates not to the Lords day, nor the other Fe&s;tivals, but is there u&s;ed proverbially, to &s;ignifie that exce&s;s and riot which that King u&s;ed at his Table on the dayes afore&s;aid. The proverb borrowed from the <HI>Jewes,</HI> and the riotous fea&s;tings on the <HI>Sabbath.</HI> Its true, the Jews did com|monly fa&s;t till noon upon their <HI>Sabbath,</HI> till the devotions of the morning were complete and ended; on which account they tax the Di&s;ciples of our Saviour, for eating a few ears of Corn on the Sabbath day, <HI>Matth.</HI> 12. 2. but then it is as true withal, that they &s;pent all the re&s;t of the day in their riotous fea&s;tings, not onely with plenty of good cheer, but exce&s;s of wine. In which regard, whereas all other marketing was unlawful on the <HI>Sab|bath dayes,</HI> there never was re&s;traint of &s;elling Wine: the <HI>Jews</HI> believing that therein they brake no Commandment, <HI>Hebraei fa|ciunt aliquid &s;peciale in vino,</HI> viz. <HI>qu&ograve;d c&ugrave;m in Sabbato &s;uo &agrave; caeteris venditionibus &amp; emptionibus ce&s;&s;ent, &s;olum vinum ven|dunt, credentes &s;e non &s;olvere Sabbatum,</HI> as <HI>Tostatus</HI> hath it.<NOTE PLACE="marg">To&s;tatus in Exod. 12.</NOTE> And for the re&s;t of their exce&s;&s;es Saint <HI>Augustine</HI> telleth us, that they kept the Sabbath onely, <HI>ad luxuriam &amp; ebrietatem,</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Tract. in Joan.</NOTE> in rioting and drunkenne&s;s, and that they re&s;ted onely, <HI>ad nugas &amp; luxurias &s;uas,</HI> <NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg"><HI>De 10. Cordis cap.</HI> 3. In P&s;al. 91.</NOTE> to luxury and wantonne&s;s; they con&s;umed the day, <HI>languido &amp; luxurio&s;o otio,</HI> in an effeminate &s;lothful ea&s;e: and finally, did abu&s;e the &s;ame, not onely <HI>deli<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">iis Judaicis,</HI> <NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">In P&s;al. 23.</NOTE> in <HI>Jewi&s;h follies,</HI> but <HI>ad nequitiam,</HI> even to &s;in and naughtine&s;s. Put altogether, and we have luxury and drunken|ne&s;s, and &s;ports, and plea&s;ures; enough to manife&s;t that they &s;pared not any dainties to &s;et forth their <HI>Sabbath. Tertullian</HI> hath ob&s;erved the &s;ame, but in fewer words, according to his wonted manner, who &s;peaking of the <HI>Jewes</HI> in his <HI>Apologeticum adver&s;us Gentes,</HI> Cap. 16. hath told us of them, that they did
<PB N="9" REF="7">
<HI>Diem Saturni otio &amp; victui decernere,</HI> devote the Saturday, or <HI>Sabbath,</HI> unto Ea&s;e and Luxury. But before either of them this was noted by <HI>Plutarch</HI> al&s;o, an Heathen, but a great and grave Philo&s;opher, who layes it to their charge, that they did fea&s;t it on their <HI>Sabbath</HI> with no &s;mall exce&s;s, but of wine e&s;pecially; and thereupon conjectureth, that the name of <HI>Sabbath</HI> had its original from the <HI>Orgies,</HI> or fea&s;ts of <HI>Bacchus,</HI> who&s;e Prie&s;t u&s;ed often to ingeminate the word <HI>Sabbi, Sabbi,</HI> in their drun|ken ceremonies. From whence we have the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, which &s;ignifies to <HI>triumph, dance,</HI> or <HI>make glad the countenance.</HI> And from hence al&s;o came <GAP DESC="foreign">, the &s;irname of <HI>Bacchus,</HI> or at the lea&s;t &s;ome Son of his mentioned in <HI>Coelius Rhodiginus,</HI> as is ob&s;erved by Dr. <HI>Prideaux</HI> in his Tract <HI>De Sabbato.</HI> This &s;aid, the meaning of <HI>Apollinaris</HI> will be onely this, that though <HI>Theoderick</HI> kept a &s;pare Table on the other dayes, yet on the <HI>Fe&s;tivals</HI> of the Church, he indulged unto him&s;elf a kind of <HI>Sabbatarian luxury,</HI> that is to &s;ay, &s;uch riotous fea&s;ting, and exce&s;s, as the <HI>Iewes</HI> u&s;ed upon their <HI>Sabbath.</HI> Nothing in this to prove that the word <HI>Sabbatum</HI> was u&s;ed by any approved <HI>Writer</HI> for the &s;pace of a thou&s;and years and upward, to &s;igni|fie either the Lords day, or any of the <HI>Chri&s;tian Fe&s;tivities,</HI> as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> would &s;ain have had it; which notwith&s;tan|ding, partly by the diligence of our <HI>Sabbatarians,</HI> and their active <HI>Emi&s;&s;aries,</HI> and partly by the ignorance of &s;ome, and the ea&s;ine&s;s of the re&s;t of the people, the Sunday or Lords day is generally called by no other name then by that of the <HI>Sabbath;</HI> he who &s;hall call it otherwi&s;e then the vulgar do, being bran|ded commonly with profanene&s;s or &s;ingularity. And yet if any of the&s;e fine fellows &s;hould be asked the Engli&s;h of the Latine word <HI>Sabbatum,</HI> they could not chu&s;e but an&s;wer, that it &s;ig|nified the &s;eventh day of the week, or the <HI>Saturday</HI> onely. Or if they &s;hould, every Clerk, Notary, and Regi&s;ter in the Courts of Judicature would deride them for it, who in drawing up their Proce&s;&s;es, Declarations, Entries, Judgements and Com|mi&s;sions, never u&s;ed other Latine word for Saturday, but <HI>Dies Sabbati&punc;</HI> as long as any of tho&s;e forms were written in the La|tine tongue&punc; And they continued in that tongue, till toward the later end of the late long Parliament, in which it was or|dered,
<PB N="10" REF="8">
that all Writs, Declarations, and other legal in&s;truments of what kind &s;oever, &s;hould be made in Engli&s;h; the readie&s;t way to make all Clerks, Atturnies, Regi&s;ters, &amp;c. more igno|rant of Grammar learning then they were before.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The Lord <HI>Primates</HI> judgement of the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> delivered in two <HI>Propo&s;itions.</HI> His fir&s;t <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> for &s;etting apart <HI>&s;ome whole day</HI> for <HI>Gods &s;olemn wor&s;hip</HI> by the <HI>Law</HI> of <HI>Nature,</HI> found both uncertain and un&s;afe; no &s;uch whole day kept, or re|quired to be kept by the <HI>Jewes</HI> or <HI>Gentiles.</HI> His &s;econd <HI>Propo|&s;ition,</HI> neither agreeable to the <HI>School-men,</HI> or the <HI>Sabbatari|ans,</HI> nor grounded upon Text of Scripture. He reconciles him|&s;elf with the <HI>Sabbatarians</HI> by a&s;cribing an immutability to a <HI>Po|&s;itive Law;</HI> but contrary therein to the fir&s;t Reformers, and o|ther learned men of the Prote&s;tant and Reformed Churches. He founds the In&s;titution of the <HI>Sabbath</HI> on <HI>Gene&s;is 2.</HI> An <HI>Antici|pation</HI> or <HI>Prolep&s;is</HI> in that place of <HI>Gen.</HI> maintained explicit|ly by <HI>Jo&s;ephus,</HI> and many of the mo&s;t learned of the <HI>Jewi&s;h Rab|bins,</HI> as al&s;o by <HI>To&s;tatus</HI> and his followers among&s;t the Chri&s;ti|ans; implicitly by tho&s;e, who maintained that the <HI>Sabbath</HI> was not in&s;tituted in the fir&s;t beginning. The like <HI>Anticipations</HI> frequent in the holy Scripture, and justified by many of the An|cient Fathers, and not a few learned men of the later times. The <HI>Sabbath</HI> not a part of the <HI>Law of Nature.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>BUt now before we can proceed to &s;uch other pa&s;&s;ages, which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> hath excepted again&s;t in <HI>Hi&s;tory of the Sabbath,</HI> either by name, or on the <HI>by,</HI> it will be nece&s;&s;ary that we know his own Judgement and Opinion in the ground of this Controver&s;ie; as well concerning the <HI>morality</HI> of the fourth Commandment, as the true ground and in&s;titution of the <HI>Sabbath.</HI> And to find that we mu&s;t con&s;ult his Letter to Mr. <HI>Ley,</HI> in which he telleth us, <HI>That for his own part, he never yet</HI>
<PB N="11" REF="8">
doubted, <HI>but took it for granted; that as the &s;etting of &s;ome whole day apart for Gods &s;olemn wor&s;hip was</HI> juris Divini naturalis, <HI>&s;o that this &s;olemn day</HI> (he means the <HI>Sabbath) &s;hould be one in &s;even, was</HI> juris Divini po&s;itivi, <HI>recorded in the fourth Command|ment,</HI> p. 113. And in the&s;e words we have two &s;everal propo|&s;itions, <HI>viz.</HI> Fir&s;t, <HI>That the &s;etting apart of &s;ome whole day to Gods &s;olemn wor&s;hip, is</HI> juris Divini naturalis: and &s;econdly, <HI>that the Sabbath,</HI> which he meaneth by this <HI>&s;olemn day, was</HI> juris Divini po&s;itivi, <HI>recorded in the fourth Commandment;</HI> both which &s;hall be examined in their &s;everal turns. And fir&s;t I would fain know of Doctor <HI>Bernard,</HI> or any other of the Lord <HI>Pri|mates</HI> Chaplains (&s;ince he cannot an&s;wer for him&s;elfe) where we &s;hall find, that the &s;etting apart of <HI>&s;ome whole day</HI> for <HI>Gods &s;olemn wor&s;hip,</HI> was <HI>juris Divini naturalis.</HI> That &s;ome time was to be &s;et apart for the wor&s;hip of God, is agreed by all, and reckoned by mo&s;t knowing men, not intere&s;&s;ed in any party, to be the <HI>moral</HI> part of the fourth Commandment; but that this time &s;hould be <HI>&s;ome whole day,</HI> is neither imprinted in mans heart by the <HI>Law of Nature,</HI> nor ever required of the <HI>Iews,</HI> nor ob&s;erved by the <HI>Chri&s;tians.</HI> Or granting that &s;ome &s;uch <HI>whole day</HI> was to be &s;et apart for <HI>Gods &s;olemn wor&s;hip;</HI> I would fain know in the fir&s;t place when the &s;aid <HI>whole day</HI> was to be|gin, and how long to continue; whether it were a <HI>whole</HI> natu|ral <HI>day,</HI> or a whole artificial <HI>day,</HI> as they u&s;e to phra&s;e it. And if it were a <HI>whole</HI> natural <HI>day,</HI> then whether to extend from mid|night to midnight, after the reckoning of the <HI>Gentiles;</HI> or from Sun-&s;etting to Sun-&s;etting, from <HI>Even</HI> to <HI>Even,</HI> according to the account of the <HI>Iewes:</HI> or if a <HI>whole</HI> artificial day, then whether a day of twelve hours onely, after the reckoning of the <HI>Iewes;</HI> or from Sun-ri&s;ing to Sun-&s;etting (be they more or le&s;s) according to the &s;everal Climates under which men lived. Which points, unle&s;s they be well &s;tated, the con&s;cience will have nothing in this ca&s;e to rely upon. In the next place con&s;i|dering that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;peaks indefinitely of <HI>&s;ome whole day,</HI> without determining when and how often the &s;aid <HI>whole day</HI> was to be ob&s;erved, I would fain know whether &s;uch a <HI>whole day</HI> was to be <HI>&s;et apart</HI> once or twice in the week; or whether it would &s;uffice to the fulfilling of the <HI>moral</HI> part of the fourth
<PB N="12" REF="9">
Commandment, if it were onely once a month, or once a year, or once in &s;even year, or once in the cour&s;e of a mans whole life. For being it is &s;aid indefinitly, that the <HI>&s;etting apart</HI> of <HI>&s;ome whole day</HI> to Gods &s;olemn wor&s;hip, is <HI>juris Divini naturalis,</HI> ingraf|fed in the Heart of man by the <HI>Law of Nature;</HI> it may be pro|bably inferred, that the <HI>&s;etting apart</HI> of <HI>one whole day</HI> at what time &s;oever a man plea&s;eth, may very &s;ufficiently comply with the intention of that Law, and con&s;equently di&s;charge the man &s;o doing, from all further ob&s;ervance: which how far it will &s;atisfie the con&s;ciences of men, or be accounted acceptable in the &s;ight of God, I &s;hall leave to others to determine.</P>
<P>But admitting that this <HI>whole day,</HI> which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;peaks of, was to have as frequent a return as the <HI>Iewi&s;h Sab|bath;</HI> I would then know when &s;uch a <HI>whole day</HI> was either ordinarily kept, or required to be kept by the <HI>Iewes</HI> or <HI>Gentiles.</HI> That no &s;uch <HI>whole day</HI> was ever ordinarily kept by the <HI>Iewes,</HI> appears by their riotous fea&s;tings on the <HI>Sabbath</HI> day, which before we &s;pake of; by which it is mo&s;t evident, that the one half of that day was either &s;pent in Luxury and Riot, or in Re&s;t and Idlene&s;s; and that the lea&s;t part of the other moyety was &s;pent in holy Meditation, and much le&s;s in the <HI>&s;olemn wor&s;hip of God:</HI> which in the fir&s;t &s;ettlement of that Nation in the Land of <HI>Canaan,</HI> was performed onely in the <HI>Tabernacle,</HI> as after|wards in the <HI>Holy Temple,</HI> at which but few of the people, and tho&s;e which dwelt near the place of wor&s;hip, could give any at|tendance. We meet indeed with a Commandment, that the <HI>Sabbath</HI> was to be continued <HI>from Even to Even,</HI> Levit. 23. 32. that is to &s;ay, from Friday evening at Sun-&s;et, until the like time of <HI>Sun-&s;et</HI> on the <HI>Sabbath day.</HI> Which Precept being fir&s;t given by God, with reference to the day of <HI>Atonement</HI> or <HI>Expiation</HI> (and commonly applyed by the <HI>Iewes</HI> to the weekly Sabbaths) requires no otherkeeping of the day for that &s;pace of time, more then <HI>the afflicting of their &s;ouls</HI> by a &s;olemn fa&s;t, then onely re&s;t from labour, &amp; all &s;ervile works. And this appears plainly by the fir&s;t words of the &s;aid 32. ver&s;e, where it is &s;aid, <HI>That it &s;hould be unto them a Sabbath of rest,</HI> compared with ver&s;. 30, 31. where forbearing all or any manner of work is the chief thing required to the ob&s;ervation of that day. And yet that re&s;t from
<PB N="13" REF="9">
labour, and ce&s;&s;ation from all manner of work frequently inter|mitted al&s;o, either with reference to the &s;olemn keeping of the day it &s;elf, <HI>Mat.</HI> 12. 5. or the pre&s;ervation of the creature, <HI>Luke</HI> 13. 15. &amp; 14. 5. But that the <HI>whole day</HI> extending from <HI>Even</HI> to <HI>Even,</HI> &s;hould be either &s;pent in <HI>afflicting their &s;ouls,</HI> as it is meant onely of the day of <HI>Atonement</HI> or <HI>Expiation,</HI> which was ob&s;erved but once a year; or in the acts of <HI>&s;olemn</HI> and <HI>religious wor&s;hip,</HI> if it be under&s;tood of the weekly <HI>Sabbath</HI> (to which the <HI>Iews</HI> commonly applied it al&s;o, as before was &s;aid) as I no where find, So have I no rea&s;on to believe it without better grounds. Certain I am, that &s;o much of the <HI>Sabbath</HI> day, after this ac|count, as intervened between the Sun-&s;etting on the Friday, and the Sun-ri&s;ing on the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> was partly &s;pent in re&s;t from labour, and making nece&s;&s;ary preparations for the day en&s;u|ing; and part thereof in nece&s;&s;ary repo&s;e and &s;leep, for the refre&s;hing of their bodies, and &s;upport of nature; and how the re&s;t of that day was &s;pent, we have &s;een before.</P>
<P>There is another place in Scripture much pre&s;t upon the con|&s;ciences of the people, by the rigid <HI>Sabbatarians</HI> of the&s;e times, to &s;tave them off from any lawful recreation on their new made <HI>Sabbath;</HI> that is to &s;ay, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 58. 13, 14. where God &s;peaks thus unto that people: <HI>If thou turn away thy foot from the Sab|bath from doing thy plea&s;ure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable, and &s;halt honour him, not doing thine own wayes, nor finding thine own plea&s;ure, nor &s;pea|king thine own words; then &s;halt thou delight thy &s;elf in the Lord.</HI> But if we look better on this Text, and compare it with <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 3. of the &s;ame Chapter, where we find mention of a <HI>fa&s;t,</HI> and of the <HI>afflicting of their Souls</HI> on the day of that <HI>fa&s;t,</HI> we may &s;ee ea&s;ily that the Text &s;o much in&s;i&s;ted on by our <HI>Sabbatarians,</HI> relates onely to the <HI>day of Atonement;</HI> which being a day of publick humiliation, and of confe&s;&s;ing their &s;ins to the Lord their God, required a &s;tricter withholding of them&s;elves from their lawful plea&s;ures, then any of the weekly <HI>Sabbaths.</HI> So as admitting that this <HI>whole day</HI> was by God required to be &s;pent in &s;ome religious Acts of &s;olemn wor&s;hip&punc; (though never kept &s;o by the <HI>Iewes</HI>) yet was it but <HI>one whole day</HI> in a year, and that injoyn'd al&s;o by a <HI>po&s;itive</HI> Law; which if it be &s;ufficient
<PB N="14" REF="10">
to di&s;charge the obligation laid upon us by the <HI>Law of Nature,</HI> the ob&s;ervation of the <HI>Sabbath</HI> formerly, of the <HI>Lords day</HI> now, may be thought &s;uperfluous. And if no &s;uch <HI>whole day</HI> were kept, or required to be kept by the <HI>Iewes,</HI> Gods peculiar peo|ple, there is &s;mall hope to find it among&s;t the <HI>Gentiles;</HI> who did too much attend their profit, and indulge their plea&s;ures, to &s;pend whole dayes upon the &s;ervice of their gods. I &s;peak here of that which the <HI>Gentiles</HI> did in ordinary and common cour&s;e, as a thing con&s;tantly required of them, and ob&s;erved by them; and not of any extraordinary and occa&s;ional action, &s;uch as the <HI>three dayes fa&s;t</HI> which was kept in <HI>Nineve</HI> by the Kings command, upon that fearful Proclamation which was made a|gain&s;t it by the Prophet <HI>Ionah.</HI> As for the <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> I dare with confidence affirm, that the &s;pending of the whole Lords day in the acts of wor&s;hip, was never required of them, or of any of them, by any Imperial Edict, or National Law, or Con&s;titution of the Church, till the year 1615. at what time it was enjoyned by the <HI>Articles</HI> of the Church of <HI>Ireland;</HI> as &s;hall be proved at large hereafter, when that pa&s;&s;age in tho&s;e <HI>Articles</HI> comes to be examined.</P>
<P>The Lord Primates fir&s;t Propo&s;ition being thus blown off, we next proceed to the examination of the &s;econd, that is to &s;ay, <HI>That the &s;olemn day of wor&s;hip &s;hould be one in &s;even, was</HI> juris Divini po&s;itivi, <HI>recorded in the fourth Commandment.</HI> A pro|po&s;ition which will find few Friends, and many Adver&s;aries, e&s;pecially as it comes attended with the explication which he makes upon it: For fir&s;t it cro&s;&s;eth with <HI>To&s;tatus</HI> (a man of as great indu&s;try, and as much variety of learning as any of the age he lived in) and not with him onely, but with <HI>Thomas Aquinas,</HI> the great Dictator of the Schools, and generally with all the <HI>School-men;</HI> of which thus Dr. <HI>Prideaux</HI> in his Tract <HI>De Sabbato,</HI> Sect. 3. <Q>It is, as <HI>Abulen&s;is</HI> hath it, a Dictate of the Law of <HI>Nature,</HI> that &s;ome &s;et time be put apart for Gods holy wor&s;hip: but it is <HI>Ceremonial</HI> and <HI>Legal,</HI> that this wor|&s;hip &s;hould be re&s;trained either to one day of <HI>&s;even,</HI> or the <HI>&s;eventh day</HI> preci&s;ely from the <HI>worlds creation.</HI> A time of <HI>re&s;t</HI> is therefore <HI>moral;</HI> but the <HI>&s;et time</HI> thereof is <HI>ceremonial:</HI> which is confe&s;&s;ed by tho&s;e who have &s;tood mo&s;t on this <HI>Com|mandment,</HI>
<PB N="15" REF="10">
and urged it even to a probable &s;u&s;picion of <HI>Iu|dai&s;me. Aquinas</HI> al&s;o &s;o re&s;olves it; and (which is &s;eldome &s;een in other ca&s;es) the <HI>School-men</HI> (of what Sect &s;oever) &s;ay the &s;ame: whereby (&s;aith he) we may perceive in what re|&s;pects the <HI>Fathers</HI> have &s;ometimes pronounced it to be a <HI>ce|remony,</HI> and a <HI>&s;hadow,</HI> and a <HI>figure</HI> onely.</Q> </P>
<P>In the next place it cro&s;&s;eth with the <HI>Sabbatarians</HI> of the&s;e later times, who generally make the &s;anctifying of <HI>one day</HI> in <HI>&s;even,</HI> to be the <HI>moral</HI> part of the fourth <HI>Commandment;</HI> the li|miting of that day to the la&s;t day of the week, or the &s;eventh day on which God re&s;ted, to be the <HI>ceremonial</HI> part of it: and it concerns them &s;o to do in point of intere&s;t, for otherwi&s;e they could find no ground for the <HI>morality</HI> of the Lords day Sabbath, and founding that <HI>morality</HI> on the fourth <HI>Command|ment,</HI> and pre&s;sing it upon the con&s;ciences of the people with &s;uch art and indu&s;try. So that we have three parts at lea&s;t of this one Commandment, <HI>viz.</HI> the <HI>moral</HI> part, con&s;i&s;ting in the &s;etting apart of <HI>one whole day</HI> (but no matter when) for <HI>Gods &s;o|lemn wor&s;hip;</HI> the <HI>Po&s;itive</HI> part con&s;i&s;ting (as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;aith) in &s;anctifying <HI>one day</HI> in <HI>&s;even;</HI> and then the <HI>ceremonial</HI> part in limiting that day to the &s;eventh day preci&s;ely of the cre|ation of the world, on which God re&s;ted from his labours. And &s;trange it were if the <HI>judicial</HI> Law &s;hould not put in al&s;o for a &s;hare, and make up the fourth; the man that <HI>gathered &s;ticks</HI> on the <HI>Sabbath</HI> day, being tried according to this Law, and con|demned accordingly. But here before we &s;hall proceed to the <HI>Explication,</HI> by which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> makes his opinion more agreeable to the <HI>Sabbatarians</HI> then at fir&s;t it &s;eemed, I mu&s;t ask &s;ome of the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> followers, where I &s;hall find the <HI>Institution</HI> of that <HI>po&s;itive Law,</HI> which before we heard of, by whom it was ordained, and on whom impo&s;ed; for <HI>po|&s;itive Laws</HI> mu&s;t be declared and enjoyned in terms expre&s;s, or el&s;e they are neither <HI>Laws</HI> nor <HI>Po&s;itive.</HI> If they &s;hall &s;ay that we may find the In&s;titution of it in the &s;econd of <HI>Gene&s;is,</HI> then mu&s;t it be the &s;anctifying of that very &s;eventh day on which God re&s;ted from his labours, and not the &s;etting apart, or &s;an|ctifying of one day in &s;even, as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> would fain have it. And, &s;econdly, if the &s;etting a part or &s;anctifying of one
<PB N="16" REF="11">
day in &s;even, as it is <HI>juris Divini po&s;itive,</HI> be that which is re|corded in the fourth Commandment, as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;ayes it is, then mu&s;t it al&s;o be the &s;ame very &s;eventh day on which God re&s;ted, as before; there being no other day but that com|manded to be <HI>kept holy</HI> in that Commandment, or mentioned to be <HI>ble&s;&s;ed and &s;anctified</HI> by the Lord our God. And on the other &s;ide, if &s;anctifying the &s;eventh day preci&s;ely on which God re&s;ted from his labours, either as mentioned in the fourth Commandment, or in&s;tituted in <HI>Gen.</HI> 2. be onely <HI>juris ceremo|nialis,</HI> but a matter of <HI>Ceremony,</HI> as the <HI>Sabbatarians</HI> would fain have it: then as they leave no room at all for the Lord <HI>Primates po&s;itive Law,</HI> in either Scripture; &s;o do they furni&s;h the Church with a better Argument again&s;t them&s;elves, concer|ning the Antiquity and u&s;e of <HI>Ceremonies,</HI> then hath yet been thought of. But leaving them to free them&s;elves from the&s;e perplexities at their better lei&s;ure, we mu&s;t next &s;ee what &s;ati&s;|faction will be offered to the <HI>Sabbatarians;</HI> who make the &s;an|ctifying of <HI>one day</HI> in <HI>&s;even</HI> to be the <HI>moral,</HI> not the <HI>po&s;itive</HI> part of the fourth Commandment: And herein we &s;hall find the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> very ready to give them all po&s;&s;ible content|ment. And therefore he a&s;cribes &s;o much <HI>morality</HI> to his <HI>po&s;i|tive Law,</HI> as to make it immutable, and unchangeable by <HI>Men</HI> or <HI>Angels,</HI> which is one of the chiefe priviledges of the <HI>mo|ral Law;</HI> and then he fixeth the fir&s;t In&s;titution of it on <HI>Gen.</HI> 2. which makes it equal in a manner to the Law of <HI>Nature,</HI> if not part thereof.</P>
<P>And fir&s;t, &s;aith he, <HI>I mean here &s;uch a</HI> jus Divinum po&s;iti|vum, <HI>as</HI> Bapti&s;m <HI>and the</HI> Lords Supper <HI>are e&s;tabli&s;hed by; which lieth not in the power of any</HI> Man <HI>or</HI> Angel <HI>to change or alter,</HI> pag. 105. This makes it &s;omewhat of kin to a <HI>moral</HI> precept, of which the School-men have afforded us this general Aphori&s;m, <HI>Praecepta legis naturalis e&s;&s;e indispen&s;abilia,</HI> that is to &s;ay, that the precept of the Moral Law, or the Law of Natures, are not to be di&s;pen&s;t withal upon any occa&s;ion or nece&s;&s;ity what&s;oever it be, and much le&s;s to be changed and abrogated at the will of man: which explanation (not to di&s;pute the mutability, or im|mutability of a po&s;itive Law) will find as many Adver&s;aries as the propo&s;ition; as that which cro&s;&s;eth with the Doctrine of
<PB N="17" REF="11">
&s;ome of the fir&s;t Martyrs in the Church of <HI>England,</HI> and with the fir&s;t Reformers, and other leading men of the Prote&s;tant and Reformed Churches. And fir&s;t it is re&s;olved thus by Mr. <HI>Tyndal</HI> (a man &s;ufficiently famous for his great pains in tran&s;la|ting<NOTE PLACE="marg">An&s;w. to Sir <HI>Tho. More&punc;</HI> p. 287.</NOTE> the Bible into Engli&s;h) who &s;uffered Martyrdom in the year 1536. <Q>As for the Sabbath (&s;aith he) we be Lords over <HI>the Sabbath,</HI> and may yet <HI>change it into Monday,</HI> or into any <HI>other day,</HI> as we &s;ee need; or may make every <HI>tenth day a ho|ly day onely,</HI> if we &s;ee cau&s;e why. Neither was there any cau&s;e to <HI>change it from the Saturday,</HI> but to put a difference between us and the <HI>Jewes;</HI> neither need we any <HI>holy day</HI> at all, if the people might be taught without it.</Q> And &s;omewhat to this purpo&s;e (though not in terms &s;o fully &s;ignificant and expre&s;s) we find affirmed by <HI>John Frith,</HI> (a man of much learning for his age) who &s;uffered Martyrdom in the year 1533. <Q>Our<NOTE PLACE="marg">Declarat. of Bapti&s;m. p. 96.</NOTE> fore-fathers (&s;aith he) which were in the beginning of the Church did abrogate the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> to the intent that men might have an example of <HI>Chri&s;tian liberty, &amp;c.</HI> Howbeit, becau&s;e it was <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> that a <HI>day</HI> &s;hould be re&s;erved, in which the people &s;hould come together to hear the word of God, they ordained in &s;tead of the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> which was <HI>Saturday,</HI> the next day following, which is <HI>Sunday.</HI> And although they might have kept the <HI>Saturday</HI> with the <HI>Jew,</HI> as a thing indif|ferent; yet they did much better.</Q> Which words of his, if they &s;eem rather to demon&s;trate the Churches power in alter|ing the time of wor&s;hip from <HI>one day</HI> to <HI>another,</HI> then the muta|bility of the precept on the which it was founded; I am &s;ure that <HI>Zuinglius</HI> the fir&s;t Reformer of the Church among the <HI>Switzers,</HI> will &s;peak more fully to the purpo&s;e: <Q>Hearken now<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Contra Valent. Gentil. Tom.</HI> 1. p. 254.</NOTE> <HI>Valentine</HI> (&s;aith he) by what wayes and means the <HI>Sabbath</HI> may be made a <HI>ceremony;</HI> if either we ob&s;erve that <HI>day</HI> which the <HI>Jewes</HI> once did, or think the <HI>Lords day</HI> &s;o affixed unto any time, <HI>&V;t nefas &s;it illum in aliud tempus transferre,</HI> that we conceive it an impiety it &s;hould be changed unto another; on which as well as upon that, we may not re&s;t from labour, and hearken to the word of God; if perhaps &s;uch nece&s;&s;ity &s;hould be, this would indeed make it become a <HI>ceremony.</HI></Q> But <HI>Calvin</HI> &s;peaks more plain then he, when he profe&s;&s;eth, that he
<PB N="18" REF="12">
regarded not &s;o much the number of <HI>&s;even, &V;t ejus &s;ervituti Eccle&s;ias astringeret,</HI> as to enthral the <HI>Church</HI> unto it. And this is <GAP DESC="foreign">, as much as can be comprehended in &s;o narrow a compa&s;s. More largely <HI>&V;r&s;ine</HI> the Divinity Reader in the Univer&s;ity of <HI>Heidelberg,</HI> and a great follower of <HI>Calvin</HI> in all his writings, who makes this difference between the <HI>Lords day</HI> and the <HI>Sabbath;</HI> <Q>That it was utterly unlawful to the <HI>Jewes,</HI> either to neglect or change the <HI>Sabbath</HI> without ex|pre&s;s<NOTE PLACE="marg">Catech. qu. 103.</NOTE> <HI>Commandment</HI> from God him&s;elf, as being a <HI>ceremonial</HI> part of <HI>Divine Wor&s;hip:</HI> but for the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church,</HI> that that may de&s;ign the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> or <HI>&s;econd,</HI> or any other <HI>day</HI> to Gods <HI>publick &s;ervice;</HI> &s;o that our <HI>Chri&s;tian Liberty</HI> be not thereby infringed, or any opinion of <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> or <HI>holine&s;s</HI> affixt unto them, <HI>Eccle&s;ia ver&ograve; Christiana primum, vel alium diem tri|buit mini&s;terio, &s;alva &s;ua libertate, &s;ine opinions cultus vel ne|ce&s;&s;itatis,</HI> as his own words are.</Q> <HI>Chemnitius</HI> yet more plainly for the <HI>Lutheran</HI> Churches, who frequently affirms, that it is <HI>libera ob&s;ervatio,</HI> a voluntary ob&s;ervation; that it is an e&s;pecial part of our <HI>Chri&s;tian liberty,</HI> not to be <HI>tied</HI> to <HI>dayes</HI> and <HI>times,</HI> in matters which concern Gods <HI>&s;ervice,</HI> and that the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> made it manife&s;t by their example, <HI>&s;ingulis diebus, vel quocun&abque; die,</HI> that <HI>every day</HI> or <HI>any day</HI> may by the Church be &s;et apart for religious exerci&s;es. And finally as <HI>Bullinger, Bucer, Bren|tius</HI> cited by Dr. <HI>Prideaux</HI> in his Tract <HI>De Sabbato, &amp; &egrave; no&s;tri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> non pauci,</HI> be&s;ides many others of the <HI>Reformed Churches,</HI> by telling us that the Church hath &s;till a power to change the <HI>time</HI> of <HI>wor&s;hip</HI> from <HI>one day</HI> to <HI>another,</HI> do tacitly infer that the Church hath power to change that <HI>time</HI> from the <HI>&s;eventh day</HI> to the <HI>tenth</HI> or <HI>twelfth,</HI> as well as from the <HI>fir&s;t day</HI> of the week to the <HI>third</HI> or <HI>fourth;</HI> &s;o they which teach us, that the &s;anctify|ing of <HI>one day</HI> in <HI>&s;even</HI> is not the <HI>moral</HI> part of the fourth Com|mandment, do imply no le&s;s. Of which opinion be&s;ide <HI>To&s;ta|tus</HI> and the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> before remembred, we find al&s;o <HI>Calvin</HI> to have been, <HI>Lib. In&s;tit. 2. c.</HI> 8. 11. 34. be&s;ides <HI>Simler</HI> in <HI>Exod. 20. Aretius</HI> in his common places, <HI>Loco 55. Franci&s;cus Go|marus,</HI> in his Book, <HI>De origine &amp; In&s;titutione Sabbati. Ryvet</HI> in <HI>Exod.</HI> 20. p. 190. to whom <HI>Chemnitius</HI> may be added for the <HI>Lutheran Churches.</HI> In one of which it is affirmed&punc; that the
<PB N="19" REF="12">
&s;anctifying of a &s;eventh day rather then of the eighth or ninth, <HI>juris e&s;t Divini, &s;ed ceremonialis.</HI> And if it be <HI>ceremonial</HI> only,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Simner</HI> in Ex|od. 20.</NOTE> though of Gods appointment, it mu&s;t be &s;ubject unto change and mutability, as well as <HI>Circumci&s;ion</HI> and the <HI>Pa&s;sover,</HI> or any other of the <HI>legal</HI> or <HI>Mo&s;aical</HI> Ordinances. And by ano|ther it is &s;aid, that it can neither be made good by the <HI>Law of Nature,</HI> or <HI>Text of Scripture,</HI> or any &s;olid Argument drawn<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gomarus de orig. Sabbati.</NOTE> from thence, <HI>&V;num &egrave; &s;eptem diebus ex vi praecepti quarti ad cultum Dei nece&s;&s;ari&ograve; ob&s;ervandum,</HI> that by the fourth com|mandment, <HI>one day</HI> in <HI>&s;even</HI> is of nece&s;&s;ity to be dedicated to Gods &s;ervice: which does as plainly contradict the Lord <HI>Pri|mates</HI> &s;econd <HI>Propo&s;ition,</HI> as the <HI>Explication</HI> of it is found con|trary to the re&s;t before.</P>
<P>The &s;econd way whereby the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> doth &s;trengthen and &s;upport his <HI>po&s;itive</HI> Law, and makes it to come more near to the <HI>Sabbatarians</HI> of the&s;e later times, is by his fixing the fir&s;t <HI>In&s;titution</HI> of it on the &s;econd of <HI>Gene&s;is,</HI> which makes it equal in a manner to the Law of <HI>Nature,</HI> if not part thereof. For that the in&s;titution of it in the fir&s;t beginning, is the very &s;ame with making it a part or branch of the Law of Nature, may be inferred fir&s;t from the&s;e words of <HI>To&s;tatus</HI> in <HI>Gen. 2. Num&punc; Sabbatum c&ugrave;m &agrave; Deo &s;anctificatum fuerit in primordio rerum, &amp;c.</HI> whether the <HI>Sabbath</HI> being &s;anctified by God in the infancy of the World, had been ob&s;erved by men, by the <HI>Law of Nature.</HI> And &s;econdly, it may be inferred from Dr. <HI>Prideaux</HI> in his Tract <HI>De Sabbato,</HI> Sect. 2. <Q>Some, &s;aith he, fetch the <HI>Original</HI> of the <HI>Sabbath</HI> from the beginning of the <HI>World,</HI> when <HI>God fir&s;t ble&s;&s;ed the &s;eventh day and &s;anctified it.</HI> Whence well this que&s;tion may be rai&s;ed, <HI>Whether before the publi&s;hing of</HI> Mo|&s;es'<HI>s Law, the Sabbath was to be ob&s;erved by the Law of Na|ture?</HI> </Q>And that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> doth <HI>fetch the original of the Sabbath from the beginning of the World,</HI> is evident from a pa&s;|&s;age in his Letter to Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e,</HI> p. 78. In which, &s;aith he, (ad|dre&s;&s;ing his &s;peech unto that Doctor) The <HI>Text of</HI> Gen. 2. 3. (<HI>as you well note) is &s;o clear for the ancient in&s;titution of the</HI> Sab|bath, <HI>and &s;o fully vindicated by Dr.</HI> Ryvet <HI>from the exceptions of</HI> Gomarus, <HI>that I &s;ee no rea&s;on in the earth, why any man &s;hould make doubt thereof.</HI> And yet the matter is not pa&s;t all doubt
<PB N="20" REF="13">
neither, I am &s;ure of that: For other men as eminent in all parts of Learning, and as great Ma&s;ters of Rea&s;on as Doctor <HI>Ryvet</HI> ever was, have affirmed the contrary; conceiving fur|ther, that tho&s;e words in the &s;econd of <HI>Gene&s;is</HI> are &s;poken in the way of a <HI>Prolep&s;is</HI> or <HI>Anticipation:</HI> Gods <HI>&s;anctifying the day of his Re&s;t,</HI> being mentioned in that time and place, not becau&s;e the Sabbath was then in&s;tituted, but becau&s;e it was the occa&s;i|on of &s;etting apart that day by the fourth Commandment to be a <HI>Sabbath,</HI> or a day of holy repo&s;e and re&s;t to the Hou&s;e of <HI>I&s;rael.</HI> Of this opinion was <HI>To&s;tatus</HI> in his Comment on <HI>Gen.</HI> 2. countenanced by <HI>Io&s;ephus</HI> Antiq. <HI>l. 1. c.</HI> 2. by <HI>Solomon Iarchi,</HI> one of the principal of the <HI>Rabbins,</HI> and many other learned men of the <HI>Iewi&s;h</HI> Nation, as appears by <HI>Mercer</HI> a learned Pro|te&s;tant Writer, and one well ver&s;t in all the learning of the <HI>Iewes,</HI> in his Comment on <HI>Gen.</HI> 2. who addes <HI>de proprio,</HI> that from Gods re&s;ting on that day, <HI>Po&s;tea praeceptum de Sabbato natum e&s;t,</HI> the <HI>Commandment</HI> for <HI>&s;anctifying</HI> the <HI>&s;eventh</HI> day was afterwards given. And this opinion of <HI>To&s;tatus</HI> pa&s;&s;ed generally for good and currant with all &s;orts of people till <HI>Am|bro&s;e Catharinus,</HI> one of the principal &s;ticklers in the Councel of <HI>Trent,</HI> oppo&s;ed him in it; who though he grant the like <HI>Anticipation,</HI> Gen. 1. v. 27. di&s;alloweth it here. And di&s;allow|ing it in this place, he not onely cro&s;&s;eth with <HI>To&s;tatus,</HI> but with &s;ome of the mo&s;t learned <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Writers, both of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> and the <HI>Protestant</HI> Churches, who hold that the Sab|bath was not in&s;tituted in the fir&s;t beginning, nor impo&s;ed on <HI>Adam</HI> as a Law, to be ob&s;erved by him and his po&s;terity. Of this opinion was <HI>Pererius</HI> a learned and indu&s;trious man of the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> party, in his Comment on the &s;econd of <HI>Gene&s;is</HI> And of this opinion was <HI>Gomarus,</HI> that great undertaker again&s;t the <HI>Arminians,</HI> in his Tract <HI>De origine &amp; in&s;titution: Sabbati,</HI> with many other eminent men of both Religions, too many to be named in this place and time: who&s;e opinions in this point can|not otherwi&s;e be made good&punc; and ju&s;tifiable, but by maintaining an <HI>Anticipation</HI> in this Text of <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> though few of them &s;peak their minds &s;o fully and explicitely in it as Dr. <HI>Prideaux,</HI> no way inferiour to the be&s;t of tho&s;e who opine the contrary. <HI>For what weak&punc; proofs are they</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>which before were urged?</HI>
<PB N="21" REF="13">
God ble&s;&s;ed the &s;eventh day and &s;anctified it; <HI>therefore he then commanded it to be kept</HI> holy <HI>by his people.</HI> And then he addes&mdash;<HI>Mo&s;es</HI> (as <HI>Abulen&s;is</HI> hath it) <HI>&s;pake this by way of</HI> Anticipation; <HI>rather to &s;hew the</HI> equity <HI>of the</HI> Commandment, <HI>then the</HI> original thereof. So he in the third Section of his Tract <HI>De Sab|bato.</HI></P>
<P>Nor are &s;uch <HI>Anticipations</HI> &s;trange in Holy Scripture; for be&s;ides that <HI>Anticipation</HI> in the fir&s;t of <HI>Gene&s;is,</HI> ver&s;. 27. al|lowed by <HI>Catharinus,</HI> as before was &s;aid, defended by St. <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tome</HI> on <HI>Gen. 2. Origen</HI> on <HI>Gen. 1. Gregory</HI> the Great in his <HI>Morals,</HI> lib. 32. cap. 9. and finally ju&s;tified by St. <HI>Hierom,</HI> who in his Tract <HI>against the Jewes</HI> doth affirm as much; we find the like <HI>Gen 12. 8. &amp; Judges</HI> c. 2. v. 1. both which are granted with|out &s;cruple by Dr. <HI>Bound,</HI> the fir&s;t who &s;et on foot the <HI>Sab|batarian</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Bound, Editio 2. p. 10.</NOTE> Doctrines in the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>England.</HI> The like <HI>Anti|cipation</HI> is ob&s;erved in <HI>Exod.</HI> 16. 32. as appears plainly, both by <HI>Lyra</HI> and <HI>Vatablus,</HI> two right learned men; the fir&s;t a <HI>Jew,</HI> the &s;econd eminently &s;tudied in the <HI>Jewi&s;h Antiquities.</HI> And yet the ob&s;ervation is much elder then either of them, made by St. <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> who lived long before the time of <HI>Lyra,</HI> in his 62. Que&s;tion on the Book of <HI>Exodus;</HI> and by <HI>Calvin</HI> who preceded <HI>Vatablus,</HI> in his Comment on that Tract of Scripture&punc; The&s;e pa&s;&s;ages and Te&s;timonies I have onely toucht and poin|ted at, as plainly and briefly as I could, for the Readers better &s;atisfaction in the pre&s;ent difference; referring for the Quota|tions at large to the <HI>History of the Sabbath,</HI> Part 1. c. 1. n. 2, 3. 4. and there he &s;hall be &s;ure to find them. From all which laid to|gether it is there concluded, that for this pa&s;&s;age of the Scrip|ture, there is nothing found unto the contrary, but that it was &s;et down in that place and time, by a plain and neer <HI>Anticipati|on;</HI> and doth relate unto the time wherein <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> wrote: and therefore no &s;ufficient warrant to fetch the in&s;titution of the <HI>Sabbath</HI> from the fir&s;t beginning. Nor could I find when I had Doctor <HI>Ryvet</HI> under my eye, that his Arguments again&s;t <HI>Go|marus</HI> were of weight enough to counter ballance the Autho|rity of &s;o many learned Writers, both <HI>Jewes</HI> and <HI>Christians;</HI> or to weigh down &s;o many Texts of holy Scripture, in which the like <HI>Anticipations</HI> are ob&s;erved by <HI>Origen, Hierom, Chry|&s;o&s;tome,</HI>
<PB N="22" REF="14">
and <HI>Gregory</HI> the <HI>Great,</HI> men of renown for Piety and Learning in the primitive times, and by many other learned men in the times &s;ucceeding, though otherwi&s;e of different per&s;wa&s;ions in the things of God. But <HI>Ryvet</HI> and the Lord <HI>Pri|mate</HI> held the &s;ame opinion, both of them grounding the fir&s;t in&s;titution of the <HI>Sabbath</HI> on a <HI>Po&s;itive Law. Legem de Sabbato po&s;itivam non naturalem agno&s;cimus,</HI> are the words of <HI>Ryvet,</HI> p. 173. which is the &s;ame with the Lord <HI>Primates jus Divinum po&s;itivum,</HI> though in different terms. And therefore it can be no marvel if <HI>Ryvets</HI> Arguments be cried up for vindicating that pa&s;&s;age in the &s;econd of <HI>Gene&s;is</HI> in &s;o full a manner, that the Lord <HI>Primate can &s;ee no rea&s;on in the earth, why any man &s;hould make doubt thereof.</HI> And yet there may be good rea&s;on for it, though he &s;ee it not.</P>
<P>Now that the <HI>&s;eventh day Sabbath</HI> was not a part, or branch of the Law of Nature, which is ob&s;erved to be a nece&s;&s;ary con|&s;equent, following upon the fixing of the fir&s;t in&s;titution of it in the &s;econd of <HI>Gene&s;is,</HI> will evidently appear by the concur|rent te&s;timonies of learned men, both of the elder and la&s;t times. It was indeed naturally ingraffed in the heart of man, that God was to be wor&s;hipped by him, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;aid the Grecian Orator, <HI>Imprimis venerare Dium,</HI> &s;aid the Latine Poet. And it was al&s;o naturally ingraffed in the heart of man, not onely that &s;ome time &s;hould be &s;et apart for the wor&s;hip of God, of which we have &s;o many evident ex|amples in the <HI>Greeks</HI> and <HI>Romans,</HI> that no man can make que|&s;tion of it, but that in all the Acts of wor&s;hip a man &s;hould totally ab&s;tract him&s;elf from all worldly thoughts, which might divert him from the bu&s;ine&s;s he was then about. <HI>Orantis e&s;t ni|hil ni&s;i coele&s;tia cogitare,</HI> as we learned when School-boyes. But that this time &s;hould rather be the <HI>&s;eventh day</HI> then any other, is not a part or branch of the Law of <HI>Nature,</HI> never accounted &s;o by the Ancient Writers, nor reckoned &s;o by &s;ome of tho&s;e of note and eminency, who otherwi&s;e are great friends to the<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Ezek. c. 20.</NOTE> <HI>Lords day Sabbath.</HI> Certain I am that <HI>Theodoret</HI> doth not &s;o account it, who telleth us that the <HI>ob&s;ervation of the</HI> Sabbath <HI>came not in by</HI> nature, <HI>but by</HI> Mo&s;es'<HI>s Law; Sabbati ob&s;ervandi non natura magi&s;tra &s;ed latio legis,</HI> which is &s;hort, but full. Nor
<PB N="23" REF="14">
is it &s;o accounted by <HI>Sedulius,</HI> another of the ancient Writers,<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Rom. 3&punc;</NOTE> who ranks it among&s;t the <HI>legal ceremonies,</HI> &amp; not among&s;t tho&s;e things <HI>quae legi naturali congruunt,</HI> which are directed meerly by the Law of Nature; nor by <HI>Dama&s;cen</HI> among&s;t the Greeks, who doth a&s;&s;ure us, <GAP DESC="foreign">,<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Orthod. fi|de l. 24. c. 4.</NOTE> that is to &s;ay, that when there was no Law enacted, no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> no Scripture in&s;pired by God, that then there was no <HI>Sabbath</HI> neither; nor finally by our venerable<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Luk. 19.</NOTE> <HI>Beda,</HI> who lived about the &s;ame time with <HI>Dama&s;cen,</HI> and was of the &s;ame judgement with him in this particular: for he a&s;|&s;ures us, <HI>That to the Fathers before the Law, all dayes were e|qual;</HI> the &s;eventh <HI>day having no prerogative before the others,</HI> which he calls, <HI>naturalis Sabbati libertatem,</HI> the liberty of the <HI>natural Sabbath;</HI> and by that liberty (if I rightly under&s;tand his meaning) men were no more re&s;trained to one day then un|to another, no more unto the <HI>&s;eventh</HI> then the <HI>fourth</HI> or <HI>eighth. To&s;tatus</HI> to the &s;ame effect, for the middle times, who telleth<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Exod. 2. qu. 11.</NOTE> us, <Q>That how&s;oever the <HI>Hebrew</HI> people, or any other before the giving of the Law, were bound to &s;et a part <HI>&s;ome time</HI> for <HI>religious</HI> duties, <HI>Non tamen magis in Sabbato qu&agrave;m in quolibet aliorum dierum,</HI> yet were they no more bound to the <HI>Sabbath</HI> day, then to any other.</Q> For this la&s;t age, though I could help my &s;elfe by many good Authors, yet I &s;hall re&s;t content with two, that is to &s;ay, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> him&s;elfe, and Doctor <HI>Ryvet</HI> before named, who build the in&s;titution of the <HI>Sabbath</HI> on a <HI>po&s;itive Law,</HI> and not upon the <HI>Law of Nature.</HI> And therefore if the in&s;tituting of the <HI>Sabbath</HI> in the fir&s;t begin|ning, be in effect to make it all one with the <HI>Law of Nature,</HI> as was inferred from Dr. <HI>Prideaux</HI> and <HI>To&s;tatus;</HI> it mu&s;t needs follow thereupon, that the <HI>Sabbath</HI> not being lookt on as a part of the <HI>Law of Nature,</HI> could not be in&s;tituted (as the Lord <HI>Pri|mate</HI> &s;aies it was) in the fir&s;t beginning.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="3" TYPE="section">
<PB N="24" REF="15">
<HEAD>SECT. III.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The &s;anctifying of the Sabbath in the fir&s;t beginning, imports a Commandment given to <HI>Adam</HI> for the keeping of it. No &s;uch Commandment given to <HI>Adam</HI> in his own per&s;onal capacity, nor as the common root of mankind. The Patriarchs before the flood did not keep the <HI>Sabbath.</HI> The <HI>Sabbath</HI> not ob&s;erved by the Patriarchs of the line of <HI>Sem,</HI> nor by the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> in <HI>Egypt.</HI> That the Commandment of the <HI>Sabbath</HI> was pecu|liar onely to the Jewes, proved by the te&s;timony of the Fathers, and the <HI>Jewes</HI> them&s;elves. That the <HI>&s;eventh day</HI> of every week was not kept <HI>holy</HI> by the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> affirmed by &s;ome of their own be&s;t Authors, and &s;ome late Divines. The <HI>Jewes</HI> derided by the <HI>Gentiles</HI> for their &s;eventh day <HI>Sabbath.</HI> The Lord <HI>Primates</HI> Antithe&s;is, <HI>viz.</HI> that the &s;eventh day was more honoured by the <HI>Gentiles</HI> then the other &s;ix, not proved by any ancient Au|thor, either <HI>Greek</HI> or <HI>Latine.</HI> The three <HI>Greek</HI> Poets whom he cites, do not &s;erve his turn; and how they came to know that the Creation of the World was fini&s;hed in &s;even dayes, which is all they &s;ay. The pa&s;&s;age of <HI>Tertullian</HI> in his Tract <HI>Ad Nationes,</HI> as little to his purpo&s;e as the three <HI>Greek</HI> Poets. The meaning of that Author in his <HI>Apologeticum</HI> cap. 16. not rightly un|der&s;tood by the Lord <HI>Primate;</HI> who&s;e Arguments from <HI>Tibul|lus, Lucian,</HI> and <HI>Lampridius</HI> conclude as little as the re&s;t. The ob&s;ervation of the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> and other <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremonies taken up by the later <HI>Gentiles,</HI> not upon any old Tradition, but by Imitation. The custome of the <HI>Romans</HI> in incorporating all Reli|gions into their own, and the rea&s;on of it.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>BUt there is one Conclu&s;ion more which follows on the <HI>in|&s;tituting</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ho&s;p in de Fe&s;t. Ethn. &amp; Jud. l. 3. c. 3.</NOTE> <HI>of the</HI> Sabbath <HI>in the first beginning,</HI> and is like to afford us more work then the other did. For if it be all one to <HI>ble&s;s and &s;anctifie the &s;eventh day</HI> in the beginning of the World, as to impo&s;e it then on <HI>Adam</HI> to be kept and &s;anctified, as &s;ome
<PB N="25" REF="15">
&s;ay it is; it may be very well concluded, that if no &s;uch com|mandment was then given to <HI>Adam,</HI> the <HI>Sabbath</HI> was not <HI>ble&s;|&s;ed and &s;anctified</HI> in the fir&s;t beginning. Nor can it &s;tand with Piety &amp; Rea&s;on that it &s;hould be otherwi&s;e; For to &s;uppo&s;e, that God did &s;et apart, and <HI>&s;anctifie the &s;eventh day</HI> for a day of wor&s;hip, and yet that no <HI>Commandment</HI> &s;hould be given for the keeping of it, what is it but to call in que&s;tion the mo&s;t infinite wi&s;edom of Almighty God, which never did any thing in vain? unle&s;s perhaps we may conceive with <HI>Tornelius,</HI> that the Angels<NOTE PLACE="marg">Annal. d. 7.</NOTE> &s;olemnized this fir&s;t <HI>Sabbath</HI> with joyful &s;houts and acclamati|ons, as he gathereth from <HI>Iob</HI> 38. 4, 6. Or that the <HI>WORD,</HI> the &s;econd per&s;on in the <HI>Syntax</HI> of the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Trinity,</HI> did take<NOTE PLACE="marg">De creat. homi|nis l. 1. ad fi|nem.</NOTE> our humane &s;hape upon him, and came down to <HI>Adam,</HI> and &s;pent the whole day with him in &s;piritual exerci&s;es, as is affirm|ed by <HI>Zanchius,</HI> with an <HI>ego non dubito,</HI> as a matter which no man need make doubt of, but he that li&s;ted. For if any &s;uch Commandment was given to <HI>Adam,</HI> it mu&s;t be either given him in his own <HI>per&s;onal capacity,</HI> or as he was the common <HI>root</HI> of all <HI>mankind,</HI> which was then <HI>virtually</HI> in his loyns, as <HI>Levi</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hebr. 7. 10.</NOTE> is &s;aid by the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> to have paid Tithes unto <HI>Melchi&s;edeck,</HI> be|cau&s;e he was then virtually in the Loyns of his Father <HI>Abraham</HI> when tho&s;e Tithes were paid. But no &s;uch precept or command was given to <HI>Adam</HI> in his own per&s;onal <HI>capacity,</HI> for then the <HI>Sabbath</HI> mu&s;t have died and been buried in the &s;ame grave with him; nor was it given to him as the common <HI>root</HI> of all <HI>man|kind,</HI> for then all the Nations of the World had been bound to keep it: the contrary whereof we &s;hall &s;ee anon. In the mean time let us take with us the Authority of the Ancient Writers, by &s;ome of which it is affirmed that no <HI>commandment</HI> was given by God to our Father <HI>Adam,</HI> but that he &s;hould ab&s;tain from eating of the fruit of the <HI>Tree</HI> which grew in the <HI>middle of the Garden;</HI> as namely by <HI>Tertullian adver&s;us Iudaeos. Ba&s;il de jejunio. Ambro&s;e Lib. de Elia &amp; jejunio c. 3. Chry&s;o&s;tom Hom&punc;</HI> 14. &amp; 16. on the Book of <HI>Gene&s;is. Au&s;tin de Civitate l. 14. c.</HI> 12. As al&s;o by many other Chri&s;tian Doctors of all times and ages, who from hence aggravate the offence of <HI>A|dam,</HI> in that he had but one Commandment impo&s;ed on him, and yet kept it not. By others it is &s;aid expre&s;ly that <HI>Adam</HI>
<PB N="24" REF="16">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="25" REF="16">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="26" REF="17">
never kept the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> as certainly he would have done at &s;ome time or other, if any &s;uch <HI>Commandment</HI> had been given him by the Lord his God; as namely by <HI>Iu&s;tin Martyr</HI> in his <HI>Dia|logue</HI> with <HI>Trypho</HI> the <HI>Iew, Tertullian</HI> in his Book <HI>adver&s;us Iu|daeos,</HI> which may be gathered al&s;o in the way of a nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence from the words of <HI>Eu&s;ebius, De Praep. Evang.</HI> l. 7. c. 8. and tho&s;e of <HI>Epiphanius adver&s;us Haere&s;es</HI> l. 1. n. 5. Who&s;e words we have laid down at large, <HI>Hi&s;t. of Sub.</HI> p. 1. c. 1. n. 5. This is enough to prove that no command for keeping of the <HI>Sabbath day</HI> was given to <HI>Adam</HI> in his own <HI>per&s;onal capacity,</HI> and no more then &s;o; be&s;ides the nece&s;&s;ary expiring of the <HI>Sab|bath</HI> with him, had it been &s;o given. And that it was not gi|ven to him as the common <HI>Root</HI> of <HI>Mankind,</HI> will appear as plainly, by the not keeping of that day by any which de&s;cen|ded from him, till it was declared unto the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> in the fall of <HI>Mannah,</HI> and afterwards impo&s;ed upon them by the <HI>fourth Commandment:</HI> for if it had been kept by any, it mu&s;t have been by tho&s;e of the <HI>godly Line,</HI> from whom our <HI>Saviour</HI> was to derive his <HI>Humane nature;</HI> and yet it hath been proved out of very good Authors that it was never kept by <HI>Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch,</HI> or <HI>Methu&s;alem,</HI> nor finally by <HI>Noah</HI> him&s;elfe, though called in Scripture by the name of a <HI>Preacher of Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s;</HI> the proofs whereof may be found at large in the <HI>Hi|&s;tory of the Sabbath,</HI> Part 1. Chap. 2. Num. 6, 7, 8, 9. And if it were not kept by tho&s;e of the <HI>godly Line,</HI> we have no hope to find any thing for the keeping of it in the hou&s;e of <HI>Cain,</HI> or in the families of any of the other Sons of <HI>Adam,</HI> who&s;e extreme wickedne&s;s grew &s;o abominable in the &s;ight of God, that he was forced to wa&s;h away the filth thereof by a general <HI>Deluge.</HI> After the Flood, we find the world repeopled by the Sons of <HI>Noah,</HI> the <HI>godly Line</HI> being as ignorant of the Sabbath as the re&s;t of the Nations: for it hath been &s;ufficiently proved out of very good Authors, that neither <HI>Sem</HI> nor <HI>Melchi&s;edech</HI> (if a different per&s;on from him) nor <HI>Heber,</HI> nor <HI>Lot,</HI> ever kept the Sabbath; and that it was not kept by <HI>Abraham,</HI> or any of his Sons, as neither by <HI>Iacob, Io&s;eph, Mo&s;es,</HI> or any of the <HI>Hou&s;e of I&s;rael,</HI> as long as they remained in <HI>Egypt,</HI> in the Hou&s;e of Bondage; for which &s;ee <HI>Hi&s;t. of Sab.</HI> Part. 1. c. 3. n. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9.
<PB N="27" REF="17">
And if we find no &s;uch ob&s;ervance in the Hou&s;e of <HI>Sem,</HI> who were more careful of their wayes, and walked agreeably to the declared will and plea&s;ure of Almighty God, it were in vain to look for it in the Hou&s;e of <HI>Iaphet,</HI> or in that of the accur&s;ed <HI>Cain,</HI> the founders of the <HI>Europaean</HI> and <HI>African</HI> Nations, or among&s;t any others which de&s;cended from the Sons of <HI>Sem,</HI> who pa&s;s together with the re&s;t by the name of <HI>Gentiles.</HI></P>
<P>Now that the <HI>Gentiles</HI> were not bound to ob&s;erve the Sabbath, is proved by divers of the <HI>Fathers,</HI> and many of the greate&s;t Clerks among the <HI>Iewes,</HI> whom affirm expre&s;ly that the Com|mandment of the Sabbath was given to none but tho&s;e of the <HI>Hou&s;e of I&s;rael.</HI> Of this mind was St. <HI>Au&s;tin Epi&s;t. 119. De Gen. ad lit. l. 4. c. 11, 13. Epi&s;t. 86. Ad Ca&s;alanum;</HI> in all which places he appropriates this Commandment to the <HI>Iewes</HI> or <HI>He|brews.</HI> St. <HI>Cyril</HI> in <HI>Ezek.</HI> h. 20. <HI>Theodoret</HI> in <HI>Ezek. 20. Proco|pius Gazaeus</HI> in <HI>Gen.</HI> 21. And for the <HI>Iews,</HI> it was a common opi|nion received among&s;t them, that the Sabbath was given to<NOTE PLACE="marg">Chap. 16. 29.</NOTE> them onely, and not to the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> as <HI>Petrus Galatinus</HI> proves from the be&s;t of their <HI>Authors;</HI> who thereupon inferreth, <HI>Quod Gentes non obligantur ad Sabbatum,</HI> that the Gentiles were not bound to ob&s;erve the Sabbath. The like may be gathered from <HI>Io&s;ephus,</HI> who in many places calls the Sabbath <GAP DESC="foreign">, or a national cu&s;tome, <HI>Antiq. lib. 4. cap 8. &amp; de bello lib. 2. cap.</HI> 16. to whom I &s;hall now adde another of later date, of my Lord <HI>Primates</HI> own commending, that is to &s;ay, <HI>Mana&s;&s;es Ben I&s;rael,</HI> who telleth in his Book <HI>De Creatione,</HI> that <HI>the ob&s;ervation of the Sabbath was commanded onely unto the</HI> I&s;raelites, <HI>and that all the</HI> Duties <HI>which the Heathen were tied unto, were compri&s;ed in the precepts given to the &s;ons of Noah,</HI> as is affirmed in the Letter to Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e,</HI> p. 78.</P>
<P>And that the Sabbath was not kept by the Gentiles (as well as not impo&s;ed upon them by any Commandment) the <HI>Hi&s;tori|an</HI> hath made good by two &s;everal <HI>Mediums;</HI> whereof the fir&s;t is taken from the writings of the Gentiles them&s;elves, by which it doth appear that they gave no greater re&s;pect to the Satur|day, then to any other day whatever; and that though they celebrate the &s;eventh day as a fe&s;tival day, yet was it not the &s;eventh day of the <HI>weeek,</HI> but the &s;eventh day onely of every
<PB N="28" REF="18">
<HI>month,</HI> which might happen as well upon any of the &s;ix dayes as upon the Saturday. And &s;o it is ob&s;erved by <HI>Philo</HI> a right learned Jew, who puts this difference between the Gentiles and the Jews; that divers Cities of the Gentiles did &s;olemnize the &s;eventh day, <GAP DESC="foreign">, once a month, beginning their<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Decalogo.</NOTE> account with the <HI>new Moon,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, but that the Jewes did <HI>keep every</HI> &s;eventh day con&s;tantly. Nor was the &s;eventh day of the month on which they &s;acrificed to <HI>Apollo,</HI> e&s;teemed more holy by the Gentiles then their other Fe&s;tivals, on which they tendered their Devotions to their other Gods; and in particular was not accounted more <HI>holy</HI> then the fir&s;t or fourth, which <HI>He&s;iod</HI> placeth in the &s;ame parallel with the &s;e|venth in this following ver&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI></P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">. In which if any<NOTE PLACE="marg">Opera &amp; dies.</NOTE> &s;hould take notice that the attribute of <GAP DESC="foreign">, or holy, is affixt unto the <HI>&s;eventh</HI> day onely, the <HI>Scholia&s;t</HI> on that Author &s;hall remove that &s;cruple, <HI>A novilunio exor&s;us tres laudat, omnes &s;a|cras dicens, &s;eptimam etiam ut</HI> Apollinis <HI>natalem celebrans;</HI> and tells us that all three are accounted holy, and that the &s;eventh was al&s;o celebrated as <HI>Apollo</HI>'s birth-day. As for the fir&s;t day of the month, as is ob&s;erved by <HI>Alexander ab Alexandro,</HI> it was<NOTE PLACE="marg">Dies Geniales. l. 3. c. 18.</NOTE> con&s;ecrated by the <HI>Greeks</HI> to <HI>Apollo</HI> al&s;o, the fourth to <HI>Mercury,</HI> the eighth to <HI>The&s;eus,</HI> becau&s;e he was derived from <HI>Neptune,</HI> to whom, as <HI>Plutarch</HI> &s;aith, they offered &s;acrifice on the &s;ame day al&s;o. So was the &s;econd day of the month con&s;ecrated to the <HI>Bonus Genius,</HI> the third and fifteenth to <HI>Minerva,</HI> the la&s;t<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ho&s;pin. De orig. Fe&s;t. c. 5.</NOTE> to <HI>Pluto,</HI> and every twentieth day by the <HI>Epicures</HI> to their God the <HI>Belly.</HI> Thus al&s;o had the Romans their &s;everal Fe&s;tivals in every month, &s;ome in one month, and &s;ome in another; the ninth day onely of every month being &s;olemnly ob&s;erved by them (and from thence called <HI>Nundinae</HI>) becau&s;e devoted unto <HI>Iupiter</HI> the mo&s;t &s;upreme Deity. But what need more be &s;aid in this, when we have <HI>confitentem reum?</HI> For Dr. <HI>Bound,</HI> the fir&s;t that &s;et on foot the&s;e new Sabbath-Doctrines, doth confe&s;s ingeniou&s;ly, <HI>That the memory of Weeks and Sabbaths was altoge|ther</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Edit. p. 65.</NOTE> <HI>&s;uppre&s;&s;ed and buried amongst the Gentiles;</HI> to whom I &s;hall &s;ubjoyn <HI>de novo</HI> the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> him&s;elf, who though he &s;tick hard to prove that the Saturday was held in greater e&s;timation
<PB N="29" REF="18">
by the <HI>Gentiles</HI> then all the re&s;t yet he acknowledgeth at the la&s;t, <HI>that they did not celebrate their</HI> Saturdayes <HI>with that &s;olem|nity wherewith them&s;elves did their Annual Fe&s;tivities, or the</HI> Jews <HI>their weekly Sabbaths,</HI> p. 85. therefore not kept by them as a <HI>Sabbath,</HI> there's no doubt of that; which was by the fir&s;t of the two <HI>Mediums</HI> to be clearly proved.</P>
<P>The &s;econd <HI>Medium</HI> by which it is proved by the Hi&s;torian, that the Gentiles did not keep the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> is gathered from tho&s;e bitter &s;coffs and <HI>Satyrical</HI> jeers, which the Gentiles put upon the Jewes (and &s;uch of their own people as did <HI>Judaize</HI>) for the ob&s;ervation of the &s;ame. Of this we have an ev<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">dent proof in the Prophet <HI>Ieremiah,</HI> who telleth us in his book of <HI>Lamentations,</HI> how the adver&s;aries of the Jewes did mock at their <HI>Sabbath,</HI> c. 1. v. 7. And <HI>adver&s;aries</HI> they had of all <HI>&s;orts,</HI> and of different <HI>Countreyes,</HI> who did mock at them for their ob&s;ervation of the <HI>Sabbath day.</HI> The name derived by <HI>Apion</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Jo&s;eph. adver|&s;us Apion. l. 2.</NOTE> from <HI>Sabbo,</HI> an <HI>Egyptian</HI> word, &s;ignifying an inflammation in the privy parts, from which by re&s;ting on the <HI>&s;eventh day</HI> they received &s;ome ea&s;e; then which what greater &s;corn could be put upon it by a wretched Sycophant? But others with more mode&s;ty, but as little truth, from <HI>Sabbo</HI> &s;ignifying the <HI>Spleen,</HI> with which the Jews were mi&s;erably tormented till on the &s;e|venth day relea&s;ed from it; for which con&s;ult <HI>Giraldus</HI> in his Book <HI>De Annis &amp; Men&s;ibus:</HI> By <HI>Per&s;ius</HI> in his fifth <HI>Satyre</HI> called <HI>recutita Sabbata,</HI> in which their <HI>Circumci&s;ion</HI> and their <HI>Sab|baths</HI> were both jeered together: by <HI>Ovid Peregrina Sabbata,</HI> in his fir&s;t Book <HI>De Remedio Amoris,</HI> becau&s;e not known or commonly ob&s;erved among&s;t the <HI>Romans:</HI> the men them&s;elves by <HI>Martial</HI> in his Epigram to <HI>Ba&s;&s;a,</HI> reprochfully nick-named <HI>Sabbatarii:</HI> Accu&s;ed for &s;pending the &s;eventh part of their lives in &s;loth and idlene&s;s by <HI>Seneca apud. Augu&s;t. de Civit. Dei</HI> l. 6. c. 11. <HI>Iuvenal Sat. 14. Tacitus Hi&s;t.</HI> l. 5. and therefore fit|ted with a day of equal dulne&s;s, the <HI>Saturday</HI> (or <HI>dies Saturni,</HI> as the Latines call it) being thought unfit for any bu&s;ine&s;s, <HI>rebus minus apta gerendis,</HI> as it is in <HI>Ovid,</HI> who&s;e words I &s;hall produce at large, becau&s;e I am to relate to them on another acca&s;ion.</P>
<Q>Quaque die redeunt, rebus minus apta gerendis, Culta <HI>Palae&s;tino</HI> &s;eptima &s;acra viro.</Q>
<Q><PB N="30" REF="19">
<L>The &s;eventh day comes for bu&s;ine&s;s mo&s;t unfit;</L>
<L>Held &s;acred by the Jew, who halloweth it.</L></Q>
<P>A fan&s;ie not &s;o &s;trange in <HI>Ovid,</HI> as it &s;eems in <HI>Philo,</HI> a Jew by birth, and a great &s;tickler in behalf of the Jewi&s;h Ceremonies, who telleth us, that the &s;eventh day was cho&s;en for a day of <HI>re&s;t,</HI> becau&s;e the &s;eventh number in it &s;elfe was <GAP DESC="foreign">,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De Abrahamo.</NOTE> that is to &s;ay, the mo&s;t peaceable number, the mo&s;t free from trouble, war, and all kind of con|tention. Yet not more &s;trange in <HI>Philo</HI> then it is in <HI>Aretius,</HI> a Writer of the Reformed Churches, who thinks that day to have been cho&s;en before any other, <HI>Quod putaretur civilibus acti|onibus</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Problem. loc. 55</NOTE> <HI>ineptum e&s;&s;e, &amp;c,</HI> Becau&s;e that day was thought by rea|&s;on of the dulne&s;s of the Planet <HI>Saturn,</HI> more fit for contem|plation then it was for action. Adde more (to end as I began with an <HI>Etymology</HI>) that <HI>Plutarch</HI> derives the name of Sabbath from <HI>Sabbi Sabbi,</HI> ingeminated by the Prie&s;ts of <HI>Bacchus</HI> in his drunken <HI>Orgies;</HI> as others do from <GAP DESC="foreign">, which &s;ignifies to celebrate tho&s;e <HI>Orgies:</HI> both with reproch enough to the Jew|i&s;h Nation, who by their riotous fea&s;tings and exce&s;&s;es on the Sabbath day, gave &s;uch a &s;candal to the Gentiles, that <HI>luxus Sabbatarius</HI> became at la&s;t to be a <HI>by-word,</HI> as in that pa&s;&s;age of <HI>Apollinaris</HI> &s;poken of before. Out of all which it may be pro|bably inferred, that they that did &s;o &s;cornfully deride the Jew|i&s;h Sabbaths, did keep no Sabbath of their own; by con&s;e|quence, that no <HI>command</HI> for the keeping of it was given to <HI>A|dam</HI> as the <HI>common Root</HI> of all <HI>mankind,</HI> and therefore no &s;uch <HI>in&s;titution</HI> in the &s;econd of <HI>Gene&s;is,</HI> as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> would fain have it.</P>
<P>Again&s;t the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages &amp; proofs the L. <HI>Primate</HI> makes not any Exceptions; and therefore it may be took for granted, that the <HI>Gentile<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> neither were <HI>commanded to keep</HI> the Sabbath, nor did keep the Sabbath, which were the matters to be proved. But for an An&s;wer thereunto, he &s;ets upon <HI>Antithe&s;is,</HI> a contrary propo|&s;ition of his own, of purpo&s;e to run cro&s;s to that which is main|tained by the Hi&s;torian, <HI>l. 4 c 1. n</HI> 8. For wheras it was there affir|med by the Hi&s;torian, that the 7^t^h. day was not more honoured by the <HI>Gentiles</HI> then the eighth or ninth; the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> on
<PB N="31" REF="19">
the other &s;ide hath re&s;olved the contrary, affirming, <HI>that the</HI> Heathens <HI>did attribute &s;ome holine&s;s to the</HI> Seventh day, <HI>and gave it a peculiar honour above the other dayes of the week,</HI> p. 83. For proof of this, he fir&s;t &s;uppo&s;eth a <HI>Tradition</HI> among the Jewes and Gentiles, that the <HI>&s;eventh</HI> day was not of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> but the <HI>Fathers,</HI> and did not begin with the <HI>Commonwealth of I&s;rael,</HI> but was derived to all Nations by lineal de&s;cent from the Sons of <HI>Noah,</HI> p. 82. But where to find, and how to prove this <HI>Tra|dition,</HI> we are yet to &s;eek; the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> vouching no more ancient Author for it then <HI>Tertullian,</HI> who lived almo&s;t two hundred years after Chri&s;t our Saviour, and relates onely to his own times, not to tho&s;e of old. No evidence produced to prove the <HI>Propo&s;ition,</HI> or the <HI>Suppo&s;ition,</HI> out of any of tho&s;e fa|mous Writers, Philo&s;ophers, Hi&s;torians, Poets, Orators, who flouri&s;hed in the heroick times of Learning among&s;t the <HI>Greci|ans;</HI> nor from any of the like condition among&s;t the <HI>Roman<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">,</HI> who lived and flouri&s;hed before or after the triumphant Em|pire of <HI>Augustus Cae&s;ar</HI> (one pa&s;&s;age out of <HI>Tibullus</HI> excepted onely) till we come to <HI>Aelius Lampridius,</HI> an Hi&s;torian, who lived after <HI>Tertullian.</HI> It's true the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> cites three Greek ver&s;es from as many of the old Greek Poets, but they make nothing to his purpo&s;e, as him&s;elfe confe&s;&s;eth. The ver|&s;es alledged (as he telleth us) by <HI>Clemens Alexandrinus</HI> (l. 5. <HI>Stro|mat.) &amp; Eu&s;ebius</HI> (lib. 13. <HI>De praeparat. Evangel.</HI>) which ver&s;es and four others to the &s;ame effect, he might have found in the <HI>Hi&s;tory of the Sabbath,</HI> Part 1. Chap 4. Num. 9. And there he might have found al&s;o, that tho&s;e ver&s;es had been formerly al|ledged by a learned <HI>Iew</HI> named <HI>Ari&s;tobulus,</HI> who lived about the time of <HI>Ptolemy Philometor</HI> King of <HI>Egypt.</HI> The three Poets which I find here cited, are <HI>Homer, Linus,</HI> and <HI>Callimachus;</HI> the three ver&s;es the&s;e:</P>
<Q><L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign">.</L></Q>
<P>But there is nothing in the&s;e ver&s;es which proves either the <HI>Pro|po&s;ition,</HI> or the <HI>Suppo&s;ition,</HI> touching the honouring of the &s;eventh
<PB N="32" REF="20">
day more then any other, but onely that the Poets <HI>were not igno|rant that the works of the Creation were fini&s;hed on the &s;eventh day,</HI> as him&s;elf acknowledgeth <HI>p.</HI> 86. Now how the&s;e Poets came to know that the Creation <HI>of the World</HI> was fini&s;hed on the <HI>&s;eventh day,</HI> is told us by <HI>Ari&s;tobulus</HI> before mentioned, namely, that<NOTE PLACE="marg">Apud Eu&s;eb.</NOTE> the <HI>Poets</HI> had con&s;ulted with the holy <HI>Bible,</HI> and from thence &s;ucked this knowledge, <GAP DESC="foreign">, as his own words are. And this may be agreeable enough to the times they lived in. For <HI>Homer</HI> who was the olde&s;t of them, flouri&s;hed about 500. years from the death of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> which hapned in or near the Reign of <HI>Solomon</HI> the Son of <HI>David,</HI> the mo&s;t mighty Monarch of the <HI>Hebrews,</HI> at what time the people managed a great trade in <HI>Egypt,</HI> and held good corre&s;pondence with tho&s;e of <HI>Tyre,</HI> from both of which being Sea-faring Nati|ons, the <HI>Greeks</HI> might come unto the knowledge (derived to them from the Book of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI>) of the Worlds Creation. And as for <HI>Callimachus</HI> who was the late&s;t of the three, he lived not till 700. years from the time of <HI>Homer,</HI> which hapned in the Reign of <HI>Seleucus Nicanor,</HI> the fir&s;t King of <HI>Syria</HI> of the <HI>Ma|cedonian</HI> Race or Linage, when the Jewes were under the com|mand of one or other of the Princes of <HI>Greece,</HI> as Succe&s;&s;ors to <HI>Alexander</HI> the Great in his Ea&s;tern Conque&s;ts.</P>
<P>Now for <HI>Tertullian,</HI> on who&s;e Authority the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> doth mo&s;t rely, we find him cited <HI>pag.</HI> 84. in two &s;everal places, each place relating to a &s;everal Tract of that learned Writer. The fir&s;t is taken from the fir&s;t Book and thirteenth Chapter of his Tract in&s;cribed <HI>Ad Nationes,</HI> publi&s;hed fir&s;t among&s;t the re&s;t of his Works, in the Edition of <HI>Rigaltius,</HI> and not long after, in a &s;mall volume by it &s;elfe at <HI>Geneva, Anno</HI> 1625. with <HI>Gothofred</HI> his Notes upon it; &s;uppo&s;ed by &s;ome to be but the rude draught of his <HI>Apologetick adver&s;us gentes;</HI> but whether it be &s;o or not, we mu&s;t take it as it lies before us; and the words are the&s;e, <HI>viz. Qui &s;olem &amp; diem ejus nobis exprobratis, agno&s;cite vicinitatem; non long&egrave; &agrave; Saturno &amp; Sabbatis ve&s;tris &s;umus&punc;</HI> Where fir&s;t it is to be ob&s;erved, that <HI>Tertullian</HI> &s;peaks not this of the ancient <HI>Gentiles,</HI> but applies him&s;elf to tho&s;e onely of the times he lived in; and therefore no fit Author either to prove the <HI>Propo&s;ition, That the</HI> Heathens <HI>did attribute &s;ome</HI>
<PB N="33" REF="20">
<HI>holine&s;s to the</HI> &s;eventh day; <HI>and gave it a</HI> peculiar honour <HI>above the other days of the week,</HI> unle&s;s he mean it of the <HI>Heathens,</HI> a|mong&s;t whom he lived; much le&s;s to ju&s;tifie the <HI>perpetual Tra|dition</HI> of the <HI>&s;eventh day,</HI> which the L <HI>Primate</HI> will not have to be derived unto them from <HI>the Common-wealth of I&s;rael,</HI> but <HI>the Sons of Noah.</HI> And &s;econdly, we may ob&s;erve, that many of the Gen|tiles at that time when <HI>Tertullian</HI> wrote that Tract unto them, had taken up many of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> cu&s;toms, &amp; among&s;t others the ob&s;ervation of their <HI>Sabbath,</HI> who&s;e riotous fea&s;tings on the &s;ame might be communicated very readily unto all the re&s;t. But this can be no proof at all for the times preceding, e&s;pecially before the <HI>Jewes</HI> began to intermingle in the Provinces of the <HI>Roman</HI> Empire; and much le&s;s &s;erve to fill up that va&s;t va|cuity which was between that intermingling and the <HI>Sons of Noah.</HI> Pa&s;s we on therefore to the next, taken from the <HI>Apo|logetick,</HI> Chap. 16. to which for the better under&s;tanding of the former pa&s;&s;age, we are referred by <HI>Gothofredus. Aequ&egrave; &s;i diem &s;olis</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Tertullian) laetitiae indulgemus, alia long&egrave; ratione qu&agrave;m religione &s;olis; &s;ecundo loco ab eis &s;umus qui diem Saturni otio &amp; victui decernunt&mdash;exorbitantes &amp; ip&s;i &agrave; Judaico more, quem ignorant.</HI> Which words of his, though the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> would apply as &s;poken of, becau&s;e they are &s;poken to the Gentiles, I doubt not, but upon examination of the Authors meaning, we &s;hall find it otherwi&s;e; which pa&s;&s;age by the <HI>Scholiast</HI> is thus glo&s;&s;ed, <HI>Quod autem ad diem &s;olis attinet, alio ratio e&s;t &agrave; cultu &s;olis, quae nos eum diem qui e&s;t &agrave; Saturni &s;ecundus, &amp; &agrave; Judaeis &s;uper&s;titio&s;&egrave; ob&s;ervatur, celebrare per&s;uadet; nam &amp; illi ne&s;ci|unt &s;uam legem explo&s;am jam &amp; exoletam refrixi&s;&s;e. Pamelius</HI> gives this note upon it. That the Chri&s;tians celebrated the Sun|day, <HI>ut di&s;tinguantur &agrave;</HI> Judaeis <HI>qui diem</HI> Saturni, <HI>id e&s;t,</HI> Sabba|tum, <HI>&s;olenniter etiamnum otio decernunt;</HI> to the end they might be di&s;tingui&s;hed from the <HI>Jewes,</HI> who devoted their Sabbath (which the <HI>Romans</HI> call by the name of <HI>dies Saturni</HI>) unto ea&s;e and eating. What the effect is of the <HI>Scholia&s;t</HI> and his Paraphra&s;e we &s;hall &s;ee anon.</P>
<P>In the mean time we may ob&s;erve that <HI>Tertullian</HI> doth not &s;ay, <HI>&s;ecundo loco &agrave; vobis &s;umus,</HI> that we are in the next place to you, by which he might under&s;tand the <HI>Gentiles;</HI> but <HI>&s;ecundo</HI>
<PB N="34" REF="21">
<HI>loco</HI> ab eis <HI>&s;umus qui diem Saturni otio &amp; victui decernunt,</HI> who dedicate the Saturday unto <HI>&s;loth</HI> and <HI>luxury;</HI> which mu&s;t be un|der&s;tood of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> and of none but them. And whereas the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> layes the &s;trength of his Argument on the la&s;t words of his Author, <HI>viz. Exorbitantes &amp; ip&s;i &agrave; Judaico more quem ignorant,</HI> that is to &s;ay, that the <HI>Gentiles</HI> by con&s;u|ming that day in ea&s;e and riot, had deviated from the cu&s;tome of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> of which they were ignorant: yet certain|ly tho&s;e words are capable of no &s;uch con&s;truction: For cer|tainly the <HI>Gentiles</HI> by con&s;uming that day in Re&s;t and Riot, could not be &s;aid to deviate from the <HI>cu&s;tom</HI> of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> who&s;e riotous fea&s;tings on their Sabbath had made them a reproch to the <HI>Greeks</HI> and <HI>Romans;</HI> nor could they in any &s;en&s;e be &s;aid to be <HI>ignorant</HI> of the Jewi&s;h cu&s;tome in that kind, which <HI>Plu|tarch</HI> had before ob&s;erved and charged upon them. In the next place, the <HI>Scholia&s;t</HI> applying the former pa&s;&s;age to the <HI>Jewes</HI> a|lone, and their &s;uper&s;titious ob&s;ervation of their <HI>Sabbath,</HI> or <HI>Saturn's-day,</HI> gives us this glo&s;s on the la&s;t words which are now before us, <HI>viz. Nam &amp; illi ne&s;ciunt &s;uam legem explo&s;am jam &amp; exoletam refrixi&s;&s;e,</HI> that is to &s;ay, that they were igno|rant that the Law (by which their <HI>Sabbath</HI> had been ordained) was repealed &amp; abrogated. Which though it may be true enough in the <HI>Propo&s;ition,</HI> yet I cannot think that it agrees with the Au|thors meaning in the <HI>Application.</HI> Nor am I better edified with the critici&s;m of <HI>Gothofredus</HI> on this place, who thinketh it to lie under &s;ome great corruption (<HI>qui locus haectenus in foedi&s;&s;imo mendo cubat</HI>) leaves in wor&s;e ca&s;e then he found it&mdash;by his pretended Emendation. And therefore I conceive <HI>Tertullians</HI> meaning to be briefly this, that the <HI>Jewes</HI> then living had &s;o di&s;u&s;ed and e&s;tranged them&s;elves by their riotous fea&s;tings on the <HI>Sabbath</HI> from that &s;obriety and moderation wherewith their Ance&s;tors had u&s;ed to ob&s;erve that day, that they &s;eemed ignorant in a manner of the ancient cu&s;tome of their own Na|tion in that ca&s;e.</P>
<P>The&s;e pa&s;&s;ages of <HI>Tertullian</HI> being thus explained, the An|&s;wer to the re&s;t of the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> Authors will find le&s;s dif|ficulty. <HI>Tibullus</HI> in a ver&s;e of his
<Q>Saturni &s;acr&acirc; me tenui&s;&s;e die.</Q>
<PB N="35" REF="21">
be&s;towes the Epithet of <HI>Sacr&acirc;</HI> upon the <HI>Saturday,</HI> or day of <HI>Saturn.</HI> But this I &s;ay, and &s;o &s;ayes the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> too, is not &s;o properly to be under&s;tood of the <HI>Gentiles, who made not the</HI> &s;eventh day <HI>a</HI> fe&s;tival (or an holy-day) <HI>as the Jewes did,</HI> p. 83. but of the very <HI>Jewes</HI> them&s;elves, who kept it for a <HI>fe&s;ti|val,</HI> or an <HI>holy-day.</HI> And then <HI>Tibullus</HI> &s;ayes no more then what <HI>Ovid</HI> hath affirmed in the ver&s;e formerly cited, in which he calleth the <HI>&s;eventh day</HI> by the name of <HI>&s;eptima &s;acra dies,</HI> with reference to the <HI>Jewes,</HI> and to them alone. That which comes next from <HI>Lucian</HI> in his <GAP DESC="foreign">, touch the Boyes getting leave to play <GAP DESC="foreign">, on the &s;eventh day, or <HI>Saturday,</HI> p. 86. is of little con&s;equence; <HI>Lucian</HI> then lived in the Ea&s;t Countries, where the Gentiles, Jewes and Chri&s;tians lived promi&s;cuou&s;ly with one another. And it is probable enough that the School-ma&s;ters ob&s;erving that the Saturday was held in great veneration by the Chri&s;tians, and kept for a Fe&s;tival by the <HI>Jewes,</HI> the better to comply with both, or to &s;end home their Children (if they had any &s;uch in their Schools) in conve|nient time; might rather chu&s;e to gratifie the Boyes with a play day, <GAP DESC="foreign">, on the <HI>&s;eventh day</HI> or <HI>Sabbath,</HI> then on any other. And as for the Emperor <HI>Alexander Severus,</HI> and his <HI>u&s;ing to go unto the Capitol and other Temples on the Saturday or &s;eventh day,</HI> as <HI>Aelius Lampridius</HI> hath informed us of him, it is of le&s;s con&s;equence then the former: it being well known to all which have read the Stories of that age and time, that being trained up under the wing of his Mother, who was inclinable enough to the Chri&s;tian Faith, he had not onely &s;omewhat in him of a Chri&s;tian, but a &s;mack al&s;o of the Jew. And therefore if he more frequented the <HI>Capitol and other Temples on the &s;e|venth day,</HI> or Saturday, then on any other, it is not to be at|tributed to any Authority which the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> Tradition might have gained upon him, but unto education or imitation, no great matter which.</P>
<P>For that many of the Gentiles, who lived within the verge of the <HI>Roman</HI> Empire, had taken up divers of the cu&s;tomes and ceremonies of the <HI>Iewes,</HI> who lived &s;cattered and di&s;per&s;t a|mong&s;t them; is affirmed po&s;itively by <HI>Io&s;ephus.</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>Quin etiam populi jam olim</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>multam no&s;tram pietatem aemulan|tur;</HI>
<PB N="36" REF="22">
<HI>n&egrave;que Civitas Graecorum ulla u&s;quam aut Barbarorum, nec ulla gens, ad quam &s;eptimanae, in qua vacamus, con&s;uetud<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> minim&egrave; pervenerit, &amp;c.</HI> that is to &s;ay, that the <HI>Gentiles</HI> long &s;ince &s;hewed them&s;elves inclinable to the religion of the <HI>Jews,</HI> and that there was no City of the <HI>Greeks,</HI> or barbarous people, or any Nation what&s;oever, in which their cu&s;tome in ob&s;erving the &s;eventh day for a day of re&s;t, as al&s;o of their games and fa&s;ts was not taken up. In which re&s;pect <HI>Philo</HI> hath told us more then once, that the <HI>Sabbath</HI> was become a <HI>general Fe&s;tival,</HI> which in his Treati&s;e <HI>De Dec alogo</HI> may be ea&s;ily found. And it was very agreeable to the ancient cu&s;tom of the <HI>Romans</HI> that it &s;hould be &s;o, who u&s;ed when they had conquered any Coun|try, not onely to carry away their gods, and &s;et them up a|mong&s;t their own, but to take from them &s;ome part of their re|ligion, thinking thereby to enlarge the bounds of their Empire, and bring all the Nations of the World under their command. <HI>Sic eorum Pote&s;tas &amp; Authoritas totius Orbis Ambitus occupa|vit: &s;ic imperium &s;uum ultra &s;olis vias &amp; ip&s;ius Oceani limites propagavit: &s;ic dum &V;niver&s;arum gentium &s;acra &s;u&s;cipiunt, eti|am regnare meruerunt,</HI> as <HI>Cecilius</HI> pleads the cau&s;e for them in <HI>Minutius Foelix.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="37" REF="22">
<HEAD>SECT. IV.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> charged by name, for &s;aying that the ancient <HI>Gen|tiles</HI> knew not the di&s;tinction of weeks, and &s;ent to be taught his le&s;&s;on better of Dector <HI>Ryvet</HI> and <HI>Salma&s;ius.</HI> His Arguments to prove the point laid down at large, and not refelled by the Lord <HI>Primate.</HI> The Lord <HI>Primates</HI> opinion to the contrary not pro|ved by any ancient Author, either <HI>Greek</HI> or <HI>Latine.</HI> The pra|ctice of the <HI>Sclavonians</HI> related by <HI>Helmoldus</HI> (an ob&s;cure Wri|ter, and a <HI>Po&s;tnatus</HI> too) doth not prove the point. Nothing af|firmed by <HI>Theophilus Antiochenus,</HI> or <HI>Johannes Philoponus,</HI> to prove that the di&s;tinction of weeks was anciently known among&s;t the <HI>Gentiles.</HI> The <HI>Hi&s;torians</HI> Application ju&s;tified.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>WE are now come at la&s;t to the fir&s;t of tho&s;e <HI>Charges,</HI> in which the Author of the <HI>Hi&s;tory</HI> is concerned by name, touching the divi&s;ion of time into weeks, whether ob&s;erved or not ob&s;erved by the ancient <HI>Gentiles;</HI> in which the Lord Pri|mate thus declares: The <HI>Gentiles</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>both</HI> Civil <HI>and</HI> Bar|barous, <HI>both</HI> ancient <HI>and of</HI> later <HI>dayes, as it were by an univer|&s;al kind of</HI> Tradition, <HI>retain the di&s;tinction of the</HI> &s;even dayes <HI>of the week, which if Dr.</HI> Heylyn <HI>had read &s;o well proved as it is by</HI> Rivetus <HI>and</HI> Salma&s;ius, <HI>he would not have made &s;uch a conclu|&s;ion as he doth: that becau&s;e the Heathen (of the four great Mo|narchies at lea&s;t) had no distinction of Weeks, therefore they could ob&s;erve no Sabbath,</HI> p. 79. The <HI>Historian</HI> is here &s;ent to School to learn of <HI>Ryvet</HI> and <HI>Salma&s;ius,</HI> that the Gentiles both <HI>civil</HI> and <HI>barbarous,</HI> both <HI>ancient</HI> and of <HI>later</HI> dayes, as it were by an univer&s;al kind of <HI>Tradition,</HI> retained the di&s;tinction of the <HI>&s;even dayes</HI> of the <HI>week:</HI> of <HI>Ryvet</HI> he mu&s;t learn for one, becau&s;e he was of the &s;ame opinion with the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> in the point of the <HI>Sabbath;</HI> and of <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> for the other, becau&s;e he was of the &s;ame judgement with him in the point of <HI>Epi&s;copacy&punc;</HI> But the <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> will not learn of any &s;uch Ma&s;ters, but onely
<PB N="38" REF="23">
of the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> him&s;elfe. But fir&s;t it will be nece&s;&s;ary to know what the Hi&s;torian &s;aith to the point in hand; and yet not onely what he &s;aith (as if he could carry it out on his own Authority) but what he proves by witne&s;&s;es of unque&s;tioned credit. The pa&s;&s;age is not long, and therefore without any abbreviation, I &s;hall here &s;ubjoyn it. <Q>Whereas it is concei|ved<NOTE PLACE="marg">Purch. pilgr. l. 1. c. 4.</NOTE> by &s;ome, that the Gentiles by the <HI>light</HI> of <HI>nature</HI> had their <HI>weeks,</HI> which is &s;uppo&s;ed to be an argument that they kept the Sabbath; a week being onely of <HI>&s;even</HI> dayes, and commonly &s;o called both in <HI>Greek</HI> and <HI>Latine:</HI> we on the o|ther &s;ide affirm, that by this very rule, the Gentiles, many of them, if not the mo&s;t, could ob&s;erve no Sabbath; becau&s;e they did ob&s;erve no weeks. For fir&s;t the <HI>Chaldees</HI> and the <HI>Per|&s;ians</HI> had no weeks at all: but to the &s;everal dayes of each &s;e|veral month appropriated a particular name of &s;ome King or other; as the <HI>Peruvians</HI> do at this pre&s;ent time; <HI>Et nomina</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Emend. Temp. l. 3.</NOTE> <HI>diebus Men&s;is indunt, ut pri&s;ci Per&s;ae,</HI> as <HI>Scaliger</HI> hath noted of them. The <HI>Grecians</HI> al&s;o did the like in the times of old: there being an old <HI>Attick Calendar</HI> to be &s;een in <HI>Scaliger,</HI> wherein is no divi&s;ion of the month into weeks at all. As for the <HI>Romans,</HI> they divided their account into eights and eights, as the <HI>Jewes</HI> did by &s;evens and &s;evens; the one reflecting on their <HI>Nundinae,</HI> as the other did upon their Sabbath; <HI>Ogdoas</HI> Romanorum <HI>in tributione dierum &s;ervabatur propter Nundinas, ut hebdomas apud</HI> Judaeos <HI>propter &s;abbatum.</HI> For proof of<NOTE PLACE="marg">Id. l. 4.</NOTE> which there are &s;ome ancient <HI>Roman Calenders</HI> to be &s;een as yet, one in the afore&s;aid <HI>Scaliger,</HI> the other in the <HI>Roman Antiquities</HI> of <HI>John Ro&s;&s;inus;</HI> wherein the dayes are noted from <HI>A</HI> to <HI>H.</HI> as in our common <HI>Almanacks</HI> from <HI>A.</HI> to <HI>G.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Id. l. 1. Ed. 2.</NOTE> The <HI>Mexicans</HI> go a little further, and they have thirteen dayes to the Week, as the &s;ame <HI>Scaliger</HI> hath ob&s;erved of them.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Nay, even the <HI>Jewes</HI> them&s;elves were ignorant of this divi|&s;ion<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Levit. 13. qu. 3.</NOTE> of the year into weeks, as <HI>To&s;tatus</HI> th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">nks, till <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> learnt it of the Lord, in the fall of <HI>Mannah.</HI> Nor were the Greeks and Romans de&s;titute of this account, onely when they were a rude and untrained people, as the <HI>Peruvians</HI> and <HI>Mexicans</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hi&s;t. l. 36.</NOTE> at this pre&s;ent time: but when they were in their greate&s;t
<PB N="39" REF="23">
flouri&s;h for Arts and Empire. <HI>Dion</HI> affirmes for the ancient <HI>Greeks,</HI> that they knew it not; <GAP DESC="foreign">,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Marlorat. 7.</NOTE> for ought he could learn: and <HI>Seneca</HI> more punctually, that fir&s;t they learnt the motions of the Planets of <HI>Eudoxus,</HI> who brought that knowledge out of <HI>Egypt,</HI> and con&s;equently could not know the <HI>week</HI> before. And for the <HI>Romans,</HI> though they were well enough acquainted with the Planets in their later times; yet they divided not their <HI>Calendars</HI> into <HI>weeks,</HI> as now they do, till near about the time of <HI>Diony&s;ius Exiguus,</HI> who lived about the year of Chri&s;t, 520. Nor had they then received it in all probability, had they not long before admitted Chri&s;tianity throughout their Empire; and therewithal the knowledg of the holy Scriptures, where the account by weeks was exceeding ob|vious.</Q></P>
<P>Such are the Arguments, and &s;uch the Authors, by which the <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> proved (or endevoured to prove) that the divi|&s;ion of the year into weeks was not known anciently among&s;t the Gentiles. And again&s;t the&s;e the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> takes not a|ny exception, but thinks that he hath done his work, if he can find out two or three witne&s;&s;es to affirm the contrary: It might have been expected that a man &s;o ver&s;t and &s;tudied in Antiqui|ties, would have pre&s;t the <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> with the weight of &s;uch proofs and evidences as had been digged out of the rock, ex|tracted out of the Monuments and Records of the elder times. But on the contrary, we have not &s;o much as one &s;ingle te&s;timo|ny produc'd from any Latine Authors (Hi&s;torians, Orators, Poets, or Philo&s;ophers) which lived between the fir&s;t founda|tion of the <HI>Roman</HI> greatne&s;s, and the declining of the &s;ame; nor from the writings of tho&s;e famous men among&s;t the <HI>Greci|ans,</HI> who made their country as renowned for Arts and Elo|quence, as otherwi&s;e it had been innobled for Arms and Victo|ries. For the fir&s;t Author we are &s;ent to (who though he liv'd far off in re&s;pect of place, yet liv'd not very far off in regard of time) is one <HI>Helmondus</HI> or <HI>Helmandus,</HI> who wrote the Hi|&s;tory of the <HI>Sclaves,</HI> or <HI>Sclavonian</HI> Nations; Nations not known or heard of by that name in <HI>Europe,</HI> till the year 600, converted to the Chri&s;tian Faith by <HI>Cyril</HI> and <HI>Methodius,</HI> be|tween
<PB N="40" REF="24">
the years 860. &amp; 890. So that if the di&s;tinction of <HI>weeks</HI> did reach <HI>etiam ad ip&s;os u&s;que Sauromatas,</HI> and was known to the <HI>Sclavonians them&s;elves, while they continued in their ancient Pa|gani&s;m,</HI> as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;aies it was, <HI>p.</HI> 79. I trow, this can be no &s;ufficient argument, that the di&s;tinction of <HI>weeks</HI> was anciently known among&s;t the Gentiles, which was the matter to be proved. The <HI>Sclavonians</HI> having conquered <HI>Dalmatia,</HI> and tho&s;e other Provinces which bordered on <HI>Macedon</HI> and <HI>Thrace,</HI> two hundred years at the lea&s;t before they received the Go&s;pel, might take up the di&s;tinction of time into <HI>weeks,</HI> from the Nations whom they had &s;ubdued, while&s;t they were yet in the &s;tate of pagani&s;m, and no harm done to the <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> in the pre&s;ent bu&s;ine&s;s: and therefore granting all that hath been &s;aid by <HI>Helmoldus,</HI> though a <HI>post-natus,</HI> living about the year 1180. the <HI>Hi&s;torians</HI> Propo&s;ition &s;till holds good and unconfuted; un|le&s;s this Argument be of force, <HI>viz.</HI> The <HI>Sclavonians</HI> when they were in the &s;tate of <HI>Pagani&s;m,</HI> betwixt the year 600. &amp; 860. u&s;ed to a&s;&s;emble on the &s;econd day of the week <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><HI>Illic &s;ecun|d&acirc; feri&acirc; popu|lus terrae cum flamine &amp; re|gulo convenire &s;olebant propter judicia.</HI> Hel|mold. Chron. Sclav. l. 1. c. 24.</NOTE> to deter|mine Controver&s;ies, as <HI>Helmoldus</HI> tells us; therefore the di|&s;tinction into weeks was anciently known among&s;t the Gentiles in their &s;everal Countries, above 2000. years before them. But <HI>if the &s;ame order of the dayes of the week be retained by them, which</HI> The ophilus <HI>the</HI> old Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch noteth to have been ob&s;er|ved by all mankind,</HI> all is well enough; and the <HI>Sclavonians,</HI> though a Nation of later &s;tanding, may well be made an in|&s;tance for that ob&s;ervation, which <HI>all mankind</HI> had generally been accu&s;tomed to in all times foregoing. But certainly <HI>The|ophilus Antiochenus</HI> tells us no &s;uch matter. The place here<NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 80.</NOTE> cited, as it &s;tands tran&s;lated in the <HI>Bibliotheca Patrum,</HI> is as fol|loweth; <HI>Praeterea, de die &s;eptimo qui inter omnes Mortales celebris e&s;t,</HI> <NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>magna apud plero&s;que ignoratia e&s;t: Hic enim dies qui ab H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">braeis Sabbatum vocatur, Graec&egrave; &s;i quis nomen interpretetur, &s;eptimus dicitur: hoc nomine mortales omnes diem istum appellant, &amp; nominis cau&s;am ne&s;ciunt pl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">rique.</HI> Where clearly <HI>Theophi|lus</HI> &s;peaks nothing with reference to the <HI>Gentiles</HI> of the elder times, but tells us in the pre&s;ent ten&s;e, what e&s;timation there was had of the &s;eventh day, which the <HI>Jewes</HI> called the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> in the pre&s;ent times; I mean the times in which he lived, which
<PB N="41" REF="24">
was about the latter end of the &s;econd Century, <HI>Anno</HI> 174. And therefore if all <HI>mankind</HI> in his time, by rea&s;on of the ob|&s;ervation of the &s;eventh day among&s;t the Jewes, <HI>retained the &s;ame order of the dayes of the week,</HI> which the <HI>Sclavonians</HI> after did; this cannot be conceived a &s;ufficient Argument, that the &s;ame order was ob&s;erved by the ancient <HI>Gentiles,</HI> whom that <HI>old Bi&s;hop of Antioch</HI> had no reference to in this citation: <HI>Jo|hannes Philoponus</HI> the Grammarian &s;peaks more plainly then <HI>Theophilus</HI> did, but he &s;peaks nothing to the point which we have in hand, <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp;c. which <HI>Balthazar Corderius</HI> thus tran&s;lateth, <HI>Illud cert&egrave; omnes homines con&s;entiunt, &s;eptem &s;oles e&s;&s;e dies, qui in &s;eip&s;os revoluti totum tempus con&s;tituunt.</HI> And &s;o it was no que&s;tion in that Authors time, which was about the year 600. and &s;omewhat after the di&s;tinction of time into weeks, being then generally received by all civil Nations, who either had received the Go|&s;pel, or had been under the command of the Roman Empire: That which comes after touching <HI>Mo&s;es (Solus itaque magnus</HI> Moles <HI>&s;eptenarii dierum numeri rationem divina in&s;p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ratione hominibus tradidit</HI>) &s;hewes rather the original of the di&s;tinction, then the general practice; it being more then a thou&s;and years from the death of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> before that di&s;tinction of time was received by the <HI>G<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">eeks</HI> and <HI>R<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ns</HI> and therefore not to be hoped nor look't for in the barbarous Nations. And this is that which <HI>Petavius</HI> the Je&s;uite, a right learned man hath thus de|livered.<NOTE PLACE="marg">De doctr. temp. l. 7. c. 3.</NOTE> <HI>Anni divi&s;io po&s;terior e&s;t in Hebdomadas: ea dividendi ratio pror&s;us &agrave; Iudaeis o iginem traxit: Romani etiam&punc; ac Gentiles ante Tertulliani aevum ad&s;civ<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;e videntur.</HI> The la&s;t divi&s;ion of the year (&s;aith he) is into <HI>weeks,</HI> derived originally from the <HI>Hebrewes,</HI> and &s;eems to have been taken up by the <HI>Romans</HI> and other <HI>Gentiles</HI> before the time of <HI>Tertullian,</HI> who takes notice of it. By which it &s;eems that this di&s;tinction was of no great &s;tanding in the Roman Empire, till fir&s;t their acquaintance with the Jewes, and afterwards their receiving of the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> faith, had brought it into u&s;e and e&s;teem among&s;t them.</P>
<P>The <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> of the <HI>Histo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ian</HI> being thus made good, I doubt not but the Application wil hold accordingly. For here|upon it is inferred <HI>Hi&s;t. of Sab.</HI> Part. 1. c. 4. n. 11. That the
<PB N="42" REF="25">
<HI>Chaldees, Per&s;ians, Greeks,</HI> and <HI>Romans,</HI> all the four great <HI>Monarchies,</HI> did ob&s;erve no <HI>Sabbaths,</HI> becau&s;e they did ob&s;erve no <HI>weeks.</HI> But the poor <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> mu&s;t not pa&s;s with this truth neither, which nece&s;&s;arily doth ari&s;e upon the proof of the <HI>Pro|po&s;ition.</HI> And therefore he is told, <HI>That if he had read how well the contrary is proved by</HI> Rivetus <HI>and</HI> Salma&s;ius, <HI>he would not have made &s;uch a Conclu&s;ion as he doth. That becau&s;e the Heathen (of the four great Monarchies at lea&s;t) had no di&s;tinction of weeks, therefore they could ob&s;erve no Sabbath.</HI> And I concur fully with the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> in this particular. The <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> was not &s;o irrational, as to infer that the <HI>Heathen of the four great Monar|chies could ob&s;erve no Sabbath, becau&s;e they did ob&s;erve no weeks;</HI> in ca&s;e it had been proved to his hand, or that any &s;ufficient Argument had been offered to him to demon&s;trate this, <HI>that the very Gentiles, both Civil and Barbarous, both Ancient and of later dayes, as it were by an univer&s;al kind of Tradition, retained the di&s;tinction of the &s;even dayes of the week;</HI> which is the point that <HI>Rivet</HI> and <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> are affirmed to have proved &s;o well, <HI>p.</HI> 79. But on the contrary, the <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> having proved <HI>that there was no &s;uch di&s;tinction of the &s;even dayes of the week, retained by the ancient Gentiles, either Civil or Barbarous;</HI> and &s;o well proved it, that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> hath not any thing to except again&s;t him: the <HI>Application</HI> will hold good again&s;t all oppo|&s;ition, and I &s;hall re&s;t my &s;elfe upon it, that the <HI>Heathen</HI> which ob&s;erved no <HI>Weeks,</HI> could ob&s;erve no <HI>Sabbath.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="5" TYPE="section">
<PB N="43" REF="25">
<HEAD>SECT. V.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The Hi&s;torian taxt for &s;aying that the falling of the first <HI>Pente|co&s;t,</HI> after Chri&s;ts <HI>A&s;cen&s;ion,</HI> upon the fir&s;t day of the week, was meerly ca&s;ual. The Lord <HI>Primates</HI> &s;tating the Que&s;tion, and his inference on it. Exceptions again&s;t the &s;tate of the Que|&s;tion, as by him laid down, <HI>viz.</HI> in making the Feast of Fir&s;t fruits to be otherwi&s;e called the fea&s;t of Penteco&s;t, or the fea&s;t of Weeks, &amp;c. and that he did not rightly under&s;tand the meaning of the word <HI>Sabbath,</HI> Levit. 23. 16. The <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> affixt by <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> to a certain day of the month, as well as the <HI>Pa&s;sover,</HI> or any other Annual Fea&s;t; made by the <HI>Primate</HI> to fall alwayes on the first day of the week; and God brought into act a miracle every year, that it might be &s;o. An An&s;wer to the Lord <HI>Pri|mates</HI> Argument from the practice of the <HI>Samaritans</HI> in their keeping of <HI>Penteco&s;t.</HI> The <HI>Quartodecimani</HI> and the <HI>Samari|tans</HI> Schi&s;maticks at the lea&s;t, if not Hereticks al&s;o. The Lord <HI>Primate</HI> puts a wrong &s;en&s;e upon <HI>I&s;ychius</HI> and Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> to prove that they gave to the Lords day the name of <HI>Sabbath,</HI> and his ill luck in it. The inference of the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> exa|mined and rejected. The fir&s;t day of the week not called the <HI>Lords day</HI> immediately after the fir&s;t <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> as is collected from <HI>Walden&s;is,</HI> nor in a long time after. The Lord <HI>Primates</HI> great mi&s;take in <HI>Tertullians</HI> meaning about the <HI>Penteco&s;t.</HI> Each of the fifty dayes which made up the <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> e&s;teemed as holy by the Primitive Chri&s;tians, as the Lords day was. The my&s;tery of the <HI>Fir&s;t fruits</HI> not fir&s;t opened by the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> as is con|ceived by Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e,</HI> who applauds him for it.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>THe &s;econd charge which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> layes upon the <HI>Hi&s;torian,</HI> relates unto the holding of the great fea&s;t of <HI>Pentecost,</HI> upon which day the Holy Gho&s;t came down and &s;ate upon the heads of the Apo&s;tles, in the &s;hape of <HI>cloven fiery tongues;</HI> and added by Saint <HI>Peters</HI> preaching no fewer then three thou&s;and &s;oules to the Church of Chri&s;t. <Q>It was, &s;aith
<PB N="44" REF="26">
the <HI>Hi&s;torian,</HI> a ca&s;ual thing that <HI>Pentecost</HI> &s;hould fall that year upon the Sunday. It was a moveable fea&s;t, as unto the day, &s;uch as did change and &s;hift it &s;elfe, according to the po&s;ition of the fea&s;t of <HI>Pa&s;sover:</HI> the rule being this; that that on what day &s;oever the &s;econd of the <HI>Pa&s;sover</HI> did fall, upon that al&s;o fell the great fea&s;t of <HI>Penteco&s;t. Nam <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;emper eadem e&s;t feria, quae</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; as <HI>Scaliger</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Emend. temp. l. 2.</NOTE> hath rightly noted. So that as often as the Pa&s;sover did fall upon the Saturday or Sabbath, as this year it did; then Pen|teco&s;t fell upon the Sunday: but when the Pa&s;sover did chance to fall upon the Tue&s;day, the Penteco&s;t fell that year upon the Wedne&s;day: <HI>&amp; &s;ic de caeteris.</HI> And if the Rule be true, as I think it is, <HI>that no &s;ufficient Argument can be drawn from a ca&s;ual fact;</HI> and that the falling of the <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> that year, upon the <HI>first day of the week,</HI> be meerly <HI>ca&s;ual;</HI> the coming of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t</HI> upon that day, will be no Argu|ment nor Authority, to &s;tate the <HI>fir&s;t day of the week</HI> in the place and honour of the <HI>Iewi&s;h Sabbath.</HI></Q></P>
<P>But the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> will by no means allow of this, and therefore having framed a di&s;cour&s;e concerning the fea&s;t of <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> and the day on which it was to be holden, he lets us &s;ee by a marginal Note, <HI>p.</HI> 90. again&s;t whom it is that he bends his forces, <HI>viz.</HI> again&s;t Dr. <HI>Heylyn,</HI> Part 2. c. 1. pag. 14. Let us &s;ee therefore what he hath to &s;ay again&s;t Dr. <HI>Heylyn</HI> in this particular, and into what inconveniencies he runs him&s;elfe by the contradiction. In order whereunto he mu&s;t fir&s;t ob&s;erve how he &s;tates the que&s;tion, and then con&s;ider whether his proofs and arguments will come up to it.</P>
<P><Q>The <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> (&s;aith he) by the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> were not onely to ob&s;erve their weekly Sabbath every &s;eventh day, but al&s;o their <HI>fea&s;ts of weeks</HI> once in the year: which although by the vulgar u&s;e of the Jewi&s;h Nation, it may now fall up|on any day of the week, yet doe the <HI>Samaritans,</HI> un|till this day, con&s;tantly ob&s;erve it on the fir&s;t day of the week, which is our <HI>Sunday;</HI> for which they produce the Letter of the Law, <HI>Leviticus</HI> 23. 15, 16. where the <HI>fea&s;t of the fir&s;t fruits</HI> (otherwi&s;e called <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> or the <HI>fea&s;t of weeks</HI>) is pre&s;cribed to be kept the <HI>morrow after the &s;eventh</HI>
<PB N="45" REF="26">
<HI>Sabbath:</HI> which not they onely, but al&s;o among&s;t our Chri|&s;tian Interpreters, <HI>I&s;ychius</HI> and <HI>Rupertus</HI> do interpret to be the fir&s;t day of the week.</Q> <BIBL><HI>p.</HI> 87, 88.</BIBL> This ground thus laid, and &s;ome proofs offered (quite be&s;ide the point in que&s;tion) to &s;hew that the Lords day was called by the name of <HI>Sabbath</HI> in &s;ome ancient Writers, he builds this &s;uper&s;tructure on it, and makes this following <HI>De&s;cant</HI> on the former <HI>Plain &s;ong, viz.</HI> <Q>But touching the old <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> it is very con&s;iderable, that it is no where in <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> affixed unto any one certain day of the month, as all the re&s;t of the fea&s;ts are; which is a very great pre&s;umption that it was a moveable Fea&s;t, and &s;o vari|ed, that it might alwayes fall upon the day immediately fol|lowing the ordinary <HI>Sabbath.</HI> And if God &s;o order the matter, that in the celebration of the fea&s;t of weeks, the &s;eventh day &s;hould purpo&s;ely be <HI>pa&s;&s;ed over,</HI> and that &s;olemnity &s;hould be kept on the <HI>first:</HI> what other thing may we imagine could be pre&s;ignified thereby, but that under the &s;tate of the <HI>Go&s;pel,</HI> the &s;olemnity of the weekly &s;ervice &s;hould be celebrated upon that day?</Q> <BIBL><HI>p.</HI> 90.</BIBL></P>
<P>Such is the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion, and &s;uch the inference which ari&s;eth from that &s;tating of it; both which are now to be exa|mined as they lie before us. And fir&s;t, the fea&s;t of <HI>fir&s;t fruits</HI> was not otherwi&s;e called Penteco&s;t, or the fea&s;t of weeks, as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;ayes it was. For though two loves in the name of the fir&s;t fruits of the &s;econd, or wheat Harve&s;t, were to be offered to the Lord on the fea&s;t of weeks, which being celebrated on the fiftieth day, from the &s;ixteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> had the name of <HI>Penteco&s;t;</HI> yet was the name of the <HI>fea&s;t of fir&s;t fruits</HI> appropriated more e&s;pecially to the &s;econd day after the Pa&s;sover, or the &s;ixteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> on which the people offered the fir&s;t fruits of their Barley (which in that country was fir&s;t ripe) and from which the Computation of the &s;aid fifty dayes was to take beginning. And it was thus appropria|ted for the&s;e rea&s;ons following. 1. Becau&s;e the &s;ixteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an</HI> was the fir&s;t day of their Harve&s;t, on which the people were to offer the very fir&s;t fruits of the increa&s;e of the earth (which in that Country was their <HI>Barley</HI>) before which time they were not to eat either bread, or parched corn, or the
<PB N="46" REF="27">
green ears of it; this offering to be made in the Sheafe or Gripe, before the Corn was thre&s;ht out, <HI>v.</HI> 10. to the end that all the &s;ub&s;equent Harve&s;t, by the offering of the&s;e fir&s;t fruits, might be ble&s;t unto them: whereas the offering of the <HI>two loves</HI> in the name of the fir&s;t fruits of their <HI>Wheat,</HI> was not until the end of Harve&s;t (above &s;even weeks after) when the Wheat was hous'd and thre&s;hed, and made into bread. And &s;econd|ly, the name of the <HI>fea&s;t of fir&s;t fruits</HI> was appropriated to the &s;ixteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> becau&s;e it had no other name by which it might be dignified above the re&s;t of the fifty, and di&s;tingui&s;hed from them; whereas the day on which the <HI>two loves</HI> were to be offered, was eminently known by the name of the <HI>fea&s;t of weeks,</HI> and the fea&s;t of <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> and &s;ometimes al&s;o called the <HI>fea&s;t of the Law,</HI> becau&s;e the Law was given that day by the hand of <HI>Mo&s;es.</HI></P>
<P>In the next place, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> either did not under&s;tand the meaning of the word <HI>Sabbath,</HI> Levit. 23. 15, 16. or if he did, he would not &s;eem to under&s;tand it, the better to carry on &s;ome de&s;ign for the <HI>Sabbatarians:</HI> for by the tenour of his di&s;|cour&s;e, it appeareth mo&s;t evidently that in both places he un|der&s;tands the word <HI>Sabbath</HI> in no other &s;en&s;e, but as it &s;ignifies the weekly <HI>Sabbath</HI> of the fourth Commandment, and there|upon concludes, that the computation of the fifty dayes begin|ning on the <HI>morrow after the Sabbath,</HI> and continuing till <HI>&s;even Sabbaths &s;hould be complete even unto the morrow after the &s;eventh Sabbath</HI> the fea&s;t of <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity fall upon the fir&s;t day of the week which is now our <HI>Sunday.</HI> If &s;o, the <HI>Sab|batarian</HI> Brethren are in the right, in making the falling of the fir&s;t Chri&s;tian Penteco&s;t, on which the Holy Gho&s;t came down, and &s;at on the heads of the Apo&s;tles (three thou&s;and &s;ouls being that day added to the Church of Chri&s;t) to be an argument of &s;ome weight for their Lords-day Sabbath; and Dr. <HI>Heylyn</HI> is in the wrong, for making the falling of that Penteco&s;t upon the fir&s;t day of the week, to be a matter of ca&s;ualty, the fea&s;t of Penteco&s;t not being tyed to a certain day, but falling on any day of the week, as the year did vary. But by his leave, by <HI>Sabbath</HI> in ver&s;e 15. (<HI>And you &s;hall count unto you from the mor|row after the Sabbath</HI>) we are to under&s;tand the <HI>fea&s;t of unlea|vened</HI>
<PB N="47" REF="27">
<HI>bread,</HI> which with all other of the Annual fea&s;ts had the name of <HI>Sabbath,</HI> as appears plainly by many &s;everal pa&s;&s;ages in this very Chapter. And this is that which is ob&s;erved by &s;ome of the Fathers, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;aith Saint <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tom, Hom.</HI> in <HI>Matth.</HI> 39. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;aith <HI>I&s;idore,</HI> Epi&s;t. 110. l. 3. And &s;econdly, by <HI>Sabbath</HI> in the re&s;t of tho&s;e two ver&s;es, <HI>viz. Seven Sabbaths &s;hall be complete; even unto the morrow after the &s;eventh Sabbath, &amp;c.</HI> we are not to under&s;tand the weekly Sabbath, but the week it &s;elfe, the whole &s;even dayes, which from the la&s;t in order, but the fir&s;t in dig|nity, took the name of Sabbath. For &s;o we read it in Chap. 18. of Saint <HI>Luke,</HI> where the <HI>Phari&s;ee</HI> boa&s;ted of him&s;elf, that he <HI>fasted twice a week,</HI> ver&s;e 12. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;aith the Greek original, <HI>Jejuno bis in Sabbato,</HI> &s;aith the vulgar Latine. Thus al&s;o in <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. &amp; <HI>Luke</HI> 24. we find <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>pri|ma &amp; una Sabbati,</HI> as the vulgar hath it, to denote the fir&s;t day of the week, as our Engli&s;h reads it. And then the meaning of the Text will be briefly this, that the fea&s;t of Penteco&s;t (reckon|ing the computation from the <HI>morrow after the Sabbath,</HI> that is to &s;ay, the fea&s;t of unleavened bread) was to be kept preci&s;ely on the morrow after the end of the &s;eventh week, from the &s;ixteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> on what day &s;oever it &s;hould happen, and not on the morrow after the &s;eventh weekly Sabbath, as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> would fain have it. And therefore thirdly, if the <HI>Samaritans</HI> ob&s;erving it until this day upon the fir&s;t day of the week, which is our <HI>Sunday,</HI> produce the letter of the Law, <HI>Levit.</HI> 23. 15, 16. by keeping it upon that day, they tran&s;gre&s;s the Law, becau&s;e they take not along with them the true mea|ning of it, and the intent of him that gave it for a Law to the Hou&s;e of <HI>I&s;rael.</HI> And this is ju&s;t the ca&s;e of <HI>Origen</HI> in the Pri|mitive times, who by following the letter of the Go&s;pel, made him&s;elf an <HI>Eunuch,</HI> contrary to the mind and meaning of Chri&s;t our Saviour, and therefore &s;inned again&s;t God and his own bo|dy. Fourthly, and finally, if <HI>Ruportus</HI> &s;peak no otherwi&s;e then <HI>I&s;ychius</HI> doth, he mu&s;t be reprehended by the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> as <HI>I&s;ychius</HI> is for &s;training the &s;ignification of <HI>altera dies Sabbati,</HI> to expre&s;s thereby the Lords day; though both produced in this place to no other purpo&s;e, then to prove that the <HI>morrow</HI>
<PB N="48" REF="28">
<HI>after the &s;eventh Sabbath</HI> was the fir&s;t day of the week, <HI>which is now our Sunday.</HI></P>
<P>Let us next &s;ee what <HI>Super&s;tructures</HI> have been made by the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> on the former <HI>grounds,</HI> what <HI>de&s;cant</HI> he hath made on the <HI>plain-&s;ong,</HI> which before we toucht at. And fir&s;t he tel|leth us how con&s;iderable it is, <HI>th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">t the old Penteco&s;t is no where in</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>affixed unto any one certain day of the month, as all the re&s;t of the fea&s;ts are,</HI> p. 90. But this is <HI>gratis dictum</HI> al&s;o the fea&s;t of <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> being as preci&s;ely tied to a certain day, as ei|ther the <HI>Pa&s;&s;over,</HI> the fea&s;t of <HI>Expiation,</HI> or the fea&s;t of <HI>Taber|nacles;</HI> for being the <HI>Pa&s;sover</HI> is &s;ixt on the fourteenth of <HI>Ni|&s;an,</HI> the fea&s;t of <HI>unleavened bread</HI> on the fifteenth, the offering of the <HI>fir&s;t fruits</HI> on the &s;ixteenth; and that the fea&s;t of <HI>Pente|co&s;t</HI> was to be kept on the fiftieth day after that: it mu&s;t-needs fall expre&s;ly and of cour&s;e (allowing thirty dayes to the month, as the Jewes computed it) on the fifth of <HI>Sivan;</HI> which makes it evident, that the <HI>old Penteco&s;t was affixt by</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>to one certain day of the month,</HI> as well as any of the re&s;t. He telleth us next, that the <HI>old Penteco&s;t</HI> may be <HI>pre&s;umed</HI> to have been a <HI>moveable fea&s;t,</HI> but <HI>varied &s;o, that it might alwayes fall upon the day im|mediately following the ordinary Sabbath.</HI> Which were it &s;o, it mu&s;t needs be a <HI>movable immovable</HI> fea&s;t&punc; though being con|&s;tantly reckoned from the &s;ixteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> and kept as con|&s;tantly on the morrow after the end of the &s;even weeks from thence computed; &s;eems to have nothing moveable in it, but all fixt and firm. Thirdly, whereas it is took for granted, and affirmed expre&s;ly, <HI>that the Penteco&s;t did alwayes fall upon the day immediately following the ordinary Sabb<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">th;</HI> there is not any thing more different from the truth it &s;elf, nor le&s;s agreeable to right rea&s;on. The Pa&s;sov<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">r, though it was fixt on the fourteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> as to the day of the month, did <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">all in cour&s;e (as the f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">a&s;t of <HI>Chri&s;tmas,</HI> the <HI>Epiphany,</HI> the <HI>Annuntiation,</HI> and all the re&s;t of the <HI>Fe&s;tivals</HI> which depend not on the keeping of <HI>Ea&s;ter</HI> do with us in <HI>England</HI>) on every day of the week &s;ucce&s;&s;ively in their turns and cour&s;es. So that if the fourteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an</HI> full upon the &s;econd day of the week, the fea&s;t of <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> mu&s;t fall that year upon the <HI>Wedne&s;day;</HI> and if the fourteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an</HI> fell upon the <HI>Tue&s;day,</HI> then the <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> mu&s;t fall that
<PB N="49" REF="28">
year upon the <HI>Thur&s;day, &amp; &s;ic de caeteris.</HI> Be&s;ides, the year was &s;o unequal among&s;t the Jewes, that it was impo&s;&s;ible the fea&s;t of <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> &s;hould be kept always on the fir&s;t day of the week, or the <HI>morrow after the ordinary Sabbath,</HI> as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> would fain have it. For the Jewes mea&s;uring their months by the cour&s;e of the <HI>Moon,</HI> they made their year fall &s;horter by eleven dayes, than tho&s;e who mea&s;ured their year by the cour&s;e of the <HI>Sun;</HI> and therefore were nece&s;&s;itated at the end of every 2^d&punc; or 3^d. year, to in&s;ert a month, which they commonly called <HI>Veadar,</HI> or the &s;econd <HI>Adar,</HI> becau&s;e it followed after the 12^t^h. month, which they called <HI>Adar.</HI> By rea&s;on whereof, it was altogether impo&s;&s;ible in the cour&s;e of nature, or in the ordinary revolution of times and &s;ea&s;ons, that the <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> &s;hould always fall on the fir&s;t day of the week; and therfore God him&s;elf is brought upon the Stage, and mu&s;t work a miracle every year to make up the matter; for &s;o it followeth, <HI>viz God</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;o ordered the mat|ter, that in the celebration of the feast of Weeks, the &s;eventh day</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Epi&s;t. Oenon. ad Parid.</NOTE> <HI>&s;hould purpo&s;ely be pa&s;&s;ed over, and that &s;olemnity &s;hould be kept up|on the fir&s;t.</HI> p. 90 And this I needs mu&s;t look on as an high pre|&s;umption in another man (<HI>ab&s;it reverentia vero,</HI> in the Poets lan|guage) that God &s;hould be entitled to the maintenance of our private fancies, and brought to act his part (without any nece&s;&s;i|ty) in the abetting of mens quarrels. The Heathen Poet was a better Divine then &s;o, who would not have God made an Actor in the common Enter<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">udes (<HI>Nec Deus inter&s;it ni&s;i dignus vindice nodus Inciderit,</HI> as his own words are) unle&s;s &s;ome great and weighty difficulty, not otherwi&s;e to be re&s;olved, did require the &s;ame. But I am &s;ure there is no &s;uch difficulty in the ca&s;e which we have before us, as to make God a party in it, to bring him down once in every year to act a miracle, <HI>in ordering the matter &s;o,</HI> that how&s;oever the cour&s;e of the year did change and vary, the <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> or <HI>fea&s;t of weeks</HI> &s;hould alwayes fall upon the <HI>fir&s;t day</HI> of the <HI>week,</HI> which is now our <HI>Sunday.</HI></P>
<P>Now though I &s;hould proceed to the examination of the in|ference which ari&s;eth from the former premi&s;es, yet I &s;hall fir&s;t con&s;ider of the proofs and te&s;timonies which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> hath produced in this particular. And the fir&s;t Argument which he brings, is from the practice of the <HI>Samaritans,</HI> of whom he
<PB N="50" REF="29">
tells us that <HI>the</HI> Samaritans <HI>do constantly ob&s;erve the</HI> Penteco&s;t <HI>on the first day of the week, which is now our Sunday,</HI> p. 87. their practi&s;e in it being <HI>preferred before the vulgar u&s;e of the Jewi&s;h Nation,</HI> by who&s;e account it may now fall on any day of the week, as is there affirmed. A&s;&s;uredly the Jews who &s;o tena|ciou&s;ly adhere to their <HI>Circumci&s;ion</HI> and their <HI>Sabbaths,</HI> and &s;o religiou&s;ly ob&s;erve the fea&s;t of unleavened bread, and the fea&s;t of <HI>Purim</HI> according to the times appointed in the holy Scrip|ture, cannot be thought to violate the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> in keeping the fea&s;t of <HI>Pentecost</HI> on any day of the week what&s;oever, as it chanced to fall. And on the other &s;ide, the <HI>Samaritans</HI> being lookt upon by the Jewes as Schi&s;maticks, as Hereticks al&s;o by <HI>Epiphanius,</HI> and divers other Chri&s;tian Authors, can make no pre&s;ident in this ca&s;e, nor ought to have their practice u&s;ed for an Argument to con&s;ute the practi&s;e of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> the more regular people, and more ob&s;erv<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="3 letters"> of the Law, and the punctu|alities or nicities of it, then the others were.</P>
<P>Much like to this was the point in difference, between the old Hereticks, called <HI>Quartodecimani&punc;</HI> and the Orthodox Chri|&s;tians, about the time of keeping <HI>Ea&s;ter,</HI> which the <HI>Quartode|cimani</HI> kept alwayes on the fourteenth day of the month, on what day &s;oever it &s;hould happen, on which day the Jewes al|&s;o kept their <HI>Pa&s;&s;eover,</HI> the Orthodox Chri&s;tians keeping it on the Sunday after, in memory of the Re&s;urrection of our Lord and Saviour, for which the fea&s;t of <HI>Ea&s;ter</HI> was fir&s;t ordained. He that &s;hall ju&s;tifie the <HI>Samaritans</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Jewes</HI> in the ca&s;e of <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> may as well ju&s;tifie the <HI>Quartodecimani</HI> a|gain&s;t the Orthodox Chri&s;tians in the ca&s;e of <HI>Ea&s;ter.</HI> And yet to ju&s;tifie the <HI>Samaritans,</HI> it is after added, that <HI>they produce the Letter of the Law,</HI> Levit. 23. 15, 16. <HI>where the</HI> fea&s;t of the fir&s;t fruits (<HI>otherwi&s;e called</HI> Penteco&s;t, or the fea&s;t of Weeks) <HI>is pre&s;cribed to be kept</HI> the morrow after the &s;eventh Sabbath, which they interpret to be the fir&s;t day of the week, <HI>p.</HI> 87, 88. As if the Jewes did not, or could not keep them&s;elves to the Letter of the Law, in keeping <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> at the end of fifty dayes, on what day &s;oever it might fall, becau&s;e the <HI>Samaritans</HI> pre|tend to have the Law on their &s;ide in that particular. A&s;&s;ured|ly the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> did not con&s;ider of the ab&s;urdities he hath
<PB N="51" REF="29">
fallen into by thus advocating for the <HI>Samaritans,</HI> and fixing the fea&s;t of Penteco&s;t on the morrow after the &s;eventh weekly Sabbath; for by this means in &s;tead of a fea&s;t of Penteco&s;t to be ob&s;erved on the fiftieth day from the fir&s;t account, we &s;hall have a fea&s;t (by what name &s;oever we &s;hall call it) to be ob|&s;erved on the forty ninth, forty eighth, and forty &s;eventh&punc; which though they may be called the <HI>fea&s;ts of Weeks,</HI> or the fea&s;ts of the Law, cannot by any means be called the fea&s;t of Penteco&s;t. For if the &s;ixteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an,</HI> or the fea&s;t of fir&s;t fruits fall upon the <HI>Monday,</HI> the fea&s;t of <HI>Pentecost</HI> (improperly &s;o called) mu&s;t be kept upon the forty ninth; if on <HI>Tue&s;day,</HI> on the forty eighth day after; and &s;o abating of the number till we come to <HI>Saturday;</HI> on which day, if the &s;ixteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an</HI> &s;hould chance to fall (as &s;ometimes it mu&s;t,) the next day after the &s;eventh Sabbath would be but the forty fourth day; and &s;o by the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> Rule, we &s;hall have a fea&s;t of Penteco&s;t but once in &s;even years, that is to &s;ay, when the &s;ixteenth of <HI>Ni&s;an</HI> did fall upon the fir&s;t day of the week, which is now our <HI>Sunday;</HI> a fea&s;t of Weeks, or of giving of the Law on the o|ther &s;ix. <HI>Adeo Argumenta ex ab&s;urdo petita ineptos habent exitus,</HI> &s;aid <HI>Lactantius</HI> truely.</P>
<P>The &s;econd proof is borrowed from the te&s;timony of <HI>I&s;ychi|us,</HI> an old Chri&s;tian Writer (who lived about the year 600.) interpreting the <HI>morrow after the &s;eventh Sabbath,</HI> as the <HI>Sama|ritans</HI> al&s;o do, to be the fir&s;t day of the Week. And true it is, that <HI>I&s;ychius</HI> doth &s;o expound it; and more then &s;o, makes it to be the fir&s;t intention of the Law-giver&punc; that the day from which the fifty dayes were to be reckoned, &s;hould be the fir&s;t day of the week, which is now our Sunday. <HI>Plani&ugrave;s,</HI> laith he, <HI>legi|&s;lator intentionem &s;uam demon&s;trare volens, ab altero die Sabbati</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">I&s;ych. l. 6. in Levit. c. 23.</NOTE> <HI>memorari praecepit quinquaginta dies; dominicum diem proculdubio volens intelligi.</HI> In which as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> dares not ju&s;tifie his Author for &s;training the &s;ignification of <HI>altera dies Sabbati,</HI> to &s;ignifie the Lords day, beyond that true meaning of the word, <HI>which in</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>denoteth no more then the morrow after the Sabbath</HI> (though produced by him to no other purpo&s;e then to prove that point;) &s;o dare not I ju&s;tifie the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> in &s;training the words of his Author beyond their meaning, and
<PB N="52" REF="30">
telling us that he made no &s;cruple to <HI>call the day of Chri&s;ts re|&s;urrection another Sabbath day.</HI> For if we look upon it well, we &s;hall not find that <HI>I&s;ychius</HI> calls the day of the Re&s;urrection by the name of another Sabbath day, but onely telleth us that the Lords day, the day on which our Saviour ro&s;e, was <HI>altera dies Sabbati,</HI> that is to &s;ay, the fir&s;t day of the Week, or the morrow after the Sabbath (under&s;tand by <HI>Sabbath</HI> in this place, the fea&s;t of unleavened bread) from whence the fifty dayes, which ended in the fea&s;t of <HI>Pentecost,</HI> were to take beginning, as will appear by comparing the&s;e words with tho&s;e before, <HI>viz. ab altero die Sabbati memorari praecepit quinquaginta dies.</HI> If the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> can find no better comfort from the Council of <HI>Friuli,</HI> cap. 13. for calling the day of Chri&s;ts Re&s;urrection by the name of <HI>another Sabbath day;</HI> he will finde but little, if not le&s;s, from tho&s;e words of Saint <HI>Am|bro&s;e,</HI> to which the &s;aid Council of <HI>Friuli</HI> is &s;uppo&s;ed to al|lude. The Fathers words on which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> doth rely, to prove that the Lords day was then called a <HI>Sabbath,</HI> as both <HI>I&s;ychius</HI> and the &s;aid Council of <HI>Friuli</HI> are pre&s;umed<NOTE PLACE="marg">In P&s;al. 47.</NOTE> to do, are the&s;e that follow, <HI>viz. &V;bi Dominica dies coepit praecellere, qu&acirc; Dominus re&s;urrexit, Sabbatum quod primum erat &s;ecundum haberi coepit &agrave; primo.</HI> In which pa&s;&s;age he would have us think that the <HI>Lords day</HI> is called <HI>primum Sabbatum,</HI> or the <HI>fir&s;t Sabbath;</HI> and the Saturday <HI>Sabbatum &s;ecundum,</HI> or the <HI>&s;econd Sabbath.</HI> Whereas indeed the mea|ning of the Father is no more then this, that after the Lords day had grown into e&s;timation, and got the better, as it were, of the <HI>Jewi&s;h Sabbath (ubi Dominica dies coepit praecel|lere, &amp;c.</HI>) the <HI>Sabbath</HI> of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> which was before the fir&s;t in honour and account, began to be lookt upon in the &s;econd place, the fir&s;t being given unto the day of the Re&s;ur|rection. And as for the Council of <HI>Friuli,</HI> the Lord <HI>Pri|mate</HI> doth not &s;ay for certain, that the Lords day is there called <HI>Sabbatum primum,</HI> and the Jewi&s;h Sabbath, <HI>Sabbatum ulti|mum;</HI> but that they are &s;o called, if he be not mi&s;taken: but if he be mi&s;taken in it (why not as well in this as in all the re&s;t?) the Council of <HI>Friuli</HI> will conclude no more then Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> did, to whom it is &s;aid to have alluded.</P>
<P><PB N="53" REF="30">And on the contrary, if the Te&s;timonies here alledged from <HI>I&s;ychius,</HI> the <HI>Council,</HI> and Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> may be properly u|&s;ed to prove, that the Lords day was then called by the name of the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> mu&s;t have very ill luck in finding no other te&s;timony, but that of <HI>luxus Sabbatarius</HI> in <HI>Apollinaris,</HI> p. 75. to evidence that the Latine word <HI>Sabbatum,</HI> u&s;ed to denote our Chri&s;tian Fe&s;tivities, of which in our fir&s;t <HI>Section</HI> we have &s;poken &s;uffi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">iently.</P>
<P>Nor is the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> le&s;s zealous to entitle the Lords day to &s;ome <HI>Divinity,</HI> then to gratifie the <HI>Sabbatarian Brethren,</HI> by giving it the name of the <HI>Sabbath day.</HI> For this is that which is chiefly aimed at in the inference, wherein I would very cheerfully concur in opinion with him, but that I am un|&s;atisfied in the grounds of it. For if I were &s;atisfied in this, <HI>that God &s;o ordered the matter, that in the celebration of the fea&s;t of</HI> Weeks, <HI>the</HI> &s;eventh day <HI>&s;hould purpo&s;ely be pa&s;&s;ed over, and that &s;olemnity &s;hould be kept upon the first;</HI> I &s;hould as ea&s;ily grant as he, that <HI>nothing was more likely to be pre&s;ignified thereby, then that under the &s;tate of the Gospel the &s;olemnity of the weekly &s;ervice &s;hould be celebrated upon that day,</HI> p. 90. But being I cannot grant the fir&s;t for the rea&s;ons formerly delivered, I cannot on the like, or for better rea&s;ons, admit the &s;econd. I grant that under the &s;tate of the Go&s;pel, the &s;olemnities of the weekly &s;ervice were celebrated on that day; and yet I can neither agree with him, nor with <HI>Thomas Walden&s;is,</HI> whom he cites to that purpo&s;e, that the Lords day did pre&s;ently &s;ucceed. (<HI>Tunc intra&s;&s;e Dominicam loco ejus</HI>) in the place thereof, as <HI>Bapti&s;m pre&s;ently</HI> (as he &s;aith) <HI>&s;ucceeded in the place of Circumci&s;i|on.</HI> For though Saint <HI>John&punc; Apocal.</HI> 1. call the fir&s;t day of the week by the name of the <HI>Lords day,</HI> as mo&s;t Chri&s;tian Writers think he did, yet doth it not follow thereupon that it was &s;o called, <HI>&s;tatim po&s;t mi&s;&s;ionem &s;piritus Sancti</HI> (as <HI>Walden&s;is</HI> would have it) immediately on the comming down of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> For not onely in the eighteenth of the <HI>Acts,</HI> which was &s;ome yeares after the fir&s;t <HI>Chri&s;tian Penteco&s;t,</HI> but in Saint <HI>Pauls</HI> Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Corinthians,</HI> it is given us by no other name, then that of the <HI>first day of the Week;</HI> nor did Saint <HI>John</HI> write the <HI>Revelation,</HI> in which the
<PB N="54" REF="31">
name of the Lords day is fir&s;t given unto it, till the ninty fourth or ninty fifth year from our Saviours birth, which was &s;ixty years, or thereabouts, from the coming down of the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> the fir&s;t Chri&s;tian Penteco&s;t. And though I am not wil|ling to derogate from the honour of &s;o great a day, yet I can|not agree with the Lord <HI>Primate, That it is in a manner gene|rally acknowledged by all, that on that day (viz.</HI> the fir&s;t day of the week) <HI>the famous Penteco&s;t in the &s;econd of the Acts was ob|&s;erved.</HI> For <HI>Lorinus</HI> in his Commentary on the &s;econd of the <HI>Acts,</HI> tells us of &s;ome who hold, that at the time of our Savi|ours &s;uffering, the <HI>Pa&s;sover</HI> fell upon the <HI>Thur&s;day,</HI> and then the Penteco&s;t mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity fall upon the <HI>Saturday,</HI> or Jewi&s;h Sabbath. But &s;eeing it is &s;aid to be agreed on generally <HI>in a man|ner</HI> onely, let it pa&s;s for once. All which con&s;idered, I &s;hall and will adhere to my former vote, <HI>viz.</HI> that if the rule be true, as I think it is, <HI>that no &s;ufficient argument can be drawn from a ca&s;ual fact, and that the falling of the</HI> Penteco&s;t <HI>that year, upon the fir&s;t day of the week, be meerly ca&s;ual; the comming of the Holy Ghost upon that day will be no Argument nor Authority to &s;tate the fir&s;t day of the week in the place and honour of the Jew|i&s;h Sabbath.</HI></P>
<P>And now before I &s;hut up this Di&s;pute about the Penteco&s;t, I &s;hall crave leave to put the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> in mind of a great mi&s;take which he hath fallen into, by putting another &s;en&s;e on <HI>Tertullians</HI> words, about the fir&s;t <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> as ob&s;erved by the Chri&s;tians, than was intended by that Author. For telling us, p. 85. <Q>That the Gentiles did not celebrate their Saturdays with that &s;olemnity, wherewith them&s;elves did their Annual Fe&s;tivities, or the Jews their weekly Sabbaths; he bringeth for a proof thereof a pa&s;&s;age cited out of the fourteenth Chapter of <HI>Tertullian, De Idololatria;</HI> by which it may ap|pear, &s;aith be, that <HI>Tertullian</HI> thus &s;peaks unto the Chri&s;tians, who ob&s;erved 52. Lords days every year, whereas all the An|nual fe&s;tivals of the <HI>Pagans</HI> put together did come &s;hort of fifty; </Q> <HI>Ethnicis &s;emel annuus dies qui&s;que fe&s;tus e&s;t, tibi octavo quoque die. Excerpe &s;ingulas &s;olemnitates nationum, &amp; in ordi|nem t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">xe, Penteco&s;ten implere non poterunt.</HI> But clearly <HI>Tertul|lian</HI> in th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">t place neither relates to the 52 Lords dayes, nor the
<PB N="55" REF="31">
number of 50. but onely to the Chri&s;tian Penteco&s;t, which in his time was &s;olemnized 50. dayes together, and took up the whole &s;pace of time betwixt <HI>Ea&s;ter</HI> and <HI>Whit&s;untide.</HI> And this appears plainly by the drift of the Author in that place, in which he fir&s;t taxeth the Chri&s;tians with keeping many of the fea&s;ts of the Gentiles, whereas the Gentiles kept not any of the fea&s;ts of the Chri&s;tians, <HI>non Dominicam, non Penteco&s;ten,</HI> no not &s;o much as the <HI>Lords day,</HI> or the fea&s;t of <HI>Pentecost.</HI> And then he addes, that if they did it on<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 letters">y to refre&s;h their &s;pirits, or indulge &s;omething to the fle&s;h, they had more fe&s;tivals of their own then the Gentiles had. The number of the fea&s;ts ob&s;erved by the Gentiles, being &s;o &s;hort of tho&s;e which were kept by the Chri&s;tians of his time, <HI>ut Penteco&s;ten non potuerint,</HI> they could not equal the fe&s;tival of the <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> onely, much le&s;s the Penteco&s;t and the Lords day together. And &s;o it is ob|&s;erved by <HI>Pamelius</HI> in his Notes upon that place; where fir&s;t he telleth us, that the Author in that place under&s;tands not onely the fea&s;t of Penteco&s;t it &s;elfe, or the la&s;t day of fifty, <HI>&s;ed etiam tempus illud integrum &agrave; die Pa&s;chae in Penteco&s;ten,</HI> but the whole &s;pace of time betwixt it and the <HI>Pa&s;&s;eover</HI> (taking the word <HI>Pa&s;s|over</HI> in the large&s;t &s;en&s;e, as it comprehends al&s;o the fea&s;t of un|leavened bread.) But what need <HI>Pamelius</HI> come in place, when it is commonly avowed by the ancient Writers, that all the fifty dayes which made up the Penteco&s;t, were generally e&s;teemed as holy, and kept with as great reverence and &s;olemnity as the Lords day was? No fa&s;ting upon the one nor upon the other; <HI>Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De coron&acirc; mil. c. 3.</NOTE> <HI>eadem immunitate &agrave; die</HI> Pa&s;chae <HI>in</HI> Penteco&s;ten <HI>gaudemus,</HI> as <HI>Tertullian</HI> hath it. Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> more expre&s;ly tells us, <HI>Ser|mon</HI> 61. that every one of tho&s;e fifty dayes was <HI>in&s;tar Domini|cae,</HI> and <HI>qualis e&s;t Dominica,</HI> in all re&s;pects nothing inferiour to the <HI>Lords day;</HI> and in his Comment on Saint <HI>Luke</HI> c. 17. l. 8. that <HI>omnes dies</HI> (that is to &s;ay, all tho&s;e fifty dayes) <HI>&s;unt tanquam Dominica.</HI> Adde hereunto Saint <HI>Jeroms</HI> te&s;timony, <HI>Ad Luci|num,</HI> and then I hope <HI>Tertullians</HI> words in his Book <HI>De Idolo|latria,</HI> c. 14. will find another &s;en&s;e and meaning then that which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> hath a&s;cribed unto it.</P>
<P>To &s;hut up this Di&s;pute, in which we have encountred &s;o
<PB N="56" REF="32">
many errors, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> tells us very rightly, <HI>that on the day of the Pa&s;&s;eover, Chri&s;t our Pa&s;&s;eover was &s;lain for us, that he re&s;ted in the grave the whole Sabbath following</HI> (commonly called the fea&s;t of unleavened bread) <HI>the next day after that, the first fruits of the</HI> fir&s;t (<HI>or</HI> Barley) <HI>Harve&s;t was offered unto God, and that from thence the count was taken of the &s;even Sabbaths, and that upon the morrow after the &s;eventh Sabbath (which was our</HI> Lords day) <HI>was celebrated the fea&s;t of weeks, &amp;c.</HI> Upon which offering of the &s;heaf of the fir&s;t fruits of the fir&s;t, or (<HI>Barley</HI>) Harve&s;t (which hapned at the time of our Saviours &s;uffering on the fir&s;t day of the Week) he gives this note, that Chri&s;t ro&s;e from the dead upon that day, <HI>and became the fir&s;t fruits of them that &s;lept; many bodies of the Saints that &s;lept</HI> ari&s;ing likewi&s;e after him, <HI>p</HI> 91. And for this note, he receives great thanks from Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e,</HI> &s;ignifying in a letter to him the <HI>great &s;atisfacti|on which he received from him, in opening the my&s;tery of the</HI> fea&s;ts of fir&s;t fruits, <HI>to the &s;ingular advantage of the Lords day, in the time of the Gospel,</HI> p. 103. But herein Dr. <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> may be &s;aid to be like tho&s;e men of whom <HI>Tully</HI> &s;peaks, <HI>Qui non tan|t&ugrave;m ornarent aliquem &s;uis laudibus, &s;ed honorarent alienis.</HI> For without derogating in the lea&s;t from the honour due to the Lord Primate, I cannot &s;ay that the honour of the fir&s;t <HI>opening</HI> of this <HI>mystery</HI> doth belong to him; it being an ob&s;ervation which I had both read in Books, and heard in Sermons many years before 1640. in which (or but the year before) the Lord Primate wrote this pre&s;ent Letter to Doctor <HI>Twi&s;&s;e.</HI> But becau&s;e I have but few Books by me, and cannot readily call to mind in what Books I read it, I &s;hall content my &s;elfe at this pre&s;ent with the glo&s;s of <HI>Deodati</HI> on the twentieth ver&s;e of the fifteenth Chapter of the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle to tho&s;e of <HI>Corinth,</HI> where it is &s;aid, that Chri&s;t was ri&s;en again, and was become <HI>the fir&s;t fruits of them that &s;lept,</HI> premi&s;ing onely by the way, that <HI>Diodati</HI> began tho&s;e <HI>Annotations</HI> in the <HI>Italian</HI> tongue, about the year 1606. to give his Country-men an in&s;ight of the darkne&s;s wher|in they lived, which afterwards he poli&s;hed and perfected in &s;uch manner, as they are now come into our hands. Now <HI>Diodati</HI> his note is this, <HI>viz.</HI> that Chri&s;t is called <HI>the first fruits of them that &s;lept,</HI> <Q>not onely becau&s;e he was the fir&s;t in the
<PB N="57" REF="32">
order of the Re&s;urrection, which is in Believers, as it were, a wakening from &s;leep; but al&s;o in the quality of a Chief, the cau&s;e and pledge of it in all his members in&s;eparably united to him by communion of Spirit, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 11. even as under the Law in the fir&s;t fruits offered to God, the peo|ple had an a&s;&s;urance of Gods ble&s;&s;ing upon all their Harve&s;t.</Q> In a word, as &s;ome things are defined, or (to &s;peak more pro|perly) de&s;cribed among&s;t Philo&s;ophers rather by what they are not, then by what they are; &s;o it is ea&s;ier to declare to whom the fir&s;t opening of this My&s;tery of the <HI>first fruits</HI> (if there be any my&s;tery in it) doth not of right belong, then to whom it doth.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VI.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The Historian charged for following the <HI>Greek Editions</HI> of <HI>Ig|natius,</HI> in his Epistle to the <HI>Magne&s;ians.</HI> An old Latine Tran&s;lation of <HI>Ignatius</HI> preferred by the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> before any of the Greek Editions, and the rea&s;on why. Proofs from the best of the Greek Fathers, that the Sabbath was kept as an holy day by the Primitive Christians; The contrary not proved by the&s;e two testimonies which are alledged from the Council of <HI>Laodicea,</HI> and the words of <HI>Gregory</HI> the Great. The Council of <HI>Laodicea</HI> prohibits not the keeping of the Sab|bath day, but the keeping of it after the manner of the <HI>Jews,</HI> by abstaining from all kind of work. The <HI>Sabbatarians</HI> by im|po&s;ing a re&s;traint from all manner of work on the <HI>Lords day,</HI> are by <HI>Pope Gregory</HI> the Great made the Preachers of An|tichri&s;t. The Lord <HI>Primate</HI> picks a needle&s;s quarrel with the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Ely.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>THe third charge laid by name on the <HI>Historian,</HI> relates unto a pa&s;&s;age cited out of the Epi&s;tle of <HI>Ignatius Ad Magne&s;ianos;</HI> in which he doth not &s;tand accu&s;ed either for fal&s;ifying the words of his Author, or putting a wrong &s;en&s;e upon them; but onely for not con&s;ulting with an old Latine
<PB N="58" REF="33">
copy of <HI>Ignatius</HI> which he never heard of. The <HI>Historian</HI> had then by him no fewer then four Editions of that Father, one publi&s;hed by <HI>Mastreus</HI> the Je&s;uite, both in Greek and La|tine; another in both languages, publi&s;hed by <HI>Vedelius</HI> a <HI>Ge|nevian,</HI> with his notes upon it; a third more ancient then ei|ther of them, printed at <HI>Paris,</HI> in both languages al&s;o, but the year I remember not; and a fourth in Latine onely, but of a very old Print, &s;ubjoyned unto the works of <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> the <HI>Areopagite.</HI> Out of all which compared together, he cited that pa&s;&s;age out of the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Magne&s;ians,</HI> again&s;t which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> hath excepted, and is this that followeth; <Q><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewi&s;h manner, in &s;loth and idlene&s;s; for it is written, that <HI>he that will not labour &s;hall not eat,</HI> and in <HI>the &s;weat of thy brows &s;halt thou eat thy bread.</HI> But let us keep it after a &s;piritual fa&s;hion, not in bodily ea&s;e, but in the &s;tudy of the Law; not eating meat dre&s;&s;ed ye&s;ter|day, or drinking luke-warm drinks, or walking out a limited &s;pace, or &s;etling our delights, as they did, on dancing; but in the contemplation of the works of God, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. And after we have &s;o kept the Sabbath, let every one that loveth Chri&s;t, keep the <HI>Lords day</HI> fe&s;tival, the Re&s;urrection day, the Queen and Empre&s;s of all dayes; in which our life was rai&s;ed a|gain, and death was overcome by our Lord and Saviour. So that we &s;ee he would have both dayes ob&s;erved; the Sab|bath fir&s;t, though not as would the <HI>Ebionites,</HI> in a Jewi&s;h &s;ort: and after that the Lords day, which he &s;o much magnifieth, the better to abate that high e&s;teem which &s;ome had ca&s;t up|on the <HI>Sabbath.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Again&s;t this pa&s;&s;age, and the inference which is rai&s;ed upon it, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> fir&s;t objecteth, &s;aying, that there is no &s;uch thing to be found in an old Latine copy of the works of <HI>Ignatius,</HI> which is to be &s;een in the Library of <HI>Caius Colledge</HI> in <HI>Cambridge,</HI> which for many re&s;pects he doth prefer before any Greek Edition then extant. And in that old Latine copy, &s;aith he, there is nothing to be found in the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Magne&s;ians,</HI> touching the Sabbath and the Lords day, but the&s;e
<PB N="59" REF="33">
words onely, <HI>viz. Non amplius Sabbatizantes, &s;ed &s;ecundum Dominicam viventes, in qua &amp; vita no&s;tra orta est.</HI> And there|upon he doth infer that all tho&s;e other words alledged by Do|ctor <HI>Heylyn</HI> (Part 2. page 43.)<Q> to prove that <HI>Ignatius</HI> would have both the Sabbath and the Lords day ob&s;erved, were af|terwards added by &s;ome later Grecian, who was afraid that the cu&s;tome of keeping both dayes ob&s;erved in his time, &s;hould appear otherwi&s;e to be directly oppo&s;ite to the &s;en|tence of <HI>Ignatius,</HI></Q> <BIBL>p. 95, 96.</BIBL> This is the ea&s;ie&s;t <HI>charge</HI> that may be, and if there were nothing el&s;e intended, but to &s;hew that the <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> was not the Ma&s;ter of &s;o much good fortune, as to have &s;een the <HI>old Latine Copy</HI> in <HI>Caius Library</HI> before he undertook that work, we might here end this Section without more ado. But the main matter aim'd at in it, is to di&s;prove that which the <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> hath delivered, concerning the ob|&s;erving of both dayes, as well the old <HI>Sabbath,</HI> as the new <HI>Lords day</HI> by the Primitive Chri&s;tians. That which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> cites out of the third Book of <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> to &s;hew that the main intention of <HI>Ignatius</HI> was to oppo&s;e the <HI>Ebionites</HI> of his own time, is no more then what he might have found in the &s;ame Part and Page of the <HI>Hi&s;tory of the Sabbath,</HI> which him&s;elfe hath cited; and therefore might have here been &s;pa|red, were it not u&s;ed by him as an Argument to prove that which no body doth deny, <HI>viz. That by their imitation of the Church herein the antiquity of the ob&s;ervation of the Lords day might be further confirmed,</HI> p. 96. Nor is it to much better pur|po&s;e that he proves the univer&s;ality of the ob&s;ervance of the Lords day, out of another pa&s;&s;age of the &s;ame <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> in his Book <HI>De laudibus Con&s;tantini;</HI> in which he doth but <GAP DESC="foreign">, having no other Adver&s;ary (that I know of) to contend with|al. The Author of that Hi&s;tory had &s;aid &s;o much of the Anti|quity of the Lords day, and the Univer&s;ality of the ob&s;ervance of the &s;ame, with many other things conducing to the honour of that &s;acred day; that he received thanks for it &s;ent to him in the name of divers Mini&s;ters living in <HI>Buckingham&s;hire,</HI> and <HI>Surrey</HI> (though of a different per&s;wa&s;ion from him in other points about that day) whom he never &s;aw. But that the Satur|day, or old Sabbath, was not kept holy at the fir&s;t by the Pri|mitive
<PB N="60" REF="34">
Chri&s;tians, by tho&s;e e&s;pecially who lived in the Ea&s;tern parts of the Roman Empire; neither the <HI>antiquity</HI> nor the <HI>uni|ver&s;ality</HI> of keeping the <HI>Lords day</HI> can evince at all.</P>
<P>For on the contrary, that the old Sabbath was kept holy by the Primitive Chri&s;tians, is proved fir&s;t by the <HI>Con&s;titutions</HI> of the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> a&s;cribed to <HI>Clement</HI> (of good Authority in the Church, though not made by them) where it is &s;aid, <GAP DESC="foreign">. By which it evidently appears, that both dayes were or|dered to be kept <HI>holy,</HI> the one in memorial of the <HI>Creation,</HI> the other of the <HI>Re&s;urrection.</HI> Which <HI>Con&s;titutions</HI> being not thought to be of weight enough to make good the point (though of &s;o great antiquity and e&s;timation, as to be mentioned and made u&s;e of by <HI>Epiphanius,</HI> a right learned man) are &s;omewhat backt by the Authority of <HI>Theophilus Antiochenus</HI> an old Ea|&s;tern Bi&s;hop, who lived not long time after <HI>Ignatius, Anno</HI> 174. by whom we are told of that great honour which the &s;e|venth day or Jewi&s;h Sabbath had attained unto (<HI>qui apud om|nes mortales celebris est,</HI> as before we had it in our fourth Secti|on on another occa&s;ion) with all &s;orts of people. But if this be not plain enough, as I think it is, they are &s;econdly mo&s;t &s;trongly countenanced by the Authority of the Synod held in <HI>Laodicea</HI> (a Town of <HI>Phrygia) Anno</HI> 314. where there pa&s;&s;ed a Canon <GAP DESC="foreign">,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Can. 16.</NOTE> touching the reading of the <HI>Go&s;pels</HI> with the other Scriptures upon the <HI>Saturday</HI> or <HI>Sabbath;</HI> that in the time of Lent there &s;hould be no oblation made <GAP DESC="foreign">, but on the <HI>Saturday,</HI> and the <HI>Lords day</HI> onely;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Can. 49.</NOTE> neither that any <HI>fe&s;tival</HI> &s;hould then be ob&s;erved in memory of any Martyrs, but that their names onely &s;hould be comme|morated, <GAP DESC="foreign">, upon the <HI>Lords day</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Can. 52.</NOTE> and the <HI>Sabbaths.</HI> Which Canons were not made (as may ap|pear plainly by the Hi&s;tories of the&s;e elder times) for the intro|duction of any new ob&s;ervance never u&s;ed before, but for the Declaration and Confirmation of the ancient u&s;age. Thirdly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">De Ca&s;tigatio|ne.</NOTE> we find in <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en,</HI> that &s;ome of the people who had neglected to ob&s;erve the <HI>Saturday,</HI> were reproved by him on the <HI>Sunday,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">
<PB N="61" REF="34">
<GAP DESC="foreign">; &amp;c. With what face, &s;aith the <HI>Father,</HI> wilt thou look upon the <HI>Lords day,</HI> which ha&s;t di&s;honoured the <HI>Sabbath?</HI> knowe&s;t thou not that the&s;e dayes are Si&s;ters, and that who&s;o|ever doth de&s;pi&s;e the one, doth affront the other? Fourthly, by Saint <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> the <HI>Saturday</HI> or <HI>Sabbath</HI> is reckoned for one of tho&s;e four dayes, on which the Chri&s;tians of his time u&s;ed weekly to participate of the ble&s;&s;ed Euchari&s;t (<GAP DESC="foreign">)<NOTE PLACE="marg">Epi&s;t. 289.</NOTE> the <HI>Lords day, Wedne&s;day</HI> and <HI>Friday</HI> being the other three. And though it cannot be denied, but that the ob&s;ervation of the <HI>Saturday</HI> began to le&s;&s;en and decay in divers places towards the latter end of the fourth Century, and in &s;ome other places, as name|ly the I&s;le of <HI>Cyprus,</HI> and the great City of <HI>Alexandria</HI> (fol|lowing therein the Cu&s;tom of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI>) had never been ob&s;erved at all; Yet, fifthly, <HI>Epiphanius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Sala|mis</HI> in the I&s;le of <HI>Cyprus,</HI> could not but acknowledge, that in other places <GAP DESC="foreign">, they u&s;ed to<NOTE PLACE="marg">Expo&s;. fidei Cath. 24.</NOTE> celebrate the holy Sacrament, and hold their publick meetings on the <HI>Sabbath day.</HI> And &s;ixthly, the Homily <HI>De Semonte</HI> a|&s;cribed to <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> doth affirm as much, as to the publick A&s;&s;emblies of the Chri&s;tians on the <HI>Sabbath day;</HI> and &s;o doth <HI>Socrates</HI> the Hi&s;torian, who accounts both dayes for weekly fe&s;tivals, <GAP DESC="foreign">, and addes <GAP DESC="foreign">, that on them both the Congregation u&s;ed to be a&s;&s;embled, and the whole Liturgy performed. By which account, be&s;ides <HI>Socrates,</HI> and the Author of the Con&s;titutions, again&s;t whom &s;ome ob|jections have been pretended, we have the Te&s;timonies of <HI>Theophilus Antiochenus, Gregory Ny&s;&s;en, Ba&s;il, Epiphanius,</HI> and the Author of the Homily <HI>De Semente</HI> a&s;cribed to <HI>Atha|na&s;ius,</HI> mo&s;t plain and po&s;itive in this point, that both the <HI>Sab|bath</HI> and the <HI>Lords day</HI> were ob&s;erved for days of publick mee|ting by the Ea&s;tern Chri&s;tians, as was affirmed before out of the Epi&s;tle of <HI>Ignatius ad Magne&s;.</HI> And I conceive that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> did not, or could not think (or if he did, cannot be ju&s;tified for &s;o thinking) that men of &s;uch an eminent &s;ancti|ty as tho&s;e Fathers were, would fal&s;ifie that Epi&s;tle of <HI>Ignati|us</HI> to &s;erve their turns, or adde any thing to that Epi&s;tle which
<PB N="62" REF="35">
they found not in it, <HI>out of a fear that the cu&s;tome of keeping both dayes ob&s;erved in their times, &s;hould appear otherwi&s;e to be directly oppo&s;ite to the &s;entence of Ignatius,</HI> p. 96. And there|fore Doctor <HI>Heylyn</HI> taking the words of <HI>Ignatius,</HI> as he found them in the &s;everal Greek Editions above mentioned, and finding them &s;o well backt and countenanced by tho&s;e holy Fathers which &s;ucceeded in their &s;everal times, need not be troubled at the &s;tarting out of an old Latine Manu&s;cript, &s;o different from the Greek Editions, as it &s;eems to be; nor to recede from any thing which he hath cited out of tho&s;e <HI>Editi|ons,</HI> becau&s;e the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> findes it not in his Latine Ma|nu&s;cript.</P>
<P>The pa&s;&s;age of <HI>Ignatius Ad Magne&s;ianos,</HI> cited by the <HI>Hi|&s;torian,</HI> being ju&s;tified by &s;o many good Authors, all living and writing (except <HI>Socrates</HI> onely) in the four fir&s;t Centuries; we mu&s;t next &s;ee what the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> hath to object again&s;t it, or any thing therein delivered, or rather to confirm his correction of it out of the <HI>old Latine Copy</HI> in the Library of <HI>Caius Colledge.</HI> The old Latine Copy hath it thus, <HI>Non am|plius Sabbatizantes, &s;ed &s;ecundum Dominicam viventes, in qua &amp; vita nostra orta e&s;t.</HI> And this he thinks to be a &s;ufficient Argument to prove, <HI>that the Lords day was ob&s;erved as a weekly holy day by the Chri&s;tians in the room of the abrogated Sabbath of the Jewes,</HI> p. 93. Though no &s;uch thing can be col|lected, either as to the weekly celebrating of the Lords day, or the abrogating of the Jewi&s;h Sabbath from his Authors words. But then as well to ju&s;tifie the reading of this old La|tine Copy, as to refel that which the Hi&s;torian had ob&s;erved from the Greek Editions, he gives us two Authorities, and no more but two: The fir&s;t is the Authority of the Fathers in the Council of <HI>Laodicea,</HI> touching the time whereof (whether he or the Lord Bi&s;hop of <HI>Ely</HI> be in the right) we di&s;pute not now; By whom it was declared, <HI>quod non oportet Chri&s;tia|nos Judaizare, &amp; in Sabbat o otiari, &s;ed ip&s;os eo die operari; diem autem Dominicam praeferentes, otiari (&s;i modo po&s;&s;int) ut chri&s;ti|anos,</HI> p. 98. But unto this it may be an&s;wered, that this Canon (it is the 29 in number) relates not to the meetings of the Chri&s;tians on the <HI>Sabbath</HI> or <HI>Saturday</HI> for Gods publick &s;er|vice;
<PB N="63" REF="35">
but to the u&s;age of &s;ome men, who did &s;eem to Judaize upon it, by giving them&s;elves to ea&s;e and idlene&s;s, and to re&s;t from labour when the &s;ervice of the day was ended. And that the Canon meant no more then to reprove &s;uch men as ob|&s;erved the Saturday or Sabbath after the manner of the Jewes, and to take order for the conttary in the time to come, appears mo&s;t evidently by the great care they took touching the &s;olem|nizing of that day, and the Divine Offices to be done upon it, declared in three &s;everal Canons, the &s;umme whereof we have &s;een already in this Section. So that this fir&s;t part of that Canon aimed at no other end, but by ordaining that the people &s;hould work on the <HI>Sabbath</HI> or <HI>Saturday</HI> (&s;uppo&s;e it &s;till after the publick &s;ervice of the day was ended) thereby to di&s;tingui&s;h them from the Jewes, who would not work at all upon it. And then that this di&s;tinction between them and the Jewes might appear more evidently, it was ordered in the later part of that Canon, that preferring the Lords day before it, they &s;hould as Chri&s;tians re&s;t from labour on that day, if their occa&s;ions would permit them: For if we mark it as we &s;hould, we &s;hall not find that the Fathers ab&s;olutely pre&s;cribed any &s;uch ce&s;&s;a|tion from all, or any work (for which purpo&s;e it is chiefly ci|ted) but onely with a <HI>&s;i modo po&s;&s;int,</HI> if neither Ma&s;ters, Pa|rents, or other Superiors &s;hould command them otherwi&s;e, or that the conveniency of their own affairs, or the doing of good offices to their neighbour, did not occa&s;ion them to di&s;po&s;e of it, or &s;ome part thereof on &s;ome bodily labour. The Canon mu&s;t be thus expounded, or el&s;e it mu&s;t run cro&s;s to tho&s;e which before were mentioned, which were ridiculous to ima|gine in &s;o grave a meeting. The next Authority is taken from <HI>Gregory</HI> the <HI>Great,</HI> who telleth us that it is the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichri&s;t, <HI>qui veniens diem Dominicum &amp; Sab|batum ab omni opere faeciet cu&s;todiri,</HI> who at his coming &s;hall cau&s;e both the <HI>Lords day</HI> and the <HI>Sabbath</HI> to be kept or cele|brated without doing any manner of work. A pa&s;&s;age very &s;trangely cited, and &s;uch as I conceive the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> will neither &s;tand to, nor be ruled by upon &s;econd thoughts. For if it be the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichri&s;t, that no man|ner of work is to be done upon the Saturday or Sabbath, it is
<PB N="64" REF="36">
the Doctrine of the &s;ame Preachers of Antichri&s;t, that no man|ner of work be done on the Lords day neither. And if it be the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichri&s;t, that no manner of work &s;hould be done on the Lords day, what will become of all our Engli&s;h <HI>Sabbatarians,</HI> and their Abetrers, who impo&s;e as many re&s;traints of this kind upon Chri&s;tian people, as ever were impo&s;ed on the Jewes by the Scribes and Phari&s;ees? What will become of tho&s;e who framed the <HI>Articles</HI> of <HI>Ire|land,</HI> or have &s;ince &s;ub&s;cribed them, or preacht, or writ accor|ding to the tenour of them; in one of which it is decreed, <HI>that the first day of the week, which is the Lords day, is wholly to be dedicated to the &s;ervice of God, and that therefore we are bound therein to re&s;t from all common and daily bu&s;ine&s;s?</HI> The Lord <HI>Pri|mate</HI> did not well con&s;ider of the&s;e inconveniencies, when he brought in <HI>Gregory</HI> the <HI>Great</HI> to bear witne&s;s for him. And in that want of con&s;ideration, he falls on Doctor <HI>Francis White,</HI> Lord Bi&s;hop of <HI>Ely,</HI> a right learned man, for rendring Pope <HI>Gregories</HI> words by a &s;trange kind of mi&s;take in turning this word <HI>and</HI> the Copulative, into <HI>or</HI> the Di&s;junctive. But po&s;&s;i|bly this may be a fault of the Printers, or a &s;lip of the Pen, without any purpo&s;e or de&s;ign of altering the lea&s;t word, or true intention of that Father. And &s;econdly, whether it be ren|dered by the Copulative <HI>and,</HI> or the Di&s;junctive <HI>or,</HI> is not much material; for if it be the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichri&s;t, to teach men to ab&s;tain from all manner of work both on the <HI>Saturday</HI> and the <HI>Sunday;</HI> it is, no doubt, the Doctrine of the &s;ame preachers of Antichri&s;t, to teach men to ab&s;taine from all manner of work upon the Sa|turday, or the Sunday. So that the Lord Primate might have &s;pared that exception again&s;t a man of his own order, and of &s;o great Abilities in the Schools of Learning; but he held a contrary opinion to the <HI>Sabbatarians,</HI> and therefore was to fare no better then the Author of the <HI>History</HI> had fa|red before him. And herein the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;eems to be of the &s;ame mind with the famous Orator, who held it very ju&s;t and equitable, <HI>ut qui in eadem cau&s;a &s;int in eadem item e&s;&s;ent fortuna.</HI> And &s;o much for that.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="7" TYPE="section">
<PB N="65" REF="36">
<HEAD>SECT. VII.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The Historian charged for cro&s;&s;ing with the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> and in what particulars; Mr. <HI>Ley</HI> ac|cu&s;ed by the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> for being too cold and wateri&s;h in the point of the <HI>Sabbath.</HI> That by the Declaration of the <HI>three E&s;tates</HI> convened in Parliament, <HI>5. &amp;. 6. of Edw. 6.</HI> the times of publick wor&s;hip are left to the liberty of the Church; and that by the Doctrine of the Homilies the keeping of the Lords day hath no other ground then the con&s;ent of godly Chri|&s;tian people in the Primitive times. No more of the fourth com|mandment to be now retained, by the Book of Homilies, then what belongs to the <HI>Law</HI> of <HI>Nature.</HI> Working in Harve&s;t, and doing other nece&s;&s;ary bu&s;ine&s;s, permitted on the Lords day, both by that Act of Parliament, and the Queens Iniunctions. No re&s;traint made from Recreations on the Lords day till the fir&s;t of King <HI>James.</HI> The Sundaies and other Fe&s;tivals made equal in a manner by the publick Liturgy, and equal altogether by two Acts of Parliament. The An&s;wer to the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> Obiection from the Book of Homilies with reference to the grounds before laid down. The difference between the Homilies of <HI>England</HI> and the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e. Se|veral &s;trong Arguments to prove the Homily to mean no other|wi&s;e then as laid down in the &s;aid An&s;wer. Doctor <HI>Bounds</HI> Sabbath Doctrines lookt on as a general grievance, and the care taken to &s;uppre&s;s them.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>WE are now come unto the third &amp; mo&s;t material <HI>charge</HI> of all the re&s;t, by which the <HI>Historian</HI> &s;tands accu&s;ed for oppo&s;ing the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England</HI> in the Book of <HI>Homilies,</HI> to which he had formerly &s;ub&s;cribed; and that too in &s;o gro&s;s a manner, that all the Sophi&s;try he had could neither &s;ave him harmle&s;s for it, nor defend him in it. This is an heavy <HI>charge</HI> indeed; and that it may appear the grea|ter, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> layes it down with all tho&s;e aggravati|ons
<PB N="66" REF="37">
which might render the <HI>Historian</HI> the le&s;s able either to traver&s;e the Indictment, or plead <HI>not guilty</HI> to the Bill. <Q>I wonder (&s;aith he in his Letter to an <HI>Honourable Per&s;on,</HI> pag. 110.) how Doctor <HI>Heylyn,</HI> having him&s;elf &s;ub&s;cribed to the Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Synod held at <HI>London, Anno</HI> 1562. can oppo&s;e the conclu&s;ion, which he findeth directly laid down in the <HI>Homily</HI> of the <HI>time and place of Prayer,</HI> viz. <HI>God hath given expre&s;s charge to all men in the fourth Commandment, that upon the Sabbath day, which is now our Sunday, they &s;hall cea&s;e from all weekly and week-day labour, to the intent, that like as God him&s;elf wrought &s;ix dayes, and rested the &s;eventh, and ble&s;&s;ed and con&s;ecrated it to quietne&s;s and re&s;t from labour, even &s;o Gods obedient peo|ple &s;hould u&s;e the Sunday holily, and re&s;t from their common and dayly bu&s;ine&s;s, and al&s;o give them&s;elves wholly to the hea|venly exerci&s;e of Gods true Religion and &s;ervice.</HI></Q> This is the <HI>charge</HI> which the <HI>Historian</HI> &s;uffers under, wherewith the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> as it &s;eems, did &s;o plea&s;e him&s;elf, that like a <HI>crambe his cocta,</HI> it is &s;erved in again in his Letter unto Mr. <HI>Ley;</HI> but u&s;hered in with greater preparation then before it was. For whereas Mr. <HI>Ley</HI> had hammered a Di&s;cour&s;e about the <HI>Sab|bath,</HI> which he communicated to the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> to the end it might be approved by him, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> finds &s;ome fault with the mode&s;ty of the man, as if he came not home enough in his <HI>Propo&s;itions</HI> to the point in hand; <Q>Your &s;econd <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> (&s;aith he <HI>p.</HI> 105.) is too wateri&s;h, <HI>viz. That this Doctrine rather then the contrary is to be held the Doctrine of the Church of</HI> England; <HI>and may well be gathered out of her publick Liturgy, and the first part of the Homily concerning the place and time of prayer.</HI> Whereas you &s;hould have &s;aid, that this is to be held <HI>undoubtedly</HI> the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England.</HI> For if there could be any rea&s;onable doubt made of the meaning of the Church of <HI>England</HI> in her <HI>Li|turgy,</HI> who &s;hould better declare her meaning then her &s;elf in her <HI>Homily?</HI> where &s;he peremptorily declareth her mind; <HI>That in the fourth Commandment God hath given expre&s;s charge to all men, &amp;c.</HI> as before we had it.</Q> </P>
<P>A&s;&s;uredly a man that reads the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages cannot chu&s;e
<PB N="67" REF="37">
but think that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> was a very zealous Champi|on for the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England;</HI> but upon better con&s;ideration we &s;hall find it otherwi&s;e, &amp; that he only advoca|teth for the <HI>Sabbatarians,</HI> not onely contrary to the doctrine of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> but the practi&s;e al&s;o: which that we may the better &s;ee, I &s;hall lay down plainly, and without any <HI>&s;ophi|&s;try</HI> at all, upon what grounds the Lords day &s;tood in the Church of <HI>England</HI> at the time of the making of this <HI>Homily,</HI> both <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> in it &s;elf, and <HI>relatively</HI> in re&s;pect of the other <HI>Holy dayes.</HI> And fir&s;t we are to under&s;tand, that by the joint Declaration of the Lords Spiritual &amp; Temporal, and the Com|mons a&s;&s;embled in Parliament in the 5. &amp; 6. years of King <HI>Edw.</HI> 6. the <HI>Lords day</HI> &s;tands on no other ground then the Au|thority of the Church, not as enjoyned by Chri&s;t, or ordained by any of his Apo&s;tles. For in that Parliament, to the honour of Almighty God it was thus declared, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>Fora&s;much as men be not at all times &s;o mindful to laud and prai&s;e God, &s;o ready to re&s;ort to hear Gods holy word, and to come to the holy Communion, &amp;c. as their bounden duty doth re|quire; therefore to call men to remembrance of their duty, and to help their infirmities, it hath been whol&s;omly provi|ded, that there &s;hould be &s;ome certain <HI>times and dayes ap|pointed</HI> wherein Chri&s;tians &s;hould cea&s;e from all <HI>kind of labour,</HI> and apply them&s;elves onely and wholly unto the a|fore&s;aid <HI>holy works,</HI> properly pertaining to true Religion, &amp;c. which works, as they may well be called <HI>Gods &s;ervice,</HI> &s;o the times e&s;pecially appointed for the &s;ame, are called <HI>holy dayes:</HI> Not for the <HI>matter</HI> or the <HI>nature</HI> either of the <HI>time</HI> or <HI>day,</HI> &amp;c. for &s;o all <HI>dayes</HI> and <HI>times</HI> are of like holine&s;s, but for the <HI>nature</HI> and <HI>condition</HI> of &s;uch <HI>holy works,</HI> &amp;c. where|unto &s;uch <HI>dayes</HI> and <HI>times</HI> are &s;anctified and hallowed, that is to &s;ay, &s;eparated from all <HI>profane u&s;es,</HI> and dedicated not unto any Saint or Creature, but onely unto God and his &s;er|vice. <HI>Neither is it to be thought that there is any certain time, or definite number of dayes</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">re&s;cribed in <HI>holy Scripture;</HI> but the appointment both of the <HI>time,</HI> and al&s;o of the number of <HI>dayes,</HI> is left by the <HI>Authority of Gods word</HI> unto the liber|ty of Chri&s;ts Church, to be determined and a&s;&s;igned orderly
<PB N="68" REF="38">
in every Country by the di&s;cretion of the <HI>Rulers</HI> and <HI>Mini|&s;ters</HI> thereof, as they &s;hall judge mo&s;t expedient to the &s;et|ting forth of Gods glory, and edification of their people.</Q>  Which Statute being repealed in the Reign of Queen <HI>Mary,</HI> was revived again in the fir&s;t year of Queen <HI>Elizabeth;</HI> and did not &s;tand in force at the time of the making of this <HI>Homily,</HI> which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;o much builds on, but at &s;uch time al|&s;o as he wrote his Letter to Mr. <HI>Ley,</HI> and to that <HI>Honourable Per&s;on</HI> who&s;oever he was.</P>
<P>But &s;ince he hath appeal'd to the Book of <HI>Homilies,</HI> to the Book of Homilies let him go, where he &s;hall find as little com|fort as he found in the Statute. For in the <HI>Homily</HI> touching the <HI>time</HI> and <HI>place</HI> of <HI>prayer,</HI> out of which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> hath &s;elected this particular pa&s;&s;age, it is thus <HI>doctrinally</HI> re&s;olved, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>As concerning the <HI>time,</HI> in which God hath appointed his people to a&s;&s;emble together &s;olemnly, it doth appear by the <HI>fourth Commandment, &amp;c.</HI> And albeit this command|ment of God doth not bind Chri&s;tian people &s;o &s;treightly to ob&s;erve and keep the utter Ceremonies of the <HI>Sabbath day,</HI> as it did the <HI>Jewes,</HI> as touching the forbearing of work and labour in the time of great nece&s;&s;ity, and as touching the preci&s;e keeping of the &s;eventh day, after the manner of the <HI>Jews;</HI> (for we keep now the fir&s;t day which is our Sunday, and make that our Sabbath, that is, <HI>our day of re&s;t,</HI> in honour of our Saviour Chri&s;t, who as upon that day ro&s;e from death, conquering the &s;ame mo&s;t triumphantly:) <HI>Yet notwithstand|ing what&s;oever is found in the Commandment, appertaining to the Law of Nature, as a thing most godly; most iust and needful for the &s;etting forth of Gods glory, ought to be retained and kept of all good chri&s;tian people.</HI></Q> So that it being thus re|&s;olved, that there is no more of the fourth Commandment to be retained by good Chri&s;tian people, then what is <HI>found apper|taining to the Law of Nature;</HI> &amp; that the law of nature doth not tie us to one day in 7. or more to one day of the 7. then to any other: let us next &s;ee by what Authority the day was changed, &amp; how it came to be tran&s;lated from the 7^t^h to the fir&s;t. Concer|ning which it follows thus in the &s;aid Homily, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q><HI>This ex|ample and commandment of God, the godly chri&s;tian people be|gan</HI>
<PB N="69" REF="38">
<HI>to follow, immediately after the A&s;cen&s;ion of our Lord Chri&s;t, and began to chu&s;e them a &s;tanding day of the week to come together in;</HI> (the very &s;ame with that before declared in the Act of Parliament) <HI>yet not the &s;eventh day, which the Jewes kept, but the Lords day, the day of the Lords Re&s;urre|ction, the day after the &s;eventh day, which is the first day of the week, &amp;c.</HI> Sit hence which time Gods people hath always, in all ages, without any gain&s;aying, u&s;ed to come together on the Sunday to celebrate and honour Gods ble&s;&s;ed name, and carefully to keep that day in holy re&s;t and quietne&s;s, both man and woman, child, &s;ervant, and &s;tranger.</Q>  So far the Ho|mily; and by the Homily it appears plainly that the keeping of the Lords day is not grounded on any commandment of Chri&s;t, nor any precept of the Apo&s;tles, but that it was <HI>cho&s;en as a &s;tan|ding day of the week to come together in, by the godly chri&s;tian people, immediately after Chri&s;ts A&s;cen&s;ion,</HI> and hath &s;o conti|nued ever &s;ince. So then, the keeping of the Lords day being built on no other grounds (as is declared both in the Homily and the Act of Parliament) then the authority of the Church, the con&s;ent of godly Chri&s;tian people; it mu&s;t needs follow thereupon, that it is to be kept with no greater &s;trictne&s;s (with reference either unto worldly bu&s;ine&s;s, or hone&s;t recrea|tions) then what is required of the people by the Law of the Land, the Canons of the Church, or by the Edicts and Pro|clamations of the King, or other &s;upreme Governour under whom we live. And if we plea&s;e to look into the Act of Parli|ament before remembred, we &s;hall find it thus in reference un|to <HI>worldly bu&s;ine&s;s,</HI> viz. <Q>It &s;hall be lawful to every <HI>Huusband|man, Labourer, Fi&s;herman,</HI> and to all and every <HI>other Per&s;on or Per&s;ons,</HI> of what E&s;tate, Degree, or Condition he or they be, upon the <HI>Holy dayes</HI> afore&s;aid (of which the Lords day is there reckoned for one) <HI>in Harve&s;t,</HI> or at any other times in the year, when <HI>nece&s;&s;ity &s;hall &s;o require,</HI> to labour, ride, fi&s;h, or work any kind of work at their free will and plea&s;ure: any thing in this Act to the contrary notwith&s;tanding.</Q> The like we al&s;o find, as to <HI>worldly bu&s;ine&s;s,</HI> in the Queens <HI>Iniuncti|ons</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Injunct. 20.</NOTE> publi&s;hed in the fir&s;t year of her Reign; in which the Sun|day is not onely counted with the other <HI>holy dayes,</HI> but labour
<PB N="70" REF="39">
labour at &s;ome times permitted, and which is more, enjoyned upon it: For in tho&s;e Injunctions it is ordered with a <HI>non ob|&s;tante,</HI> <Q>That all <HI>Par&s;ons, Vicars,</HI> and <HI>Curates</HI> &s;hall teach and declare unto their <HI>Pari&s;honers,</HI> that they may with a <HI>&s;afe and quiet con&s;cience,</HI> after <HI>Common-prayer,</HI> in the time of <HI>Harve&s;t,</HI> labour upon the <HI>holy</HI> and <HI>fe&s;tival dayes,</HI> and &s;ave that thing which God hath &s;ent; And if for any <HI>Scrupulo&s;ity</HI> or <HI>grudge</HI> of <HI>con&s;cience,</HI> men &s;hould &s;uper&s;titiou&s;ly ab&s;tain from wor|king on the&s;e dayes, that then they &s;hould grievou&s;ly offend and di&s;plea&s;e God.</Q> And though it may be &s;aid, that the Queens Injunction, and every thing therein contained, was buried in the &s;ame Grave with her; yet cannot this be &s;aid of the Act of <HI>Parliament,</HI> which is &s;till in force, and gives as much permi&s;&s;ion unto Worldly bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, as the &s;aid Injunction. And as for Recreations, there was not one|ly permi&s;&s;ion of &s;uch civil pa&s;times, and man-like exerci&s;es, by which the &s;pirits of men might be refre&s;ht, and their bodies &s;trengthned; but even of Common <HI>Enterludes, Bear-baitings, Bull-baitings,</HI> and the like, fit onely for the entertainment of the ruder or more vulgar &s;ort. For though the Magi&s;trates of the City of <HI>London</HI> obtained from Queen <HI>Elizabeth, Anno</HI> 1580. that Playes and Enterludes &s;hould no more be acted on the Sunday within the liberties of their City; and that in the year 1583. many were terrified from beholding the like rude &s;ports upon that day, by the falling of a <HI>Scaffold</HI> in <HI>Paris Gar|den,</HI> whereby many were hurt, and eight killed out right: yet there was no re&s;traint of either in other parts of the Realm, till King <HI>James</HI> (to give a little contentment to the Puritan party in the beginning of his Reign) prohibited the &s;ame by his Pro|clamation, bearing date at <HI>Theobalds May</HI> 7. 1630. But for all other civil Recreations, they were not onely permitted as they had been formerly, but a Declaration i&s;&s;ued from that King about &s;ixteen years after, concerning <HI>lawful &s;ports,</HI> from which &s;ome of the preci&s;er &s;ort of Ju&s;tices had by their own authority re&s;trained the people.</P>
<P>In the next place let us behold the <HI>Sunday</HI> or <HI>Lords day</HI> comparatively with the <HI>Saints days,</HI> and other <HI>Fe&s;tivals;</HI> and we &s;hall find them built on the &s;ame foundation, the &s;ame Di|vine
<PB N="71" REF="39">
offices performed in both, and the like diligent attendance required on both. For in the Act of Parliament 5, 6. of <HI>Edw.</HI> 6. before remembred, the appointing of all <HI>holy dayes</HI> and &s;et times of wor&s;hip being fir&s;t declared to be left <HI>by the Authori|ty of Gods Word, unto the liberty of Chri&s;ts Church, to be deter|mined in every countrey by the di&s;cretion of the Rulers thereof;</HI> it is next &s;ignified what dayes &s;hall be accounted holy dayes, and what &s;hall not. For &s;o it followeth in that Statute; <Q>Be it enacted, &amp;c.</Q> that all the dayes hereafter mentioned &s;hall be kept and commanded to be kept <HI>holy dayes,</HI> and none other: that is to &s;ay, all <HI>Sundayes</HI> in the year, the fea&s;ts of the <HI>Circum|ci&s;ion of our Lord Je&s;us Christ,</HI> of the <HI>Epiphany,</HI> of the <HI>Purifi|cation (with all the rest now kept, and there named particularly.)</HI> The like ennumeration we have al&s;o in the Book of <HI>Common|prayer,</HI> the publick <HI>Liturgy</HI> of this Church by Law e&s;tabli&s;hed, where we &s;hall find it thus expre&s;&s;ed, <HI>That the&s;e &s;hall be accoun|ted holy dayes and none other;</HI> that is to &s;ay, all Sundayes in the year, the fea&s;t of the Circumci&s;ion, the Epiphany, with all the re&s;t before &s;pecified in the Act of Parliament. Nor doth the Church onely rank the Lords day with other holy dayes in that enumeration of them, but hath appointed the &s;ame Divine of|fices (the <HI>Letany</HI> excepted onely) to be performed upon the Saints days &amp; other fe&s;tivals, as upon the <HI>Sundays,</HI> each of them having his proper Le&s;&s;on, Collect, Epi&s;tle, and Go&s;pel, as the Sunday hath, and &s;ome of them their proper P&s;alms al&s;o; which the Sunday hath not. And as for the attendance of the peo|ple, it is required with as much diligence upon the Saints dayes and other Fe&s;tivals, as upon the Lords day, by the Laws of this land. For &s;o it is enacted in the Statute of the fir&s;t of Queen <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> viz. <Q>That all and every Per&s;on and Per&s;ons inha|biting within this Realm, &amp;c. &s;hall diligently and faithfully endeavour them&s;elves to re&s;ort to their Pari&s;h Church or Chappel, &amp;c. upon every Sunday, and other dayes ordained and u&s;ed to be kept as <HI>holy dayes,</HI> then and there to abide or|derly and &s;oberly, during the time of <HI>common prayer, preaching,</HI> or other &s;ervice of God.</Q>  Nor was it only enacted, that men &s;hould diligently repair to their Church or Chappel, as well upon the other <HI>holy dayes</HI> as upon the <HI>Sunday,</HI> but that the &s;ame
<PB N="72" REF="40">
penalty was impo&s;ed on &s;uch as without any rea&s;onable let did ab&s;ent them&s;elves, as well upon the one as upon the other. For &s;o it follows in that Statute, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>That every per&s;on &s;o offending, &s;hall not alone be &s;ubject unto the cen&s;ures of the Church, but &s;hall forfeit for every &s;uch offence twelve pence, to be levied to the u&s;e of the poor of the &s;ame pari&s;h, by the Church-wardens of the &s;ame, &amp;c.</Q> </P>
<P>Which grounds thus laid, the Lord Primates Argument from the Book of <HI>Homilies</HI> will be ea&s;ily an&s;wered. For if the weight of his argument lie in the fir&s;t words cited out of the <HI>Homily, that in the fourth Commandment God hath given ex|pre&s;s charge to all men, that upon the Sabbath day, which is now our Sunday,</HI> &amp;c. and therefore that the Sunday or Lords day may be called a <HI>Sabbath;</HI> this will prove nothing but a <GAP DESC="foreign">, or a contention about words, and not within the com|pa&s;s of the <HI>Homily</HI> neither, it being declared in the former words of the &s;ame Homily, <HI>that we keep now the first day, which is our</HI> Sunday, <HI>and make that our Sabbath, that is our day of re&s;t.</HI> So that the de&s;tinating of the <HI>Sunday,</HI> or fir&s;t day of the week for the day of re&s;t, makes it (at the mo&s;t) but a <HI>tanquam</HI> to the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> neither entituling it to the name nor prerogatives of it. But if the weight of the Argument lie in the&s;e words, <HI>viz.</HI> That <HI>men upon the</HI> Sunday <HI>or</HI> Lords day <HI>&s;hould cea&s;e from all weekly and work-day labour, &amp;c. and al&s;o give them&s;elves wholly to Heavenly exerci&s;es of Gods true Religion and &s;ervice.</HI> For the fir&s;t part thereof, touching the forbearing of all <HI>weekly and work-day labour,</HI> is no otherwi&s;e to be under&s;tood, but of &s;uch labours as are prohibited by the Laws of the Realm, or otherwi&s;e may prove an avocation from Gods publick &s;ervice, at the times appointed for the &s;ame. And as for the la&s;t words, touching mens <HI>giving of them&s;elves wholly to heavenly exerci&s;es of Gods true Religion and &s;ervice;</HI> they are of a far differing meaning from the Article of the Church of <HI>Ireland</HI> (for which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> chiefly &s;tickleth) in which it is declared, that <HI>the first day of the week, which is the Lords day, is wholly to be dedicated to the &s;ervice of God.</HI> For certainly there is a great difference between the dedicating of a day wholly to the &s;er|vice of God, as in the Articles of <HI>Ireland;</HI> and the giving of
<PB N="73" REF="40">
our &s;elves wholly to heavenly exerci&s;es, as in the <HI>Homilies</HI> of <HI>England:</HI> the one implying that no part of the day is to be o|therwi&s;e &s;pent then in the &s;ervice of God, no place being left either for nece&s;&s;ary bu&s;ine&s;s, or for lawful plea&s;ure; the other, that in the Acts and times of publick wor&s;hip, we &s;hould give our &s;elves <HI>wholly,</HI> that is, our <HI>whole &s;elves,</HI> &s;ouls and bo|dies, to the performance of tho&s;e heavenly exerci&s;es which are then required. It had before been told us in this very <HI>Ho|mily,</HI> that nothing in the fourth Commandment was to be re|tained, but what was <HI>found appertaining to the Law of Nature:</HI> but it appertaineth not to the <HI>Law of Nature,</HI> either that one day in &s;even &s;hould be &s;et apart for Religious wor&s;hip, or that this one day <HI>wholly</HI> be &s;o imployed; <HI>vel quod per totam diem</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">In Exod. 20. qu. 12.</NOTE> <HI>ab&s;tineatur ab operibus &s;ervilibus,</HI> as <HI>To&s;tatus</HI> hath it, or that there be an ab&s;olute ce&s;&s;ation, during the whole day, from all &s;ervile works. By con&s;equence there is no more required of us by the Law of <HI>Nature</HI> in this ca&s;e, but that at the times appoin|ted for Gods publick wor&s;hip, we wholly &s;eque&s;ter our &s;elves, yea, our very thoughts, from all worldly bu&s;ine&s;s; fixing our &s;ouls and all the faculties thereof, upon that great and weighty bu&s;ine&s;s which we are in hand with. That does indeed apper|tain<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> to the <HI>Law</HI> of <HI>Nature, Naturale e&s;t quod dum Deum coli|mus, ab aliis abstineamus,</HI> as <HI>To&s;tatus</HI> hath it; and to this point we have been trained in the Schools of Piety, <HI>Orantis e&s;t nihil ni&s;i coelestia cogitare,</HI> as was &s;aid before. So that the meaning of the Homily in that place will be onely this, that for tho&s;e times which are appointed by the Church for the a&s;|&s;embly of Gods people, we &s;hould lay by our daily bu&s;ine&s;s, and all worldly thoughts, and wholly give our &s;elves to the heavenly exerci&s;es of Gods true Religion and &s;ervice, as in the Homily we are willed.</P>
<P>And that this only was the meaning of the <HI>Homily</HI> in that place, may be convincingly concluded from the rea&s;ons follow|ing. Fir&s;t, from the improbability that the Authors of that Ho|mily &s;hould propound a Doctrine &s;o evidently contrary to the Declaration of the Act of Parliament in the 5, &amp; 6. of <HI>Edw.</HI> 6. which was then in force; and unto which not onely the Com|mons and the Lords <HI>Temporal,</HI> but even the Lords <HI>Spiritual,</HI>
<PB N="74" REF="41">
and the King him&s;elfe did mo&s;t unanimou&s;ly concur; or that the Queen &s;hould authorize a Doctrin in the Book of Homilies (as by ratifying the 39. Articles &s;he mu&s;t be &s;uppo&s;ed to have done) which was &s;o plainly and profe&s;&s;edly contrary to her own Injunctions.</P>
<P>Secondly, from the &s;trong <HI>Alarm</HI> which was taken gene|rally by the Clergy, and the mo&s;t knowing men of the Laity al&s;o, at the coming out of Doctor <HI>Bounds.</HI> Book about the <HI>Sabbath, Anno</HI> 1595. In which book it is declared among&s;t other things, that the Commandment of <HI>&s;anctifying every &s;e|venth day, as in the</HI> Mo&s;aical Decalogue, <HI>is</HI> Natural, Moral, <HI>and</HI> Perpetual. <HI>That there is great rea&s;on why we</HI> Chri&s;tians <HI>&s;hould take our &s;elves as</HI> &s;traightly bound <HI>to rest upon the</HI> Lords day, <HI>as the</HI> Jewes <HI>were upon their</HI> Sabbath; that there &s;hould be no buying of victuals upon that day; no Carriers, Pack|men, Drovers, or other men to be &s;uffered to travel; no Scho|lars to &s;tudy the Liberal Arts; no Lawyers to con&s;ult the ca&s;e of their Clients, or peru&s;e their Evidences; no Ju&s;tices to ex|amine Cau&s;es for pre&s;ervation of the peace; no Bells to ring upon that day; no &s;olemn Fea&s;ts or Wedding Dinners to be made on it; with &s;o many other prohibitions and nega|tive precepts, that men of all &s;orts and profe&s;&s;ions looked up|on it as a common grievance.</P>
<P>Thirdly, from the great care which was pre&s;ently taken by &s;uch as were in Authority, to &s;uppre&s;s tho&s;e Doctrines, the &s;aid Book being called in by Arch-Bi&s;hop <HI>Whitgift,</HI> both by his Letters mi&s;&s;ive and his vi&s;itations, as &s;oon as the danger was di&s;covered, <HI>Anno</HI> 1599. and a command &s;ignified in the Queens name by Chief Ju&s;tice <HI>Popham</HI> at the A&s;&s;izes held at <HI>Bury</HI> in <HI>Suffolk, Anno</HI> 1600. that the &s;aid Book &s;hould no more be printed; though afterward in the more remi&s;s Go|vernment of King <HI>James,</HI> it came out again with many Addi|tions, <HI>Anno</HI> 1606.</P>
<P>Fourthly, and finally, from the permitting of all &s;orts of Re|creations (even <HI>common Enterludes and Bear-baitings</HI>) in the &s;o much celebrated Reign of Queen <HI>Elizabeth;</HI> as al&s;o by the <HI>Declaration</HI> about <HI>Lawful &s;ports</HI> publi&s;hed by King <HI>James, An.</HI> 1618. and revived afterwards by King <HI>Charles, Anno</HI> 1633&punc;
<PB N="75" REF="41">
which certainly tho&s;e godly and religions Princes would nei|ther have &s;uffered, nor have done, had they conceived it to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> of which they were &s;uch zealous Patrons, and &s;uch &s;tout Defen|ders. No breaking of <HI>Sub&s;cription</HI> here by the <HI>Hi&s;torian,</HI> no cro&s;&s;ing or oppo&s;ing of the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England</HI> in the Book of <HI>Homilies,</HI> and con&s;equently no &s;uch need of <HI>Sophi&s;try</HI> to elude the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> Argument which was drawn from thence, as the &s;aid <HI>Honourable Per&s;on N. N.</HI> mu&s;t believe there was.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VIII.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>A further Argument to prove the meaning of the Homily, as before laid down. The high e&s;teem which the Church of <HI>Eng|land</HI> hath of the ancient Fathers, as al&s;o of the u&s;ages of the pri|mitive times; with her re&s;pect unto the neighbouring Reformed Churches. No re&s;traint from labour on the Lords day impo&s;ed by the Council of <HI>Laodicea. Beza's</HI> opinion of the liberty in tho&s;e times allowed of. Law-&s;uits and Handy-crafts prohibited in great Cities on the Lords day, by the Emperour <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> but Husbandry permitted in the country Villages. Proof from Saint <HI>Jerome, Chry&s;o&s;tom, Augu&s;tine,</HI> that after the Di|vine &s;ervice of the day was ended, the re&s;t of the day was &s;pent in mens &s;everal bu&s;ine&s;&s;es. Husbandry fir&s;t re&s;trained in the We&s;tern Churches in the Council of <HI>Orleans,</HI> Anno 540. and by the Edict of the Emperour <HI>Leo Philo&s;ophus</HI> in the Ea&s;tern parts about the year 890. Several re&s;traints laid on the Lords day by the Council of <HI>Ma&s;con,</HI> Anno 588. Pope <HI>Gregory</HI> of|fended at &s;uch re&s;traints, and his cen&s;ure of &s;uch as did enioyn them. The liberty allowed in the <HI>Lutheran Churches</HI> on the Lords day, as al&s;o in tho&s;e of the Palatinate, till after the year 1612. Nor in the Churches of the <HI>Low-Countries,</HI> till the year 1618. Not onely &s;ervile Works, but Fairs and Markets continued on the Lords day in tho&s;e Countries, till the &s;ame year al&s;o. Nece&s;&s;ary labour permitted on the Lords day in the
<PB N="76" REF="42">
<HI>Reformed Churches</HI> of the <HI>Switzers,</HI> and honest Recreations in the <HI>French and Genevian</HI> Churches; as al&s;o in the Kirk of <HI>Scotland.</HI> The conclu&s;ion and application of the la&s;t Argu|ment.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>IT hath been proved &s;ufficiently in the former <HI>Section,</HI> that the pa&s;&s;age alledged by the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> from the Book of Homilies (and that twice for failing) is capable of no &s;uch &s;en&s;e and meaning as he puts upon it; for if it were, the Homily mu&s;t not only contradict it &s;elf, but the Authors of it mu&s;t be thought to propound a Doctrine directly contrary to the Queens Injunctions, and the publick <HI>Liturgy</HI> of this Church, and &s;everal Acts of Parliament which were then in force. And which is more, the whole body of Gods people in this Land, by following their nece&s;&s;ary bu&s;ine&s;s, and lawful plea&s;ures upon the Sunday or Lords day, when no attendance at the place and hours of Gods publick &s;ervice was required of them, mu&s;t be &s;uppo&s;ed to have run on in a cour&s;e of &s;in again&s;t Gods Commandments, and of contempt and di&s;obedience to the publick Doctrine of the Church for the &s;pace of 80. years and upwards, without contradiction or re&s;traint; which to imagine in a Church &s;o wi&s;ely con&s;tituted, and in a State founded on &s;o many good Lawes, cannot find place with any man of &s;ober judgement. But there is one Argument yet to come, of as much weight and con&s;equence as tho&s;e before, that is to &s;ay, that if any &s;uch re&s;traint from labour and hone&s;t recreations was by the Doctrine of this Church impo&s;ed on the people of God; this Church mu&s;t openly oppo&s;e the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers, the laudable u&s;ages and cu&s;tomes of the Pri|mitive times, together with the general practi&s;e and per&s;wa|&s;ion of all the Prote&s;tant and Reformed Churches in the&s;e parts of the world: a matter &s;o abhorrent from the principles of the fir&s;t Reformers, and from the Canons and Determinati|ons of this Church and the Rulers of it, that no &s;urmi&s;es of this kind can con&s;i&s;t with rea&s;on.</P>
<P>The Church of <HI>England</HI> hath alwayes held the Fathers in an high regard, whether we look upon them in their learned and laborious writings, or as convened in General, National, and
<PB N="77" REF="42">
Provincial Councils; appealing to them in all Differences be|tween her and the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> and making u&s;e of their authority and con&s;ent in expounding Scripture; witne&s;s that famous <HI>challenge</HI> made by Bi&s;hop <HI>Jewel</HI> in a Sermon preached at Saint <HI>Pauls Cro&s;s, Anno</HI> 1560. in which he publickly decla|red, that if all, or any of the learned men of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> could produce any one &s;entence out of the writings of any of the ancient Fathers, or any General, or National Coun|cil, for the &s;pace of the fir&s;t 600. years in ju&s;tification of &s;ome Doctrines by them maintained, and by us denied, he would relinqui&s;h his own Religion, and &s;ub&s;cribe to theirs. Witne&s;s the Canon made in a Convocation of the Prelates and C<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ergy of <HI>England, Anno 1571. Cap. De concionatoribus,</HI> by which it was ordered and decreed that nothing &s;hould be preacht to the people, but what was con&s;onant unto the Doctrine of the old and new Te&s;tament, <HI>quod&abque; ex illa ip&s;a Doctrina Ca|tholici Patres &amp; veteres Epi&s;copi collegerint,</HI> and had been thence collected by the <HI>Orthodox Fathers</HI> and ancient Bi&s;hops. And though <HI>H. B.</HI> of <HI>Friday-&s;treet</HI> in his &s;editious Sermon preached on the fifth of <HI>November, Anno</HI> 1636. and the Au|thor of the Book entituled, <HI>The Liberty of Prophecy,</HI> publi&s;hed in the year 1647. endevour to make them of no reckoning; yet was King <HI>James</HI> (a learned and well &s;tudied Prince) per|&s;waded otherwi&s;e then &s;o. And thereupon in &s;ome <HI>Directions</HI> &s;ent by him to the Vice-Chancellor, and other of the Heads of the Univer&s;ity of <HI>Oxford,</HI> bearing date <HI>January 18. An.</HI> 1616. it was advi&s;ed and required, <HI>That young Students in Divinity be directed to &s;tudy &s;uch Books as be most agreeable in Doctrine and Di&s;cipline to the Church of</HI> England; <HI>and excited to be&s;tow their time in the</HI> Fathers <HI>and</HI> Councils, School-men, Hi&s;tories, <HI>and</HI> Controver&s;ies, <HI>and not to in&s;ist too long upon</HI> Compendiums <HI>and</HI> Abbreviators, <HI>making them the grounds of their &s;tudy in Di|vinity.</HI> By which we &s;ee that the fir&s;t place is given to <HI>Fathers</HI> and <HI>Councils,</HI> as they who&s;e writings and decrees were thought to have been <HI>mo&s;t agreeable to the Doctrine and Di&s;cipline</HI> of the Church of <HI>England.</HI> The like may be &s;aid al&s;o of the u&s;ages and cu&s;tomes of the <HI>Primitive</HI> times, which the fir&s;t Reformers of this Church had a principal care of; it being a&s;firmed in the
<PB N="78" REF="43">
Act of Parliament, 2. 3. of <HI>Edw.</HI> 6. by which the fir&s;t Liturgy of that Kings time was confirmed and ratified, that the Com|pilers of the &s;ame not onely had an eye to the <HI>mo&s;t pure, &s;incere Chri&s;tian Religion taught in the Scriptures, but al&s;o a re|&s;pect to the</HI> u&s;ages <HI>in the Primitive Church.</HI> They had not el&s;e retained &s;o many of the ancient Ceremonies, as bowing at the name of <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> kneeling at the <HI>Communion,</HI> the <HI>Cro&s;s</HI> in <HI>Bap|ti&s;m,</HI> &s;tanding up at the <HI>Creed</HI> and <HI>Go&s;pels,</HI> praying toward the Ea&s;t, &amp;c. be&s;ides the ancient Fe&s;tivals of the Saints and Mar|tyrs, who have their place and <HI>distinct offices</HI> in the pre&s;ent Li|turgy. And as for the neighbouring Prote&s;tant and Reformed Churches, although &s;he differ from them in her Polity, and form of government, yet did &s;he never authorize any publick Doctrine, which might have proved a &s;candal to them in the condemning of tho&s;e Recreations, works of labour, and other matters of that nature, which the general practice of tho&s;e Churches both approve and tolerate. And therefore if it can be proved, that the &s;pending of the <HI>whole</HI> Lords day, or the Lords day <HI>wholly</HI> in Religious exerci&s;es, accompanied (as needs it mu&s;t be) with a re&s;traint from nece&s;&s;ary labour, and lawful plea&s;ures, be contrary to the Doctrine of the ancient <HI>Fathers,</HI> the <HI>u&s;ages</HI> and cu&s;tomes of the Primitive times, and to the ge|neral practice of the Prote&s;tant and Reformed Churches; I doubt not but it will appear to all equal and indifferent men, that there is no &s;uch mind and meaning in the Book of <HI>Homilies</HI> or in them that made it, as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> hath been pleas'd to put upon it, or to gather from it.</P>
<P>And fir&s;t, beginning with the Fathers, Councils, and the U|&s;ages of the Primitive Church; it is not to be found, that ever they required that the whole day &s;hould be employed in Gods publick &s;ervice, without permi&s;&s;ion of &s;uch nece&s;&s;ary bu&s;ine&s;s and hone&s;t recreations, as mens occa&s;ions might require, or invite them to. It was ordained indeed by the Council of <HI>Laodicea,</HI> &s;poken of before, that Chri&s;tians on the Lords day &s;hould give them&s;elves to ea&s;e and re&s;t (<HI>otiari</HI> is the word in <HI>Latine,</HI> which po&s;&s;ibly may be meant al&s;o of a re&s;t from labour) but it is qualified with a <HI>&s;i modo po&s;&s;int,</HI> if it may &s;tand with the conveniences of their Affairs, and the condition which they li|ved
<PB N="79" REF="43">
in. And &s;o the Canon is expounded by <HI>Zonaras</HI> in his glo&s;s<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Can. Con. Laod.</NOTE> upon it. It is appointed (&s;aith he) by this Canon, that none ab&s;tain from labour on the <HI>Sabbath day,</HI> which plainly was a Jewi&s;h cu&s;tome, and an <HI>Anathema</HI> laid on tho&s;e who offen|ded herein. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. But they are willing to re&s;t from labour on the Lords day, in honour of the Re&s;urrection of our Lord and Saviour. But here we mu&s;t ob&s;erve that the Canon addes, <GAP DESC="foreign">, in ca&s;e they may. For by the Civil Law it is preci&s;ely ordered, that every man &s;hall re&s;t that day, <GAP DESC="foreign">, the Hindes and Husband|men excepted; his rea&s;on is the very &s;ame with that before expre&s;&s;ed in the Emperours Edict, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. for unto them it is permitted to work and travel on that day, becau&s;e perhaps if they neglect it, they may not find another day &s;o fit and &s;erviceable for their occa|&s;ions. Be&s;ides which it is to be con&s;idered, that many Chri|&s;tians of tho&s;e times were &s;ervants unto Heathen Ma&s;ters, or otherwi&s;e obnoxious to the power of tho&s;e under whom they lived; and therefore could not on the Lords day ab&s;tain from any manner of work further then it might &s;tand with the will and plea&s;ure of tho&s;e Superiours to whom the Lord had made them &s;ubject. A Chri&s;tian &s;ervant living under the command of an Heathen Ma&s;ter, might otherwi&s;e neglect this Ma&s;ters bu&s;ine&s;s one whole day in &s;even, and plead the Canon of this Council for his ju&s;tification; which whether it would have &s;aved him from correction, or the Church from &s;candal, I leave to be con&s;idered by all &s;ober and unbia&s;&s;ed men. All that the Church required of her conformable Children, during the fir&s;t 300. years, was onely to attend the publick mini&s;tration, or morning-&s;ervice of the day, leaving them to di&s;po&s;e of the re&s;t thereof at their will and plea&s;ure; the very toil of Husbandry not being prohibited or re&s;trained for &s;ome ages following. For proof whereof take the&s;e words of <HI>Beza,</HI> a man of great credit and e&s;teem not onely with our Engli&s;h <HI>Presbyterians,</HI> but the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> him&s;elf. <HI>&V;t autem Christiani eo die &agrave; &s;uis quoti|dianis</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">In Can. Sol. Hom. 30.</NOTE> <HI>laboribus ab&s;tinerent, praeter id temporis quod in coetu ponebatur, id neque illis Apo&s;tolicis temporibus mandatum, neque prius fuit ob&s;ervatum quam id &agrave; Chri&s;tianis Imperatoribus, ne|quis</HI>
<PB N="80" REF="44">
<HI>&agrave; rerum &s;acrarum meditatione abstraheretur, &amp; quidem non ita praeci&s;e ob&s;ervatum.</HI> <Q>That Chri&s;tians ought, &s;aith he, to ab&s;tain that day from their labour, except that part alone which was appointed for the meetings of the Congregation; was never either commanded in the Apo&s;tles times, nor o|therwi&s;e ob&s;erved in the Church, until &s;uch time that &s;o it was enjoyned by Chri&s;tian Emperours, to the end the peo|ple might not be diverted from meditating on holy mat|ters; nor was it then &s;o &s;trictly kept as it was enjoyned.</Q></P>
<P>Now the fir&s;t Chri&s;tian Emperour was the famous and re|nowned <HI>Constantine,</HI> who was the fir&s;t that e&s;tabli&s;hed the Lords day (which formerly had &s;tood on no other ground then the Authority of the Church, and con&s;ent of Gods people) by Imperial Edicts; &s;o by the like Imperial Edict he re&s;trained &s;ome labours on that day, and permitted others. The Judges in that age u&s;ed to hold their Courts of Judicature, even in the hours and times of Gods publick &s;ervice; by which means many were nece&s;&s;itated to ab&s;ent them&s;elves from the publick meetings of the Church, and neglect their duties unto God. Many of the Artificers al&s;o which dwelt in great Towns and populous Cities, who&s;e <HI>penny</HI> was more precious with them then their <HI>Pater no&s;ter,</HI> u&s;ed to do the like. For remedy whereof, it was ordained by the Emperours Edict, <HI>&V;t omnes Judices, ur|banaeque plebes, &amp; cunctarum Artium officia venerabili die So|lis quie&s;cant.</HI> But on the other &s;ide it was permitted unto tho&s;e who lived in Countrey Villages, to attend their Husbandry, becau&s;e it hapneth many times, <HI>Ut non aptius alio die frumen|ta</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">I<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">. omnes cap. de &s;eriis.</NOTE> <HI>&s;ulcis, vineae &s;crobibus mandentur,</HI> that no day is more fit then that for &s;owing Corn, and for planting Vines. And then he gives this rea&s;on for it, <HI>Ne occa&s;ione momenti pereat commodi|tas coelesti provi&s;ione conce&s;&s;a;</HI> le&s;t otherwi&s;e by neglect of con|venient &s;ea&s;ons, they lo&s;e tho&s;e benefits which their God had be&s;towed upon them. And if the toyles of Husbandry were not onely permitted upon that day, but in a manner &s;eemed to be enjoyned by the former Edict, no que&s;tion but &s;uch worldly bu&s;ine&s;&s;es as did not take men off from their attendance at the times of the mini&s;tration, might be better &s;uffered. And &s;o<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ad Eu&s;tochian.</NOTE> Saint <HI>Hierom</HI> doth inform us of <HI>Paula,</HI> a devout and religious
<PB N="81" REF="44">
Lady, that &s;he cau&s;ed her Maidens and other Women which belonged to her, to repair diligently to the Church on the Lords day; but &s;o that after their return <HI>operi distributo insta|bant, &amp; vel &s;ibi vel caeteris ve&s;timenta faciebant,</HI> they betook them&s;elves unto their tasks, in making garments either for them&s;elves or others. Nor doth the Father cen&s;ure or reprove her for it, as certainly he would have done, had any &s;uch Do|ctrine been then taught and countenanced in the Church of Chri&s;t, touching the &s;pending of the whole day (or the Lords day wholly) in religious exerci&s;es. It appears al&s;o by S. <HI>Chry&s;oft.</HI> that after the Divine duties of the day were fini&s;hed, which held but 1 or 2 hours in the morning (<HI>unam aut duas hor as ex die in|tegro,</HI> as it is in <HI>Origen</HI>) the people were required only to &s;pend<NOTE PLACE="marg">In Num. Hom. 2.</NOTE> &s;ome time in meditation at their coming home, <GAP DESC="foreign">, and were then &s;uffered to pur&s;ue the works of their &s;everal callings. Saint <HI>Au&s;tine</HI> in his Tract<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hom. 5. in Mat. 1.</NOTE> <HI>De rectitudine Catholicae Conver&s;ationis</HI> advi&s;eth us to be attent and &s;ilent all the time of Divine &s;ervice, not telling tales, nor falling into jarres and quarrels, as being to an&s;wer, &s;uch of us as offend therein: <HI>Dum nec ip&s;e verbum Dei audit, nec alios au|dire permittit,</HI> as neither hearkning to the word of God our &s;elves, nor permitting others. But for the re&s;idue of the day, he left it in the &s;ame e&s;tate in which he found it, to be di&s;po&s;ed of by Gods people, according as their &s;everal nece&s;&s;ities and occa&s;ions required of them.</P>
<P>Thus have we &s;een as well the Doctrine as the Practi&s;e of the <HI>African</HI> and <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Churches: Let us now turn our &s;elves towards the We&s;t, and we &s;hall find that &s;ome in <HI>France</HI> had begun to <HI>Judaize</HI> &s;o far, as to impo&s;e many of tho&s;e re&s;traints on the Lords day, which the <HI>Jewes</HI> had put upon their <HI>Sabbath;</HI> viz. <HI>that none &s;hould travel on the Lords day with</HI> Waines <HI>or</HI> Hor&s;es, <HI>or dre&s;s</HI> Meat, <HI>or make clean the</HI> Hou&s;e, <HI>or meddle with any manner of</HI> dome&s;tick <HI>bu&s;ine&s;s.</HI> Which being taken into con|&s;ideration by the third Council of <HI>Orleance, Anno</HI> 540. it was there ordained, that &s;ince tho&s;e prohibitions did &s;avour more of the <HI>Jew</HI> then of the <HI>Chri&s;tian; Die Dominico quod ante licu|it, licere,</HI> that therefore what&s;oever had formerly been lawful on that day, &s;hould be lawful &s;till. Yet &s;o, that for the &s;atisfa|ction
<PB N="82" REF="45">
and contentment of tho&s;e trouble&s;ome Spirits, who would not otherwi&s;e &s;ubmit to the Determinations of the Council, it was thought convenient, that men &s;hould re&s;t that day from <HI>Husbandry,</HI> and the <HI>Vintage;</HI> from &s;owing, reaping, hedging, and &s;uch &s;ervile works, <HI>quo facilius ad Eccle&s;iam venientes, orationis gratia vacent,</HI> that &s;o they might have better lei&s;ure to go unto the Church, and there &s;ay their prayers. This as it was the fir&s;t re&s;traint from <HI>Husbandry</HI> on the Lords day, which had been made by the Canons of the Church; &s;o was it &s;econ|ded by a Canon made in the Synod of <HI>Ma&s;con</HI> in the 24. year of <HI>Ganthram</HI> King of the <HI>Burgundians, Anno</HI> 588. and follow|ed<NOTE PLACE="marg">Conc. Mati&s;con. Can. 1.</NOTE> by another in the Council of <HI>Auxerre</HI> in <HI>France</HI> under <HI>Clotaire</HI> the &s;econd, about two years after. In both of which it was decreed, <HI>Non licere die dominico boves jungere, vel alia opera exercere;</HI> that no man &s;hould be &s;uffered to yoke his Oxen, or do any manner of work upon the Sunday. But then we mu&s;t ob&s;erve withall, that the&s;e Councils acted onely by their own Authority, not charging tho&s;e re&s;traints on God, or on his Commandment; it being po&s;itively declared by the Canon of the Council of <HI>Ma&s;con,</HI> that the Lord <HI>did not exact it of us that we &s;hould celebrate this day in a corporal ab&s;tinence, or re&s;t from labour; who onely looks that we do yield obedience to his holy will, by which contemning earthly things, he may conduct us to the Heaven of his infinite mercy.</HI> Which Declaration not|with&s;tanding, the Doctrine of it &s;elfe was &s;o offen&s;ive to Pope <HI>Gregory</HI> the fir&s;t, that partly to encounter with &s;ome Chri&s;ti|ans of the Ea&s;tern Countries, who &s;till ob&s;erved the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Sabbath, and partly to prevent the further &s;preading of the&s;e re&s;traints in the We&s;tern parts, which made men &s;eem to <HI>Ju|daize</HI> on the Lords day al&s;o; he pronounced &s;uch as were active in promoting the practi&s;e and opinion of either &s;ide, to be the Preachers of Antichri&s;t, <HI>qui veniens diem Sabbati &amp; diem Dominicum ab omni opere faciet cu&s;todiri,</HI> as his own words are. Le&s;s forward were the Ea&s;tern Churches, in impo&s;ing any of the&s;e new re&s;traints upon the people, then the We&s;tern were; the toiles of Husbandry it &s;elf not being prohibited in the Ea&s;tern parts of the Empire, til the time of <HI>Leo Philo&s;ophus,</HI> (he began his Government, <HI>Anno</HI> 886.) who grounding him|&s;elf
<PB N="83" REF="45">
on &s;ome command of the holy Gho&s;t, and the Lords A|po&s;tles, which neither he nor any body el&s;e could ever finde, decreed by his Imperial Edict, <HI>ut omnes in die &s;acro, &amp;c. &agrave; la|bore vacent. Neque Agricolae, &amp;c.</HI> that all men what&s;oever, as well the Husbandman as others, &s;hould on the Lords day re&s;t from all manner of work. So long it was before any &s;uch general re&s;traints were laid upon Gods people, either in the We&s;t or Ea&s;t. In all which time we neither find, that the <HI>&s;et|ting of &s;ome whole day apart</HI> for Gods &s;olemn wor&s;hip, was lookt upon as <HI>Juris Divini naturalis,</HI> which is the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> own opinion; or that the <HI>first day of the Week, which is the Lords day, was</HI> wholly <HI>to be dedicated to the &s;ervice of God, and therefore that</HI> men &s;hould be bound to <HI>rest therein from their common and daily bu&s;ine&s;s,</HI> which is the Doctrine of the Articles of the Church of <HI>Ireland.</HI></P>
<P>Next let us look upon the Prote&s;tant <HI>Lutheran</HI> Churches, among&s;t whom, though re&s;traints from labour, formerly im|po&s;ed by many Canons, Laws, and Imperial Edicts, do remain in force, yet they indulge unto them&s;elves all hone&s;t and law|ful recreations, and &s;pare not to travel on that day, as well as upon any other, as their nece&s;&s;ities, or plea&s;ures give occa&s;ion for it. If they repair unto the Church, and give their diligent attendance on Gods publick &s;ervice, there is no more expected of them; they may di&s;po&s;e of all the re&s;t of the day in their own affairs, and follow all &s;uch bu&s;ine&s;&s;es from which they are not barred by the Laws of the &s;everal Countries in which they live, without being called to an account, or cen&s;ured for it. And as for the Reformed or <HI>Calvinian</HI> Churches, they give them&s;elves more liberty on that day then the <HI>Lutherans</HI> doe, few of them having any Divine offices (until now of late) in the Afternoons; as neither had the Primitive Chri&s;tians, till to|ward the later end of the fifth, or the beginning of the &s;ixth Century. In tho&s;e of the <HI>Palatinate,</HI> the Gentlemen betake them&s;elves in the Afternoon of the Lords day to <HI>Hawking</HI> and <HI>Hunting,</HI> according as the &s;ea&s;on of the year is fit for either, or &s;pend it in taking the Air, vi&s;iting their Friends, or what&s;oe|ver el&s;e &s;hall &s;eem plea&s;ing unto them: as doth the Husband|man in looking over his grounds, ordering his cattel, or follow|ing
<PB N="84" REF="46">
of &s;uch Recreations as are mo&s;t agreeable to his nature and education. And &s;o it &s;tood in the year 1612. at what time the Lady <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> daughter to King <HI>James,</HI> and wife to <HI>Frede|rick</HI> the fifth, Prince Elector Palatine, came fir&s;t into that Countrey; who&s;e having Divine Service every afternoon in her Chappel or Clo&s;et, officiated by her own Chaplains, ac|cording to the Liturgy of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> might give &s;ome hint to the Prince her Husband to cau&s;e the like religious offices to be performed in &s;ome part of the Afternoon in the City of <HI>Heidelberg,</HI> and after by degrees in other the Cities and towns of his Dominions. In the <HI>Netherlands</HI> they have not onely practice, but a Canon for it; it being thus decreed<NOTE PLACE="marg">Collat. doct. Ca|thol. &amp; Prote|&s;tant. cap. 68.</NOTE> by the Synod of <HI>Dort,</HI> Anno 1574. <HI>Publicae ve&s;pertinae preces non &s;unt introducendae ubi non &s;unt introductae, &amp; ubi &s;unt, tol|lantur;</HI> that is to &s;ay, <Q>That in &s;uch Churches where publick <HI>Evening prayer</HI> had not been admitted, it &s;hould continue as it was; and where they were admitted, they &s;hould be put down.</Q> And if they had no Evening Prayers, there is no que&s;tion to be made, but that they had their Evening Pa&s;times, and that the Afternoon was &s;pent in &s;uch employments as were mo&s;t &s;uitable to the condition of each &s;everal man. And &s;o it &s;tood till the la&s;t Synod of <HI>Dort, Anno</HI> 1618. in which it was<NOTE PLACE="marg">Synod. Dordra. Se&s;&s;. 14.</NOTE> ordained, that Catechi&s;m-Lectures &s;hould be read in their Churches on Sundayes in the Afternoon, the Mini&s;ter not to be deterred from doing his duty <HI>propter Auditorum infrequen|tiam,</HI> though po&s;&s;ibly at the fir&s;t he might have few Auditors; and that the Civil Magi&s;trate &s;hould be implored, <HI>ut omnia o|pera &s;ervilia &amp; quotidiana, &amp;c.</HI> That all &s;ervile works and o|ther prophanations of that day might be re&s;trained, <HI>quibus tem|pus pomeridianum, maxime in pagis, plerumque tran&s;i&abque; &s;oleret;</HI> wherewith the Afternoon, chiefly in &s;maller Towns and Vil|lages, had before been &s;pent, that &s;o they might repair to the Catechizing. For both before that time, and &s;ince, they held their Fairs and Markets (their <HI>Kirk-ma&s;&s;es,</HI> as they u&s;ed to call them) as well upon the Lords day, as on any other, and tho&s;e as well frequented in the Afternoon, as were the Churches in the forenoon.</P>
<P><HI>France,</HI> and even in <HI>Geneva</HI> it &s;elf (the <HI>New Rome</HI> of the
<PB N="85" REF="46"><HI>Calvinian</HI> party) 
<Q>all hone&s;t Exerci&s;es, &s;hooting in peeces, long-bows, cro&s;s-bows, &amp;c. are u&s;ed on the Sunday, and that in the morning, both before and after Sermon: neither do the Mini&s;ters find fault therewith, &s;o they hinder not from hearing of the Word at the time appointed.</Q> And as for the Churches of the <HI>Switzers, Zuinglius</HI> avoweth it to be lawful, <HI>Die dominico, peractis &s;acris, laboribus incumbere,</HI> <Q>On the<NOTE PLACE="marg">Re&s;p. ad Cal. Gent.</NOTE> Lords day after the end of Divine Service, for any man to follow and pur&s;ue his labours; as commonly we do, &s;aith he, in the time of Harve&s;t.</Q> And po&s;&s;ible enough it is, that the pure Kirk of <HI>Scotland</HI> might have thought &s;o too, the Mini&s;ters thereof being very inclinable to the Doctrine of <HI>Zuinglius,</HI> and the practi&s;e of the <HI>Helvetian</HI> Churches, which they had readily taken into their Confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>Anno</HI> 1561, but that they were re&s;olved not to keep tho&s;e holy dayes which in tho&s;e Churches are allowed of: all Holy dayes but the Lords day onely having been formerly put down by their Book of Di&s;cipline. Nor could I ever learn from any of my Acquaintance of that Kingdom, but that men followed their nece&s;&s;ary bu&s;ine&s;&s;es, and hone&s;t recreations on the Lords day, till by commerce and corre&s;pon|dence with the <HI>Puritan,</HI> or Presbyterian party here in <HI>England,</HI> the Sabbatarian Doctrines began by little and little to get ground among&s;t them.</P>
<P>On all which premi&s;es I conclude, that the Authors of that Homily had neither any mind or meaning to contradict the Ancient Fathers, the u&s;ages and cu&s;tomes of the Primitive times, in the general practice of the Prote&s;tant and Reformed Churches; and therefore that the words of the Homily are not to be under&s;tood in any &s;uch &s;en&s;e as he puts upon them. The Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England</HI> is clear and uniform, every way con&s;onant to it &s;elf; not to be bowed to a compli|ance with the <HI>Iri&s;h</HI> Articles of the year 1615. and much le&s;s with the judgement and opinion of one &s;ingle per&s;on in 640. No Sophi&s;try in all this, but good Topical Arguments, and &s;uch as may be more ea&s;ily contemned then an&s;wered. And &s;o much toward the <HI>exonerating</HI> of the fourth <HI>charge,</HI> the mo&s;t material of them all, in which the Hi&s;torian &s;tands accu&s;ed for <HI>oppo&s;ing</HI> the Doctrine of this Church in the Book of Homilies, to which he had formerly &s;ub&s;cribed.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="9" TYPE="section">
<PB N="86" REF="47">
<HEAD>SECT. IX.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> charged for mistaking the affairs of <HI>Ireland</HI> in two particulars, which he ingenuou&s;ly confe&s;&s;eth. The great cun|ning of the <HI>Puritan</HI> faction in effecting their de&s;ires in the Con|vocation of <HI>Dublin,</HI> Anno 1615. which they could not com|pa&s;s here in <HI>England.</HI> The <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> accu&s;ed for <HI>&s;hamele&s;|ne&s;s,</HI> &amp;c. for the &s;econd mi&s;take, though onely in a point of <HI>Circum&s;tance;</HI> the <HI>Articles</HI> of <HI>Ireland</HI> being called in, and tho&s;e of <HI>England</HI> received in the place thereof by the <HI>Con|vocation,</HI> though not by <HI>Parliament.</HI> The Lord <HI>Primates</HI> nar|rative of this bu&s;ine&s;s; he finds him&s;elf &s;urprized in pa&s;&s;ing the <HI>Canon,</HI> and makes u&s;e of a &s;orry &s;hift to &s;alve the matter. The matter of a Commandment how, and in what &s;en&s;e made an <HI>Ar|ticle</HI> of the <HI>Faith;</HI> and made a matter of the faith in this par|ticular of the Lords day by the <HI>A&s;&s;emblie of Divines</HI> at <HI>We&s;tmin&s;ter.</HI> The con&s;ecration of Arch-Bi&s;hops and Bi&s;hops, as capable of being taken into the <HI>Creed,</HI> as the <HI>Parity of Mi|ni&s;ters.</HI> No verdict pa&s;&s;ed in behalf of the <HI>Lords day Sabbath</HI> by the Church of <HI>England.</HI> The great difference between the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> and the Church of <HI>England</HI> in this bu&s;ine&s;s of the Lords day Sabbath. A parting da&s;h be&s;towed by the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> on the <HI>Hi&s;torian.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>THis leads me on to the fifth and la&s;t <HI>charge</HI> laid on the Hi|&s;torian, meerly extrin&s;ecal, as to the main concernments of the point in hand, though &s;uch as hath better ground to &s;tand on then the other four. The <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> having carried on his de&s;ign as far as he could by the help of Books, was forced to take up two pa&s;&s;ages, concerning the affairs of <HI>Ireland,</HI> upon <HI>information;</HI> an <HI>information</HI> not took up upon a vulgar hear-&s;ay, but given to him by &s;uch hands, from which he was confident he might receive it, without doubt or &s;cruple. The fir&s;t particular is this, that at &s;uch time as his Maje&s;ties Com|mi&s;&s;ioners in <HI>Ireland</HI> employed about the &s;etling of that Church
<PB N="87" REF="47">
<HI>Anno</HI> 1615. there pa&s;&s;ed an <HI>Article,</HI> touching the keeping of the <HI>Lords day,</HI> by which the Engli&s;h <HI>Sabbatarians</HI> were much confirmed in their Cour&s;es, and hath been often &s;ince alledged to ju&s;tifie both them and their proceedings, <HI>Hi&s;t. Sab.</HI> p. 2. l&punc; c. 8. n. 9. But the Lotd <HI>Primate</HI> now a&s;&s;ures us, that the &s;aid <HI>Article</HI> was pa&s;&s;ed, and the Book of <HI>Articles publi&s;hed in Print divers yeares before the Commi&s;&s;ioners (whom he meaneth) came thither,</HI> p. 109. And thereunto Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> addeth, that the &s;aid Articles were &s;ub&s;cribed by the Arch-Bi&s;hop of <HI>Dub|lin,</HI> then Speaker of the Hou&s;e of Bi&s;hops in Convocation, by the Prolocutor of the Hou&s;e of the Clergy in their names, and &s;igned by the Lord Deputy <HI>Chiche&s;ter</HI> in the name of King <HI>James.</HI> If &s;o, (as now I believe it was) I mu&s;t needs &s;ay that the <HI>Sabbatarians,</HI> and the re&s;t of the <HI>Cal|vinian</HI> party in <HI>England,</HI> were wi&s;er in their <HI>generations then the children of light;</HI> who &s;eeing that they had no hopes of thru&s;t|ing the <HI>nine Articles of Lambeth,</HI> their Sabbath Speculations, and the re&s;t of their <HI>Heterodoxies</HI> (of which particularly hereaf|ter) on the Church of <HI>England,</HI> they began to ca&s;t their eyes on <HI>Ireland,</HI> which lying further off might be le&s;s looked after. And in that Realm they made them&s;elves &s;o &s;trong a party, that they obtained tho&s;e Points in the Convocation held at <HI>Dub|lin, Anno</HI> 1615. which neither their &s;editious clamours in the Reign of Queen <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> nor their Petition to King <HI>James</HI> at his fir&s;t entrance on this Kingdom, nor their motion at the <HI>Conference in Hampton Court,</HI> nor their continual Addre&s;&s;es to the Hou&s;es of Parliament, were able to effect in <HI>England.</HI> The <HI>out-works</HI> being thus ea&s;ily gained, they made from thence their <HI>Batteries</HI> on the <HI>Fort</HI> it &s;elf, of which they doubted not to make them&s;elves Ma&s;ters in &s;hort time, as in fine they did. For after this, when the Sabbath Quarrels were revived, and the <HI>Arminian</HI> Controver&s;ies in agitation, no argument was more hotly pre&s;t by tho&s;e of the <HI>Puritan</HI> faction, then the Au|thority of the&s;e Articles, and the infallible judgement of King <HI>James,</HI> to confirm the &s;ame.</P>
<P>The other particular, in which the <HI>Historian</HI> doth confe&s;s him&s;elf to have been too credulous in believing, and incon&s;ide|rate in publi&s;hing &s;uch mi&s;taken intelligence, is, <HI>that the Ar|ticles</HI>
<PB N="88" REF="48">
<HI>of</HI> Ireland <HI>were called in, and that in their place the Ar|ticles of the Church of</HI> England <HI>were confirmed by Parliament in that Kingdom, Anno</HI> 1634. For this mi&s;take, though it be on|ly in the <HI>circumstance,</HI> not in the &s;ub&s;tance of the fact which is now before us, he &s;tands accu&s;ed by the Lord Primate of no le&s;s then <HI>&s;hamele&s;ne&s;s. Nor &s;hames he to affirm</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that the whole Book of the Articles of</HI> Ireland <HI>is now called in (which is a notorious untruth) and that the Articles of the Church of</HI> England <HI>were confirmed by Parliament in this Kingdom, Anno</HI> 1634. Which pa&s;&s;age, with &s;ome others in this Letter, makes me apt to think, that it was never the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> meaning, or de&s;ire to have it publi&s;hed in Print, though Dr. <HI>Bernard</HI> hath been plea&s;ed to adventure on it. For if it had been &s;o in|tended, he would have &s;hewed le&s;s pa&s;&s;ion, and more civility towards a Doctor in Divinity, Chaplain in ordinary to the King, and one not altogether untravelled in the wayes of Learning; then to brand him with Sophi&s;try, Shamele&s;&s;ne&s;s, and extravagant Fancies, to tax him with notorious untruths, &s;peaking <HI>incon&s;iderately;</HI> and finally to &s;end him back to School again to learn his <HI>Catechi&s;m.</HI></P>
<LG>
<L>Egregiam vero laudem &amp; &s;polia ampla tuli&s;tis</L>
<L>Tuque puerque tuus.</L>
</LG>
<P>A&s;&s;uredly the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> and his <HI>Chaplain</HI> too have reapt great prai&s;e and <HI>micle meed</HI> for this notable victory, by which notwith&s;tanding they have gain'd nothing but the name and noi&s;e. For if it can be proved (as I think it may) that the Ar|ticles of <HI>Ireland</HI> were called in, and that tho&s;e of <HI>England</HI> were received in their place; then, whether it were done by <HI>Parliament</HI> or <HI>Convocation,</HI> is not much material. But on the contrary, it is affirmed by the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> <Q>That the Hou&s;e of Convocation in the beginning of their Canons, <HI>for the manife&s;tation of their agreement with the Church of</HI> England, <HI>in the confe&s;&s;ion of the &s;ame Chr&s;tian faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments,</HI> as them&s;elves profe&s;s, and for no other end in the world, did receive and approve of the Articles of <HI>England:</HI> but that either the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> were
<PB N="91" REF="48">
ever called in, or any Article, or Canons at all were ever here confirmed by Act of <HI>Parliament,</HI> may well be reckon|ed among&s;t Dr. <HI>Heylyns fancies.</HI></Q> This the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> hath affirmed, but takes no notice that the receiving of the Articles of <HI>England</HI> imports no le&s;s then the <HI>repealing</HI> of tho&s;e of <HI>Ire|land;</HI> of which &s;ince Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> hath di&s;cour&s;ed more fully in his following Paper, I &s;hall re&s;erve my An&s;wer unto this Objection, till I come to him. In the mean time we are to know, that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> having been wrought on to propo&s;e the Canon which he &s;peaks of about the <HI>Articles</HI> of <HI>England,</HI> did readily con&s;ent unto it, conceiving it to be without any prejudice to the other; and thereupon he did not onely propo&s;e it in the Hou&s;e of the Bi&s;hops, but commend|ed it to the Hou&s;e of the Clergy, where by his motion many a&s;&s;ented the more readily, as Dr. <HI>Bernard</HI> hath informed us, p. 118. But afterwards, the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> upon further con|&s;ideration, conceiving that he had been &s;urprized, and that he had pa&s;&s;ed more away in that Canon then he fir&s;t intended, began to ca&s;t about for &s;ome expedient to &s;alve the matter, and keep the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> in their former credit. And there|upon it was thought fit that both the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> him|&s;elf, and &s;ome other Bi&s;hops of his party &s;hould at <HI>an Ordina|tion, take the &s;ub&s;cription of the party ordained to both Articles, the Articles of</HI> England <HI>not being received in&s;tead, but with tho&s;e of</HI> Ireland, <HI>p.</HI> 120, 121. A &s;orry &s;hift, but &s;uch as was conceived to be better then none, though as good as no|thing.</P>
<P>But leaving this Di&s;pute to another place, as before was intimated we now proceed to the Examination of &s;ome other pa&s;&s;ages in the Lord <HI>Primates Letter</HI> unto his <HI>Honourable Friend,</HI> in which he fir&s;t chargeth the <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> for &s;peaking <HI>incon&s;iderately,</HI> in &s;aying, that before that time, <HI>viz. Anno 1615. The Lords day had never attained &s;uch credit as to be thought an Article of the Faith, though of &s;ome mens fancies.</HI> And why was this &s;o incon&s;iderately &s;poken? <HI>Becau&s;e</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>he that would confound the ten</HI> Commandments (<HI>whereof this mu&s;t he accounted for one unle&s;s he will leave us but nine with the</HI> Articles of Faith, <HI>had need be put to learn his Catechi&s;me again.</HI>
<PB N="92" REF="49">
But this I look on as a flouri&s;h, or a fan&s;ie onely. For I hope the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> doth not think the <HI>Hi&s;torian</HI> &s;o extremely ig|norant, as to mean there a <HI>ju&s;tifying</HI> and <HI>&s;alvifical</HI> faith; but that he takes faith there in the general notion, as it importeth a firm per&s;wa&s;ion, and beliefe that tho&s;e things are undoubted|ly true which are commended to him by the Church in which he liveth, or found in any creditable and unque&s;tioned Au|thor; And in this notion of the word, the matter of a Com|mandment being made a Doctrine, may be called an Article of the <HI>Faith,</HI> without any &s;uch &s;corn, as to be <HI>put to learn the Catechi&s;m again.</HI> The Articles of <HI>England</HI> by &s;uch as write of them in <HI>Latine,</HI> are called <HI>Confe&s;&s;io Eccle&s;iae Anglicanae (praeter</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Con&s;il. redeun|di.</NOTE> <HI>Confe&s;&s;ionem Anglicanam quam mihi ut mode&s;tam praedicabant, &amp;c.</HI> &s;aith the Arch-Bi&s;hop of <HI>Spalato.</HI>) In like manner and in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e and &s;ignification as the Articles of the <HI>Belgick</HI> Churches, and the <HI>Kirk</HI> of <HI>Scotland,</HI> are called <HI>confe&s;&s;io fidei Eccle&s;iarum Belgicarum, Confe&s;&s;io fidei Scoticana, &amp; &s;it de cae|teris,</HI> that is to &s;ay, the confe&s;&s;ion of the Faith of tho&s;e &s;eve|ral Churches. By which name the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> being al&s;o called by a <HI>most eminent, learned and judicious per&s;on</HI> (as Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> &s;ets him out, p. 121.) and the new Doctrine of the Sabbath being made a part of that Confe&s;&s;ion, it may be &s;aid without any ab&s;urdity, or being put to <HI>School again to learn the Catechi&s;me,</HI> that till that time, <HI>viz.</HI> 1615. the Lords day never had attained that credit, as to be thought an <HI>Article</HI> of the <HI>Faith.</HI> But to make the matter &s;ure, and beyond excep|tion, I mu&s;t put Dr. <HI>Bernard</HI> in mind of a Book entituled, <HI>The Humble Advice of the A&s;&s;embly of Divines a&s;&s;embled at</HI> We&s;t|min&s;ter <HI>by the Authority of Parliament, concerning a Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith.</HI> In which Confe&s;&s;ion of the Faith it is &s;aid expre&s;ly, that, <Q>As it is in the Law of Nature, that in general a due pro|portion of time be &s;et apart for the wor&s;hip of God; &s;o in his word by a po&s;itive, moral, and perpetual Commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in &s;even for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him: which from the beginning of the world to the Re&s;urrection of Chri&s;t, was the la&s;t day of the week; and from the Re|&s;urrection of Chri&s;t, was changed into the fir&s;t day of the
<PB N="93" REF="49">
week, which in Scripture is called the Lords day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Chri&s;tian <HI>Sab|bath.</HI></Q> The in&s;titution and keeping of the Lords day here is made an <HI>Article of the Faith,</HI> an Article of that Confe&s;&s;ion of the Faith which by the A&s;&s;embly of Divines (whereof the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> was nominated to be one) was recommended to the two Hou&s;es of Parliament; and yet I trow, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> wil not &s;end the whole A&s;&s;embly to <HI>learn their Catechi&s;m again,</HI> unle&s;s it were one of the <HI>Catechi&s;ms</HI> of their own making, ei|ther the larger, or the le&s;&s;er, 'tis no matter which.</P>
<P>But the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;tayes not here, he goes on and &s;aith, <Q>That he that would have every thing which is put into the Articles of Religion, to be held for <HI>an Article of Faith,</HI> &s;hould do well to tell us whether he hath as yet admitted the <HI>Book of the ordination of Bi&s;hops, and the two volumes of Ho|milies</HI> into his Creed; both which he &s;hall find received in the Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Synod held at <HI>London, Anno</HI> 1562.</Q> But unto this it may be an&s;wered, that the <HI>Book of the Ordination of Bi&s;hops, and the two Volumes of Homilies</HI> may be &s;o far taken into the Hi&s;torians Creed, as to believe as much of either as is required of him in the Book of Articles. For he may very warrantably and &s;afely &s;ay, <Q>that he does verily <HI>believe</HI> that the &s;econd Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and whole&s;ome Doctrine, and nece&s;&s;a|ry<NOTE PLACE="marg">Artic. 35. 36.</NOTE> for tho&s;e times (that is to &s;ay, the times in which they were fir&s;t publi&s;ht) and that the Book of Con&s;ecration of Arch-Bi&s;hops and Bi&s;hops, and ordering of Prie&s;ts and Dea|cons, doth contain all things nece&s;&s;ary to &s;uch Con&s;ecrati|on and ordering, and that it hath nothing that of it &s;elf is &s;u|per&s;titious or ungodly.</Q> All this the <HI>Historian</HI> doth and may <HI>believe</HI> without making it an Article of his <HI>Faith,</HI> except it be in that general notion of the word, which before we &s;pake of; and in which notion of the word, the Article of the Con&s;ecra|tion of Arch-Bi&s;hops and Bi&s;hops, &amp;c. may as well finde a place in the Confe&s;&s;ion of the Faith of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> as that Article of the <HI>Parity</HI> of <HI>Mini&s;ters</HI> hath found ad|mittance in the <HI>Confe&s;&s;ions</HI> of the <HI>Belgick, Scoti&s;h,</HI> and other Reformed Churches. For in the Belgick Confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>Art.</HI> 31.
<PB N="94" REF="50">
it is thus declared, <HI>quantum vero attinet Divini verbi Mini|&s;tros, ubicunque locorum &s;int, eandem illi Pote&s;tatem &amp; Autho|ritatem habent, ut qui omnes &s;int Chri&s;ti, unici illius Epi&s;copi univer&s;alis, unicique Capitis Eccle&s;iae Mini&s;tri.</HI> The French Confe&s;&s;ion bearing this Title, <HI>Gallicarum Eccle&s;iarum Confe&s;&s;io fidei,</HI> that is to &s;ay, The Confe&s;&s;ion of the Faith of the French or Gallick Churches as the Scoti&s;h Confe&s;&s;ion is called <HI>Confe&s;|&s;io fidei Scoticana</HI>) doth affirm as much, <HI>viz. Credimus omnes ve|ros Pa&s;tores ubicun&abque; locorum collocati fuerint, eadem &amp; aequali in|ter &s;e pote&s;tate e&s;&s;e praeditos &s;ub unico illo capite, &s;ummoque &amp; &s;olo univer&s;ali Epi&s;copo Je&s;u Chri&s;to.</HI> And &s;o no que&s;tion in the re&s;t. The Con&s;ecration of Arch-Bi&s;hops and Bi&s;hops may as well be an Article of the Faith among&s;t us in <HI>England,</HI> as the <HI>Parity</HI> of <HI>Mini&s;ters</HI> among&s;t tho&s;e of <HI>France,</HI> or the <HI>Low-Countries.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e <HI>Interlocutories</HI> being thus pa&s;&s;ed over, the Lord <HI>Pri|mate</HI> comes at la&s;t to his final and <HI>definitive</HI> &s;entence; for what remaineth after the <HI>Verdict</HI> is once given, but that <HI>Judg|ment</HI> in the Ca&s;e be pronounced accordingly? And the <HI>Judg|ment</HI> is given us in the&s;e Words, <HI>viz. By the Verdict of the Church of England, the Lords day had obtained &s;uch a pitch of credit, as nothing more could be left to the Church of</HI> Ireland <HI>in their Articles, afterward to adde unto it.</HI> But again&s;t this <HI>Judg|ment</HI> I appeal, and mu&s;t rever&s;e the &s;ame by <HI>Writ of Error.</HI> For fir&s;t, although the Lords day had obtained <HI>&s;uch a pitch of credit</HI> in the Realm of <HI>England,</HI> as is here affirmed, it was ob|tained rather by the practi&s;es of the <HI>Sabbatarians,</HI> who were in&s;tant in &s;ea&s;on and out of &s;ea&s;on to promote the Cau&s;e, then by any countenance given unto it by the Church and the Ru|lers of it. And &s;econdly, if any &s;uch <HI>Verdict</HI> had been given, it was not given by any <HI>Jury</HI> which was legally &s;ummoned, or tru&s;ted by the Church to act any thing in that particular. And then the Foreman of this <HI>Jury</HI> mu&s;t be Doctor <HI>Bound,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Greenham,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Perkins,</HI> Doctor <HI>Lewis Bayley,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Dod,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Clever,</HI> Doctor <HI>Gouge,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Whateley,</HI> Doctor <HI>Sibs,</HI> Doctor <HI>Pre&s;ton,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Bifield,</HI> Doctor <HI>Twi&s;&s;e,</HI> and Ma|&s;ter <HI>Ley</HI> mu&s;t make up the <HI>Pannel;</HI> the five <HI>Smectymnuans,</HI> and he that pulled down the Cro&s;s in Saint <HI>Pauls</HI> Church-yard,
<PB N="95" REF="50">
&s;tanding by in a readine&s;s to put in for the <HI>Tales,</HI> as occa&s;ion &s;erved. Unle&s;s the Verdict had been given by the&s;e, or &s;uch as the&s;e, the Lords day never had attained &s;uch a pitch of cre|dit, as is here &s;uppo&s;ed; but how a Verdict &s;o given in may be affirmed to be a <HI>Verdict of the Church of England,</HI> I am yet to &s;eek. So that except there had been &s;omething <HI>left to the Church of</HI> Ireland <HI>in their Articles to adde unto it;</HI> The Sab|batarian Brethren would have found &s;mall comfort from any Verdict given on their &s;ide by the Church of <HI>England.</HI> The Church of <HI>England</HI> differs as much in this point from the Arti|cles of <HI>Ireland,</HI> as the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> differeth in it from the Church of <HI>England.</HI> The Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;ets it down for a Pro|po&s;ition, <HI>that the &s;etting apart of one day in &s;even for Gods &s;o|lemn wor&s;hip, is</HI> juris Divini Po&s;itivi, <HI>recorded in the fourth Commandment,</HI> p. 105. But the Lords Spiritual, the mo&s;t emi|nent <HI>Repre&s;enters</HI> of the Church of <HI>England</HI> declared in the Parliament, in the 5, &amp; 6. of <HI>Edw.</HI> 6. <Q>That there is no cer|tain time, or definite number of dayes pre&s;cribed in holy Scripture; but the appointment both of the time, and al&s;o of the number of dayes, is left by the Authority of Gods word to the liberty of Chri&s;ts Church, to be determined and a&s;&s;igned orderly in every Countrey, by the di&s;cretion of the Rulers, and Mini&s;ters thereof, as they &s;hall judge mo&s;t expedient to the &s;etting forth Gods glory, and edification of their people.</Q> The Church of <HI>England</HI> hath declared in the <HI>Homily</HI> of the <HI>time and place of prayer,</HI> that the Lords day was in&s;tituted by the Authority of the Church, and the con|&s;ent of godly Chri&s;tian people after Chri&s;ts A&s;cen&s;ion. But the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> doth entitle it unto Chri&s;t him&s;elf, and to that end alledgeth a pa&s;&s;age out of the Homily <HI>De Semente,</HI> a&s;cribed (but a&s;cribed fal&s;ly) unto S. <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> viz. <GAP DESC="foreign">. The proper mean|ing of which words hath been &s;hewen already in the fir&s;t Se|ction of this Treati&s;e. The Lord <HI>Primate</HI> in conformity to the <HI>Articles</HI> of the Church of <HI>Ireland,</HI> affirms for certain, that the <HI>whole day</HI> mu&s;t be &s;et apart for Gods <HI>&s;olemn wor&s;hip.</HI> But in the Church of <HI>England</HI> there is liberty given upon that day, not onely for hone&s;t Recreations, but al&s;o for &s;uch nece&s;&s;ary
<PB N="96" REF="51">
works of labour, as are not, or have not been re&s;trained by the Laws of the Land. Which makes the difference in this ca&s;e between the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> and the Church of <HI>England</HI> to be irreconcilable. And here I would have left the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> Letter writ to his <HI>Honourable Friend,</HI> the Contents whereof have been the &s;ole Subject of the pre&s;ent <HI>Section;</HI> but that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> will not &s;o part with the <HI>Hi&s;torian,</HI> he mu&s;t needs be&s;tow a da&s;h upon him before he leaves him, telling his <HI>Honourable</HI> Friend, <HI>How little credit the Historian de&s;erves in his</HI> Geography, <HI>when he brings news of the remote parts of the world, that tells &s;o many untruths of things &s;o</HI> lately, <HI>and &s;o</HI> pub|lickly <HI>acted in his</HI> neighbour <HI>Nation.</HI> This I mu&s;t needs &s;ay comes in very unhand&s;omely, <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>dictum</HI> at the be&s;t, and &s;avours little of that <HI>moderation, humility,</HI> and <HI>meekne&s;s of Spi|rit,</HI> for which Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> hath &s;o fam'd him, not onely in this pre&s;ent <HI>Treati&s;e,</HI> but his <HI>Funeral Sermon.</HI> But let this pa&s;s <HI>cum caeteris erroribus,</HI> without more ado. I have &s;ome o|ther game in cha&s;e, to which now I ha&s;ten.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. X.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>Seven Points of Doctrine in which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> differeth from the Church of <HI>England.</HI> The Lord <HI>Primates</HI> judgment in the point of <HI>Epi&s;copacy,</HI> and the ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas. That Bi&s;hops and Presbyters did differ <HI>Ordine,</HI> and not onely <HI>Gradu,</HI> proved by three pa&s;&s;ages in the Book of Con&s;ecration, and by the different forms of the Ordi|nation of Bi&s;hops, Prie&s;ts and Deacons, u&s;ed in the &s;aid Book. The form and manner of making Bi&s;hops, Prie&s;ts and Deacons expre&s;ly regulated by the Canons of the fourth Council of <HI>Car|thage.</HI> The Ordination of <HI>Presbyters</HI> by <HI>Presbyters</HI> declared unlawful, by the Rules of the Primitive Church. The Uni|ver&s;al Redemption of Mankind by the blood of Chri&s;t, main|tained by the Church of <HI>England;</HI> but denied by the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> not con&s;tant to him&s;elfe in his own opinion&punc; A <HI>Real</HI> pre&s;ence of Chri&s;t in the <HI>Sacrament</HI> maintained by the Church of <HI>England,</HI> and affirmed by the most emi|nent
<PB N="97" REF="51">
Prelates of it; but both denied and oppo&s;ed by the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> in his <HI>An&s;wer to the Je&s;uites challenge.</HI> That the Prie&s;t hath <HI>power to forgive &s;ins,</HI> proved by three &s;everal pa&s;&s;ages out of the Book of Common-Prayer. The meaning of the two fir&s;t pa&s;&s;ages &s;ubverted by the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> Glo&s;s or De&s;cant on them; but no notice taken by him of the la&s;t, which is mo&s;t material. That the Prie&s;t forgiveth &s;ins either <HI>Declarativ&egrave;</HI> or <HI>Optativ&egrave;</HI> better approved by the Lord <HI>Pri|mate;</HI> neither of which come up clo&s;e to the Church of <HI>Eng|land,</HI> and the rea&s;on why. The Church of <HI>England</HI> holdeth that the Priect forgiveth &s;ins <HI>Authoritativ&egrave;,</HI> by a delegated, not a &s;overaign power; and that &s;he &s;o holdeth is affirmed by &s;ome learned men of the Church of <HI>Rome&punc;</HI> The benefit of Ab|&s;olution from the hands of the Prie&s;t, humbly de&s;ired and recei|ved by Doctor <HI>Reynolds</HI> at the time of his death. The Church of <HI>England</HI> maintains a <HI>local De&s;cent,</HI> and the proof thereof. The Church not altered in her judgement &s;ince the fir&s;t making of that Article, <HI>Anno 1552.</HI> as &s;ome men imagine; The Lord <HI>Primate</HI> goes a different way from the Church of <HI>Eng|land,</HI> and the great pains by him taken to make it good. A tran&s;ition to the <HI>nine Articles</HI> of <HI>Lambeth.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P><MILESTONE N="1"> THe difference between the Church of <HI>England</HI> and the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> in the point of the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> we have &s;hew|ed already; and well it were, if he differed from the Church of <HI>England</HI> in no point el&s;e. But Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> gives us &s;ome, and the <HI>An&s;wer</HI> to the <HI>Je&s;uites challenge</HI> hath given given us others. Fir&s;t, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> tells us in a Letter writ to Doctor <HI>Bernard,</HI> and by him now publi&s;hed, <Q><MILESTONE N="2"> That he ever declared his opinion to be (but it was onely in pri|vate to &s;ome &s;pecial Friends) that <HI>Epi&s;copus &amp; Presbyter gradu tantum differunt, non ordine,</HI> and con&s;equently that in places where Bi&s;hops cannot be had, the Ordination by Presbyters &s;tandeth <HI>valid.</HI> And how&s;oever (&s;aith he) I mu&s;t needs think that the Churches, which have no Bi&s;hops, are thereby become very defective in their Government, and that the Churches in <HI>France,</HI> who living under a Popi&s;h power, and cannot do what they would, are more excu&s;able
<PB N="98" REF="52">
in this defect then the Low-Countreyes, that live under a a free State; yet for the te&s;tifying my Communion with the&s;e Churches (which I do love and honour as true Members of the Church univer&s;al) I do profe&s;s that with like affection I &s;hould receive the ble&s;&s;ed Sacrament at the hands of the <HI>Dutch</HI> Mini&s;ters, if I were in <HI>Holland,</HI> as I &s;hould do at the hands of the <HI>French</HI> Mini&s;ters, if I were in <HI>Charentone.</HI></Q>  And this I mu&s;t needs &s;ay, though I never &s;aw it before in Print, is no news to me at all. For I have heard long &s;ince, and from very good hands, that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> did &s;o fully commu|nicate his judgement in the point of <HI>Epi&s;copacy</HI> to Doctor <HI>Pre&s;ton</HI> then of <HI>Cambridge</HI> (a man of quick parts, and deep comprehen&s;ions) that he u&s;ed to &s;ay many times to his Friends and followers, that if the Bi&s;hops of <HI>England</HI> did lay the foun|dation of their <HI>calling</HI> on no other grounds then the <HI>Primate</HI> did, the differences between them would be &s;oon agreed. But on the other &s;ide it is the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England</HI> that a Bi&s;hop and a Presbyter do differ <HI>Ordine</HI> in re&s;pect of &s;ome &s;uper our order which the Presbyter hath not; and not <HI>Gradu</HI> onely, in re&s;pect of &s;ome &s;uperiority of Degree, which every Bi&s;hop hath above the Presbyters. And this appears plainly by the <HI>Preface</HI> of the Book entituled, <HI>The form and manner of making and con&s;ecrating Bi&s;hops, Prie&s;ts, and Dea|cons;</HI> approved by the Articles of the Church, and e&s;tabli&s;hed by the Laws of the Land, in which <HI>Preface</HI> it is &s;aid expre&s;ly, <HI>that it is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture, and ancient Authors, that from the</HI> Apo&s;tles time, <HI>there have been the&s;e</HI> Orders of Mini&s;ters <HI>in Christs Church, Bi&s;hops, Prie&s;ts and Deacons.</HI> It follows not long after thus, <HI>viz. And there|fore to the intent the&s;e Orders &s;hould be continued, and reverently u&s;ed and esteemed in this Church of</HI> England, <HI>it is requi&s;ite that no man (not being at this pre&s;ent Bi&s;hop, Priest, nor Deacon) &s;hall execute any of them, except he be called tried, examined, and ad|mitted according to the form hereafter following.</HI> Here then we have 3. Orders of Mini&s;ters, <HI>Bi&s;hops, Priests and Deacons;</HI> the Bi&s;hop differing&punc; as much in <HI>Order</HI> from the Prie&s;t, as the Prie&s;t differs in Order from the <HI>Deacon.</HI> But becau&s;e perhaps it may be &s;aid, that this <HI>Preface</HI> is no part of the Book which
<PB N="99" REF="52">
&s;tands approved by the Articles of the Church, and e&s;tabli&s;ht by the Laws of the Land, let us next look into the body of the Book it &s;elfe; where in the form of con&s;ecrating an <HI>Arch-Bi|&s;hop,</HI> or <HI>Bi&s;hop,</HI> we &s;hall find a prayer in the&s;e words following, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>Almighty God, giver of all good things, who ha&s;t ap|pointed divers <HI>Orders</HI> of Mini&s;ters in thy Church, merciful|ly behold this thy &s;ervant, now called to the work and Mi|ni&s;try of a <HI>Bi&s;hop,</HI> and repleni&s;h him &s;o with the truth of thy Doctrine, and innocency of life, that both by word and deed, he may faithfully &s;erve thee in this office, &amp;c.</Q>  By which Prayer, it doth as evidently appear as it did before in the Pre|face, not onely that the office of a Bi&s;hop doth differ from the Office of the Prie&s;ts and Deacons, but that the Bi&s;hop is of a different Order from all other Mini&s;ters. And this appears yet further by the different forms u&s;ed in the ordering of the Prie&s;ts and Deacons, and the form of con&s;ecrating an Arch-Bi&s;hop or Bi&s;hop. Which certainly the Church had never di|&s;tingui&s;hed in &s;uch &s;olemnity (for <HI>frustra fit per plura quod fie|ri potest per pauciora</HI>) if the con&s;ecrating of a Bi&s;hop did not adde &s;ome further <HI>Order</HI> to him, which before he had not as a Prie&s;t or Presbyter.</P>
<P>But becau&s;e po&s;&s;ibly &s;ome may &s;ay that the Church of <HI>Eng|land</HI> is either &s;ingular in this point, or el&s;e did borrow the&s;e forms from the popi&s;h <HI>Ordinals,</HI> as it is &s;aid to have borrowed her publick <HI>Liturgy</HI> from the popi&s;h <HI>Mi&s;&s;als;</HI> it will be found on the fir&s;t &s;earch, that nothing is done, or appointed to be done by the Church of <HI>England,</HI> but what was regulated and pre&s;cribed by the fourth Council of <HI>Carthage, Anno</HI> 401. or<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Carthag.</HI> 4&punc; Can. 3.</NOTE> thereabout. In which <HI>Council</HI> it is fir&s;t ordained, that in the ordination of a Prie&s;t or Presbyter, the Bi&s;hop holding his hand on his head, and ble&s;&s;ing him, all the Presbyters that were pre&s;ent &s;hould hold their hands by the hands of the Bi|&s;hop. Whereas in the ordination of a Deacon, it &s;ufficeth<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid.</HI> Can. 4.</NOTE> that the Bi&s;hop alone put his hands upon the head of him that is ordained; becau&s;e he is not &s;anctified to prie&s;tly dignity, but to the &s;ervice of the Church. But in the con&s;ecration of a Bi&s;hop it is there required, that two Bi&s;hops holding the Book of Go&s;pels over his head, the third (which regularly was to be
<PB N="100" REF="53">
the <HI>Metropolitan</HI> of the Province) &s;hould pronounce the words<NOTE PLACE="marg">Can. 2.</NOTE> of Con&s;ecration, all the other Bi&s;hops which are pre&s;ent lay|ing their hands upon him as others did. I &s;aid that regularly the Bi&s;hop which pronounced the words of Con&s;ecration, was to be the Metropolitan of the Province, in which the New Bi&s;hop was ordained, becau&s;e we find it &s;o ordered in the Council of <HI>Antioch, Anno</HI> 365. in which it was decreed, that<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Concil. Anti|och.</HI> Can. 19.</NOTE> a Bi&s;hop &s;hould not be ordained without a Synod and the pre|&s;ence of the Metropolitan, that the Metropolitan by his letters &s;hould call unto him all the Bi&s;hops in the Province, if conve|niently they might come together; if not, that at the lea&s;t the greater part &s;hould be pre&s;ent, or give their con&s;ent by wri|ting. By which it &s;eems, that the con&s;ecration of a Bi&s;hop was e&s;teemed a work of &s;o great dignity in it &s;elf, and of &s;o great importance to the Church of Chri&s;t, that all the Bi&s;hops of the Province were required to be pre&s;ent at it, if they could conveniently. But to return again to the fourth Council of <HI>Carthage,</HI> we find therein three &s;everal and di&s;tinct forms of Ordination, and con&s;equently three &s;everal Orders of Mini|&s;ters to be &s;o ordained. For otherwi&s;e it had been very unnece&s;|&s;ary to u&s;e one form in the making of a Presbyter, &amp; another in the con&s;ecrating of Bi&s;hops; the one to be performed by the Bi&s;hop and &s;ome Presbyters onely, the other not to be at|tempted but with the pre&s;ence (or the con&s;ent at lea&s;t) of the Metropolitan, all other Bi&s;hops of the Province con&s;enting to it, and giving their a&s;&s;i&s;tance at that &s;acred Ceremony, if not otherwi&s;e hindered. And though this fourth Council of <HI>Carthage</HI> was but National onely, yet was it univer&s;ally re|ceived (and that too in a very &s;hort time) over all the Church, and made the &s;tanding Rule, by which the con&s;ecrating of Bi|&s;hops, and the ordaining of Prie&s;ts and Deacons was to be of|ficiated. A Rule &s;o punctually followed by the Church of <HI>Eng|land,</HI> that it &s;eemeth to be rather of the Carthaginian then the Roman party, and more to &s;avour of the Primitive, then the popi&s;h Ordinals. And to this Rule the Church did tie it &s;elfe &s;o &s;trictly concerning the con&s;ecration of an Arch Bi&s;hop or Bi|&s;hop, that though a Bi&s;hop in &s;ome ca&s;es might ordain a Prie&s;t or Presbyter, without the pre&s;ence and co-operation of other
<PB N="101" REF="53">
Presbyters; yet was there no ca&s;e what&s;oever, in which it was lawful for one or more Prie&s;ts or Presbyters to ordain an|other. And &s;o it was adjudged in the ca&s;e of <HI>Coluthus,</HI> who&s;e ordinations were therfore declared void &amp; of no effect, becau&s;e he was no <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> but a <HI>Presbyter</HI> onely, as is affirmed by <HI>Atha|na&s;ius</HI> in <HI>Apol.</HI> 2. Which as it clearly contradicted the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> judgement in the point of the lawfulne&s;s of the Or|dination of Presbyters by Presbyters, without the concurrence of a Bi&s;hop; &s;o doth it ju&s;tifie the Church of <HI>England</HI> again&s;t him in the point of Epi&s;copacy, which &s;he affirms, and he denies to be a di&s;tinct <HI>Order</HI> from that of the Prie&s;t or Presby|ter.</P>
<P>But nothing doth more fully manife&s;t the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> judgement in this particular (and con&s;equently his di&s;&s;ent therein from the Church of <HI>England</HI>) then his publi&s;hing the judgement and opinion of Doctor <HI>Reynolds</HI> in this point; which he &s;o far enlarged and explicated, that Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> rec|koneth it among&s;t his works. The title of the Book runs thus: <HI>The judgement of Doctor</HI> Reynolds <HI>touching the Original of E|pi&s;copacy, more largely confirmed out of Antiquity, by</HI> James <HI>Arch-Bi&s;hop of</HI> Armagh. The Doctors judgement is as follow|eth, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>When Elders were ordained by the Apo&s;tles in every Church, through every City to feed the flock of Chri&s;t, whereof the Holy Gho&s;t had made them over&s;eers: they to the intent they might the better do it, by common Coun&s;el, and con&s;ent, did u&s;e to a&s;&s;emble them&s;elves and meet together. In which meetings, for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge, they cho&s;e one among&s;t them to be the Pre&s;ident of their Company, and Moderator of their Actions. As in the Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> though it had &s;undry <HI>Elders</HI> and <HI>Pa|stors</HI> to guide it; yet among&s;t tho&s;e &s;undry, was there one chief, whom our Saviour calleth the <HI>Angel of the Church,</HI> and writeth that to him, which by him the re&s;t &s;hould know. And this is he whom afterwards in the Primitive Church the Fathers called <HI>Bi&s;hop.</HI></Q> So far the words of Dr. <HI>Reynolds,</HI> then which there nothing can be &s;aid more contrary to the fir&s;t in&s;ti|tution, nor more derogatory to the Order and E&s;tate of Bi&s;hops.
<PB N="102" REF="54">
And if the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> did <HI>magnifie his own office</HI> no better in other things, then he did in publi&s;hing this piece, Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> might have &s;pared that part of the character which he gives us of him for &s;o doing, p. 151. For by this magnifying of his Office he made him&s;elf no better then the <HI>Pre&s;ident</HI> of the <HI>Presbyters</HI> within his Dioce&s;s (the chief Prie&s;t, or Arch-Prie&s;t we may fitly call him) though po&s;&s;ibly in regard of his per&s;onal abilities, he might be &s;uffered to enjoy that pre&s;idency for term of life; &s;uch a perpetual Pre&s;idency as <HI>Calvin</HI> was po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ed of when he reigned in <HI>Geneva,</HI> and &s;ate as Pope over all the Churches of his Platform; and was enjoyed by <HI>Beza</HI> ma|ny years after his decea&s;e, till <HI>Danaeus</HI> (thinking him&s;elf as good a man as the be&s;t) made a party again&s;t him, and &s;et him quite be&s;ide the Cu&s;hion. Since which time that Pre&s;idency hath continued no longer in any one man, then from Se&s;&s;ion to Se&s;&s;ion, from one Cla&s;&s;ical meeting to another; <HI>&amp; loco liber|tatis erat quod eligi coeperunt,</HI> in the words of <HI>Tacitus.</HI> Which fate would que&s;tionle&s;s befall all the Bi&s;hops in Chri&s;tendom, if their Presbyters were once po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed with this fan&s;ie, that the Bi&s;hop was but a Creature of their own making, as is affir|med by Doctor <HI>Reynolds;</HI> or that they and their Bi&s;hop did not differ <HI>Ordine,</HI> but <HI>Gradu</HI> onely, which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> (to the great <HI>magnifying of his office</HI>) hath declared to be his own con&s;tant opinion.</P>
<P>3. In the next place the Church of <HI>England</HI> doth maintain an <HI>Univer&s;al Redemption</HI> of all mankind, by the death and &s;uf|ferings of our Saviour. This fir&s;t proved by that pa&s;&s;age in the publick Catechi&s;m, by which the party catechized is taught <HI>to believe in God the Son, who redeemed him and all man|kind:</HI> &s;econdly, by that clau&s;e in the <HI>Letany,</HI> viz. <HI>O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy upon us,</HI> &amp;c. thirdly, by the prayer of con&s;ecrating the Elements of Bread and Wine, <HI>viz. Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, which of thy tender mer|cy didst give thine onely Son Je&s;us Chri&s;t, to &s;uffer death upon the cro&s;s for our Redemption, who made there (by his own obla|tion of him&s;elf once offered) a full, perfect, and &s;ufficient &s;acrifice, oblation, and &s;atisfaction, for the &s;ins of the WHOLE WORLD,</HI> &amp;c. Nor was it without &s;ome &s;uch meaning that &s;he &s;elected
<PB N="103" REF="54">
tho&s;e words of our Saviour in Saint <HI>Johns</HI> Go&s;pel, viz. <HI>God &s;o loved the World, that he gave his onely begotten Son, &amp;c.</HI> to be u&s;ed in the preparation to the Communion; as &s;he reiterated &s;ome others, <HI>viz. O Lamb of God that take&s;t away the &s;ins of the world,</HI> incorporated into the <HI>Gloria in Excel&s;is</HI> at the end thereof. But in this point the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> is of a contrary judgement to the Church of <HI>England.</HI> For as he &s;eems not to like their opinion, who contract the riches of Chri&s;ts &s;atisfacti|on into too <HI>narrow</HI> a room; as if none had any intere&s;s therein, but &s;uch as were elected before the foundation of the world; &s;o he declareth his di&s;like of the other extreme (as he is pleas'd to call it) by which the benefit of this <HI>&s;atisfaction</HI> is extended to the Redemption of <HI>all mankind.</HI> The one extremity (&s;aith he) extends the benefit of Chri&s;ts &s;atisfaction &s;o far, <HI>ut reconci|liationem cum Deo, &amp; peccatorum Remi&s;&s;ionem &s;ingulis impe|traverit,</HI> as to obtain a Reconciliation with God, and a Re|mi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins for all men at his merciful hands, p. 21. Which though they are the words of the <HI>Remon&s;trants</HI> at the Confe|rence at the <HI>Hague,</HI> Anno 1611. and are by him reckoned for untrue; yet do they naturally re&s;ult from the Doctrine of Uni|ver&s;al Redemption, which is maintained in the Church of <HI>England.</HI> Not that all Mankind is &s;o perfectly reconciled to Almighty God, as to be really and actually di&s;charged from all their &s;ins, before they actually believe (which the Lord <HI>Pri|mate</HI> makes to be the meaning and effect of that <HI>extremity,</HI> as he calls it, <HI>p.</HI> 2.) but that they are &s;o far reconciled unto him, as to be capable of the Remi&s;&s;ion of their &s;ins, in ca&s;e they do not want that faith in their common Saviour which is required thereunto. And here I &s;hould have left this point, but that I mu&s;t fir&s;t de&s;ire Dr. <HI>Bernard</HI> to reconcile the&s;e two pa&s;&s;ages which I find in the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> Letter of the year 1617. in one of which he &s;eems to di&s;like of their opinion, <HI>who con|tract the Riches of Chri&s;ts &s;atisfaction into</HI> too narrow <HI>a room; as if none had any kind of intere&s;s therein, but &s;uch as were</HI> elect|ed <HI>before the foundation of the world,</HI> as before was &s;aid. And in the other he declares, that he is <HI>well a&s;&s;ured, that our Savi|our hath obtained at the hands of his Father Reconciliation, and forgivene&s;s of &s;ins, not for the</HI> Reprobate, <HI>but</HI> Elect <HI>onely,</HI> p. 21.
<PB N="104" REF="55">
Let Dr. <HI>Bernard</HI> reconcile the&s;e &s;o different pa&s;&s;ages, &amp; <HI>erit mi|hi magnus Apollo,</HI> in the Poets language. If the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> did &s;ub&s;cribe the Articles of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> as Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> &s;aies he did, <HI>p.</HI> 118. I know who may be better blam'd for breaking his &s;ub&s;cription, then he whom the Lord Primate hath accu&s;ed for it, <HI>p.</HI> 110. For in the &s;econd Article of the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>England,</HI> it is &s;aid expre&s;ly that <HI>Chri&s;t &s;uffered, was crucified, dead, and buried,</HI> to reconcile his <HI>Father</HI> to us, <HI>and to be a</HI> &s;acrifice, <HI>not onely for original guilt, but al&s;o for the actu|al &s;ins of men.</HI> In which as well the <HI>&s;acrifice,</HI> as the effect and fruit thereof, which is the <HI>Reconciliation</HI> of mankind to God the Father, is delivered in general terms, without any re&s;tri|ction put upon them; neither the <HI>Sacrifice,</HI> nor the <HI>Reconci|liation</HI> being re&s;trained to this man or that man, &s;ome certain <HI>quidams</HI> of their own, whom they pa&s;s commonly by the name of Gods <HI>Elect.</HI> The <HI>&s;acrifice</HI> being made for <HI>the &s;ins of men,</HI> of men indefinitely without limitation, is not to be confined to &s;ome <HI>few men</HI> onely, as the general current of the <HI>Calvinian</HI> Divines have been plea&s;ed to make it; as if Chri&s;t really and intentionally died for none but them.</P>
<P>4. The Church of <HI>England</HI> doth maintain that Chri&s;t is <HI>tru|ly</HI> and <HI>really pre&s;ent</HI> in the Sacrament of his mo&s;t precious bo|dy and blood. Which Doctrine of a <HI>Real pre&s;ence</HI> is fir&s;t con|cluded from the words of the <HI>Distribution,</HI> retained in the fir&s;t Liturgy of King <HI>Edward</HI> the &s;ixth, and formerly pre&s;cribed to be u&s;ed in the ancient <HI>Mi&s;&s;als,</HI> viz. <HI>The body of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t which was given for thee, pre&s;erve thy Body and Soul un|to life everlasting. The blood of our Lord Je&s;us Christ, &amp;c.</HI> Which words being thought by &s;ome preci&s;e and &s;crupulous per&s;ons to incline too much towards <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation</HI> (and therefore not unfit to ju&s;tifie a real pre&s;ence) were quite omit|ted in the &s;econd Liturgy of that King, <HI>Anno</HI> 1552. whe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>Dudly</HI> of <HI>Northumberland,</HI> who favoured the <HI>Calvinian</HI> party carried all before him; the void place being filled up with th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> words of the <HI>Participation,</HI> viz. <HI>Take and eat this in remem+brance that Chri&s;t died for thee, &amp;c. Take and drink this in re|membrance, &amp;c.</HI> An alteration not well grounded, and of &s;hort continuance. For when that Book was brought under a review,
<PB N="105" REF="55">
in the fir&s;t year of the Reign of Queen <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> tho&s;e words of the <HI>Di&s;tribution</HI> were re<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 letters">ored to their former place, and followed by tho&s;e of the <HI>Participation,</HI> as it &s;till continueth. It is proved &s;econdly by that pa&s;&s;age in the publick <HI>Catechi&s;me,</HI> in which the Party catechized is taught to &s;ay, that the <HI>body and blood of Chri&s;t are</HI> verily <HI>and</HI> indeed <HI>taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper.</HI> Now if a Que&s;tion &s;hould be made, what the Church means by <HI>verily</HI> and <HI>indeed</HI> in the former pa&s;&s;age, it mu&s;t be an&s;wered that &s;he means, that Chri&s;t is truly and really pre&s;ent in that ble&s;&s;ed Sacrament, as before was &s;aid; the words being rendered thus in the Latine Tran&s;|lation, <HI>viz. Corpus &amp; &s;anguis Domini quae</HI> vere &amp; realiter <HI>ex|hibentur, &amp;c.</HI> Verily and indeed, as the <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> hath it, the &s;ame with <HI>vere</HI> and <HI>realiter</HI> (that is to &s;ay, truly and really) as it is in the Latine. And thirdly, this appears to be the Do|ctrine of this Church, by the mo&s;t Orthodox and Learned Prelates of the &s;ame, the words of three of which only I &s;hall now produce, that out of the mouths of two or three witne&s;|&s;es the truth hereof may be e&s;tabli&s;hed. <HI>God forbid</HI> (&s;aith Bi|&s;hop<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>True &s;ubject.</HI> p. 779.</NOTE> <HI>Bil&s;on) we &s;hould deny that the fle&s;h and blood of Chri&s;t are</HI> truly pre&s;ent, <HI>and truly received of the faithful at the</HI> Lords Table. <HI>It is the Doctrine that we teach others, and comfort our &s;elves withal.</HI> Secondly, Bi&s;hop <HI>Morton,</HI> as great an enemy to the Super&s;titions of the Romi&s;h Ma&s;s as ever wrote again&s;t it, doth expre&s;ly &s;ay, <HI>That the que&s;tion is not concerning a real pre&s;ence, which Prote&s;tants, as their own Je&s;uites witne&s;s, do al&s;o profe&s;s:</HI> Fortunatus <HI>a Prote&s;tant, holding, that Chri&s;t is in the Sacrament mo&s;t really,</HI> veri&s;&s;ime, reali&s;&s;imeque, <HI>as his own words are.</HI> But none more po&s;itively and clearly, then Doctor <HI>Lancelor Andrews</HI> then Lord Bi&s;hop of <HI>Chiche&s;ter,</HI> who in his Apology written in An&s;wer to Cardinal <HI>Bellarmin,</HI> thus de|clares him&s;elf, as one, and one of the chief Members of the Church of <HI>England, viz. Prae&s;entiam credimus non minus quam vos veram, de modo</HI> prae&s;entiae <HI>nil temere definimus.</HI> We acknowledge (&s;aith he) a pre&s;ence as <HI>true</HI> and <HI>real</HI> as you do, but we determine nothing ra&s;hly of the manner of it. And in his An&s;wer to the eighteenth Chapter of Cardinal <HI>Perrons Reply,</HI> he thus &s;peaks of <HI>Zuinglius.</HI> It is well known, &s;aith
<PB N="106" REF="56">he, 
<Q>that <HI>Zuinglius</HI> to avoid <HI>E&s;t</HI> (in the&s;e words, <HI>hoc e&s;t Corpus meum</HI>) in the Church of <HI>Romes</HI> &s;en&s;e, fell to be all for <HI>&s;igni|ficat,</HI> and nothing for <HI>e&s;t</HI> at all: And what&s;oever went far|ther then <HI>&s;ignificat,</HI> he took to &s;avour of the <HI>Carnal pre&s;ence.</HI></Q>  For which if the Cardinal mi&s;like him, &s;o do we; a further declaration of the true &s;en&s;e and meaning of the Church in this particular we have from Mr. <HI>Alexander Noel,</HI> Dean of Saint <HI>Pauls,</HI> and Prolocutor of the Convocation in the year 1562. when the Articles, or Confe&s;&s;ion of this Church were approved and ratified; who in his Catechi&s;m publickly allow|ed to be taught in all the Grammar Schools of this Realm, thus re&s;olves the point. The Que&s;tion is, <HI>Coele&s;tis pars, &amp; ab omni &s;en&s;u externo longe di&s;juncta, quaenam e&s;t?</HI> That is to &s;ay, what is the Heavenly or Spiritual part of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper? To which the party Catechi&s;ed returns this An&s;wer. <HI>Corpus &amp; &s;anguis Chri&s;ti quae fidelibus in Coena Dominica praeben|tur, ab illi&s;que accipiuntur, comeduntur, &amp; bibuntur, coele&s;ti tantum &amp; &s;pirituali modo, vere tamen atque reip&s;a; id e&s;t,</HI> the Heavenly or Spiritual part is the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t which are given to the faithful in the Lords Supper, and are taken, eaten, and drank by them; which though it be onely in an Heavenly and Spiritual manner, yet are they both given and taken <HI>truly</HI> and <HI>really,</HI> or <HI>in very deed,</HI> by Gods faithful people By which it &s;eems, that it is agreed on on both &s;ides (that is to &s;ay, the Church of <HI>England</HI> and the Church of <HI>Rome</HI>) that there is a true and <HI>real pre&s;ence</HI> of Chri&s;t in the holy <HI>Euchari&s;t,</HI> the di&s;agreement being onely in the <HI>modus Prae&s;entiae.</HI> But on the contrary, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> in his <HI>An&s;wer to the Je&s;uits chal|lenge,</HI> hath written one whole Chapter again&s;t the real pre&s;ence of Chri&s;t in the Sacrament; In which though he would &s;eem to aim at the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> (though by that Church not onely the reall pre&s;ence of Chri&s;t in the Sacrament, but the corporal eating of his body is maintained and taught) yet doth he &s;trike obliquely and on the <HI>by</HI> on the Church of <HI>England.</HI> All that he doth allow concerning the real pre&s;ence is no more then this, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>That in the receiving of the ble&s;&s;ed Sacra|ment, we are to di&s;tingui&s;h between the outward and th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> inward Action of the Communicant. In the <HI>outward,</HI> wi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 letters"> our
<PB N="107" REF="56">
bodily mouth we receive really the vi&s;ible elements of Bread and Wine; in the <HI>inward,</HI> we do by faith really re|ceive the Body and Blood of our Lord, that is to &s;ay, we are truely and indeed made partakers of Chri&s;t crucified, to the &s;piritual &s;trengthning of our inward man.</Q> Which is no more then any <HI>Calvini&s;t</HI> in the pack (which either do not un|der&s;tand, or wilfully oppo&s;e the Doctrines of the Church of <HI>England</HI>) will &s;tick to &s;ay.</P>
<P>5. The Church of <HI>England</HI> teacheth that the Prie&s;t hath <HI>pow|er to forgive &s;ins,</HI> as may be ea&s;ily proved by three &s;everal Ar|guments, not very ea&s;ie to be an&s;wered. The fir&s;t is from tho&s;e <HI>&s;olemn words,</HI> u&s;ed in the Ordination of the Prie&s;t or Presbyter, that is to &s;ay, <HI>Receive the Holy Gho&s;t, who&s;e &s;ins ye</HI> forgive <HI>they are</HI> forgiven, <HI>and who&s;e &s;ins ye retain they are retained.</HI> Which were a gro&s;s prophanation of the words of our Lord and Saviour, and a meer mockery of the Prie&s;t, if no &s;uch power were given unto him as is there affirmed. The &s;econd Argument is taken from one of the Exhortations before the Communion, where we find it thus, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>And becau&s;e it is requi&s;ite that no man &s;hould come to the holy Commu|nion, but with a full tru&s;t in Gods mercy, and with a quiet con&s;cience: therefore if there be any of you, which by the means afore&s;aid cannot quiet his own Con&s;cience, but re|quireth further comfort or coun&s;el, then let him come to me or to &s;ome other di&s;creet and learned Mini&s;ter of Gods word, and open his grief, that he may receive &s;uch gho&s;tly coun|&s;el, advice and comfort, as his con&s;cience may be relieved, and that by the Mini&s;try of Gods word, he may receive comfort, and the benefit of <HI>ab&s;olution,</HI> to the quieting of his con&s;cience, and avoiding of all &s;cruple and doubtfulne&s;s.</Q>  The third and mo&s;t material proof we have in the form pre&s;cri|bed for the <HI>vi&s;itation of the &s;ick;</HI> In which it is required that af|ter the &s;ick per&s;on hath made a confe&s;&s;ion of his <HI>faith,</HI> and pro|fe&s;t him&s;elfe to be in charity with all men, he &s;hall then make a &s;pecial <HI>confe&s;&s;ion if he feel his con&s;cience troubled with any weighty matter.</HI> And then it followeth, that after &s;uch <HI>confe&s;&s;i|on,</HI> the Mini&s;ter &s;hall <HI>ab&s;olve</HI> him in this manner, <HI>viz. Our Lord</HI> Je&s;us Chri&s;t, <HI>who hath left</HI> power <HI>to his</HI> Church <HI>to</HI> ab&s;olve
<PB N="108" REF="57">
<HI>all &s;inners which truly</HI> repent <HI>and</HI> believe <HI>in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences: and by his</HI> Authority <HI>commit|ted to me, I</HI> ab&s;olve <HI>thee from all thy &s;ins; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gho&s;t, Amen.</HI> Of the fir&s;t of the&s;e three places, deduced all of them from the be&s;t Monuments and Records of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> takes notice in his An&s;wer to the Je&s;uites challenge, <HI>p.</HI> 109. where he treatech purpo&s;ely of the <HI>Prie&s;ts power to forgive &s;ins,</HI> but gives us &s;uch a glo&s;s upon it, as utterly &s;ubverts as well the Doctrine of this Church in that particular, as her purpo&s;e in it: and of the &s;econd he takes notice, <HI>p.</HI> 81. where he &s;peaks purpo&s;ely of <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> but gives us &s;uch a glo&s;s up|on that al&s;o as he did on the other. But of the third, which is more po&s;itive and material then the other two, he is not plea&s;ed to take any notice at all, as if no &s;uch Doctrine were either taught by the Church of <HI>England,</HI> or no &s;uch power had been ever exerci&s;ed by the Mini&s;ters of it.</P>
<P>For in the canva&s;&s;ing of this point, he declares &s;ometimes that the Prie&s;t doth forgive &s;ins onely <HI>declarative,</HI> by the way of declaration only, when on the con&s;ideration of the true Faith, and &s;incere Repentance of the party penitent, he doth declare unto him in the name of God, that his &s;ins are par|doned: and &s;ometimes that the Prie&s;t forgives &s;ins only <HI>opta|tiv&egrave;,</HI> by the way of prayers and interce&s;&s;ion; when on the like con&s;ideration he makes his prayers unto God, that the &s;ins of the penitent may be pardoned. Neither of which comes up un|to the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> which holdeth that the Prie&s;t forgiveth &s;ins <HI>authoritativ&egrave;,</HI> by vertue of a <HI>power</HI> committed to him by our Lord and Saviour. That the &s;upreme power of forgiving &s;ins is in God alone, again&s;t who&s;e Divine Maje&s;ty all &s;ins, of what &s;ort &s;oever, may be truly &s;aid to be committed, was never que&s;tioned by any which pretended to the Chri&s;tian faith. The power which is given to the Prie&s;t is but a delegated gower, &s;uch as is exerci&s;ed by Judges under Soveraign Princes (where they are not tied unto the Verdict of twelve men, as with us in <HI>England</HI>) who by the power com|mitted to them in their &s;everal Circuits and Divi&s;ions, do actu|ally ab&s;olve the party which is brought before them, if on good
<PB N="109" REF="57">
proof they find him innocent of the crimes which he &s;tands ac|cu&s;ed for, and &s;o di&s;charge him of his Irons. And &s;uch a power as this, I &s;ay, is both given to, and exerci&s;ed by the Prie&s;ts or Presbyters in the Church of <HI>England.</HI> For if they did forgive &s;ins onely <HI>Declarativ&egrave;,</HI> that form of <HI>Ab&s;olution</HI> which follows the <HI>general Confe&s;&s;ion</HI> in the beginning of the Common-prayer-Book, would have been &s;ufficient, that is to &s;ay, <Q>Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, which de&s;ireth not the death of a &s;inner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedne&s;s and live; and hath given pow|er and commandment to his Mini&s;ters to <HI>declare</HI> and <HI>pro|nounce</HI> to his people being <HI>penitent,</HI> the <HI>ab&s;olution</HI> and remi&s;|&s;ion of their &s;ins; and pardoneth and ab&s;olveth all them which truly repent, and unfainedly believe his holy Go&s;pel.</Q>  Or if he did forgive &s;ins onely <HI>Optativ&egrave;,</HI> in the way of prayers and interce&s;&s;ion, there could not be a better way of <HI>Ab&s;oluti|on,</HI> then that which is pre&s;cribed to be u&s;ed by the Prie&s;t or Bi&s;hop, after the general confe&s;sion made by &s;uch as are to re|ceive the Communion, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>Almighty God our Heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promi&s;ed forgivene&s;s of &s;ins to all them which with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him; have mercy upon you, pardon and deliver you from all your &s;ins, and confirm and &s;trengthen you in all goodne&s;s, and bring you to everla&s;ting life, through Je|&s;us Chri&s;t our Lord. <HI>Amen.</HI></Q>  Or el&s;e the fir&s;t clau&s;e in the form of <HI>Ab&s;olution</HI> u&s;ed at the <HI>vi&s;itation of the &s;ick,</HI> would have &s;erved the turn, that is to &s;ay, <HI>Our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, who hath left</HI> power <HI>to his</HI> Church <HI>to</HI> ab&s;olve <HI>all &s;inners which truely repent, and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences.</HI> And there could be no rea&s;on at all imaginable, why the next clau&s;e &s;hould be &s;uperadded to this prayer, <HI>viz. And by his Authority committed to me, I</HI> ab&s;olve <HI>thee from all thy &s;ins, &amp;c.</HI> if the Prie&s;t did not forgive &s;ins <HI>Authoritativ&egrave;,</HI> by &s;uch a delegated and commi&s;&s;ionated power as before we &s;pake of.</P>
<P>And that this is the Doctrine and intent of the Church of<NOTE PLACE="marg">Mont. Gag. cap. 11. p. 78.</NOTE> <HI>England,</HI> appears by the acknowledgement of two learned men of the oppo&s;ite faction. For thus &s;aith one of the great
<PB N="110" REF="58">
&s;ticklers for the Church of <HI>Rome, viz.</HI> <Q>Hereunto is al&s;o perti|nent the Doctrine of tho&s;e Prote&s;tants, who hold, that Prie&s;ts have power, not onely to pronounce, but to give remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins. Yea, it &s;eemeth to be the Doctrine of the Commu|nion-Book, in the vi&s;itation of the &s;ick; where the Prie&s;t &s;aith, And by his Authority committed unto me, I ab&s;olve thee from all thy &s;ins.</Q> Then which there could not come a clearer Te&s;timony from the mouth of an Adver&s;ary. And for the other &s;ide I will take Dr. <HI>Lewis Bayley</HI> (afterwards Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Bangor</HI>) a man preci&s;e enough as to the perpetual mo|rality of the Lords day Sabbath, and <HI>Calvini&s;t</HI> enough in &s;ome other <HI>Tenets</HI> of that <HI>rigid</HI> Sect; And yet this man in his Book called the <HI>Practice of Piety,</HI> not onely doth advi&s;e his &s;ick Pe|nitent to &s;end in time for &s;ome godly Mini&s;ter, to whom he may unfold his griefs &amp; confe&s;s his &s;ins, that &s;o he may receive the benefit of Ab&s;olution; but tells him, <Q>that then he &s;hould not doubt <HI>in foro con&s;cientiae,</HI> but that his &s;ins be as verily for|given on earth, as if he did hear Chri&s;t him&s;elf, <HI>in foro judicii,</HI> pronouncing them to be forgiven in Heaven.</Q> And this he doth exemplifie in Doctor <HI>Reynolds,</HI> the able&s;t and mo&s;t learned man of all that &s;hewed them&s;elves on the <HI>Puritan</HI> party, who being on his death-bed, did earne&s;tly de&s;ire to receive the be|nefit of <HI>&s;acerdotal Ab&s;olution,</HI> according to the form pre&s;cribed in the Book of Common-prayer, and humbly received it at the hands of Dr. <HI>Holland,</HI> the <HI>Kings Profe&s;&s;or</HI> in Divinity in the <HI>U|niver&s;ity of Oxon,</HI> for the time then being; and when he was not able to expre&s;s his joy &amp; thankfulne&s;s in the way of &s;peech, did mo&s;t affectionatly ki&s;s the hand that gave it: and yet this <HI>Do|ctor</HI> had not only a chief hand in the <HI>Millenary Petition</HI> (as they commonly called it) pre&s;ented to K. <HI>James</HI> at his fir&s;t coming to this Crown, wherein they excepted not only again&s;t the u&s;e, but the very name of <HI>Ab&s;olution,</HI> as being a <HI>forin&s;ecal</HI> word which they de&s;ired to have corrected; but managed the whole bu&s;ines of it at <HI>Hampton</HI> Court. And this he did with &s;uch fidelity and zeal, that to give that party &s;ome contentment, it was ordered in the <HI>Conference</HI> there, that to the word <HI>Ab&s;olution</HI> in the <HI>Ru|brick</HI> following the <HI>general confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> the&s;e words, <HI>Remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins,</HI> &s;hould be added for <HI>explanation &s;ake,</HI> as it &s;til continueth: &s;o
<PB N="111" REF="58">
powerful an <HI>Orator</HI> is <HI>death,</HI> as to per&s;wade men in <HI>extremities</HI> of <HI>&s;ickne&s;s</HI> to apply tho&s;e <HI>remedies,</HI> which in the times of <HI>health,</HI> they neither thought <HI>lawful</HI> nor <HI>convenient</HI> to be u&s;ed in &s;uch <HI>extremities.</HI></P>
<P>7. But to proceed; in the Article of Chri&s;ts <HI>de&s;cending into Hell,</HI> the Church of <HI>England</HI> doth maintain a <HI>local de&s;cent,</HI> that is to &s;ay, That the Soul of Chri&s;t, at &s;uch time as his body lay in the grave, did <HI>locally</HI> de&s;cend into the nethermo&s;t parts, in which the <HI>Devil and his Angels are re&s;erved in everla&s;ting chains of darkne&s;s, unto the judgment of the great &amp; terrible day.</HI> This proved at large by Bi&s;hop <HI>Bil&s;on</HI> in his learned and labori|ous Work, entituled, <HI>The Survey of Chri&s;t's &s;ufferings;</HI> in which he hath ama&s;&s;ed together what&s;oever the Fathers, <HI>Greek</HI> and <HI>Latine,</HI> or any of the ancient Writers have affirmed of this <HI>Article,</HI> with all the Points and Branches which depend up|on it. And that this was the meaning of the fir&s;t Reformers, when this <HI>Article</HI> among&s;t others was fir&s;t agreed upon in the <HI>Convocation</HI> of the year 1552. appears by that pa&s;&s;age of S. <HI>Pe|ter,</HI> which is cited by them touching <HI>Christs preaching to the Spirits which were in pri&s;on.</HI> And though that pa&s;&s;age be left out of the pre&s;ent <HI>Article,</HI> according as it pa&s;&s;ed in the <HI>Convocati|on</HI> of the year 1562. yet cannot that be u&s;ed as an Argument to prove that the Church hath altered her judgment in that Point, as &s;ome men would have it; that pa&s;&s;age being left out for the&s;e rea&s;ons following: For fir&s;t, that pa&s;&s;age was conceived to make the Article too inclinable to the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> w^c^h makes the chief end of Chri&s;ts <HI>de|&s;cent into Hell,</HI> to be the fetching thence the &s;ouls of the Fathers who died before and under the Law; and &s;econdly, becau&s;e it was conceived by &s;ome learned men, that the Text was capa|ble of &s;ome other con&s;truction than to be u&s;ed for an argu|ment of this <HI>De&s;cent.</HI> The judgment of the Church conti|nueth &s;till the &s;ame as before it was, and is as plain and po&s;itive for a <HI>local de&s;cent,</HI> as ever formerly: She had not el&s;e left this <HI>Article</HI> in the &s;ame place in which She found it, or given it the &s;ame di&s;tinct Title as before it had; viz. <HI>De De&s;cen&s;u Chri|&s;ti ad Inferos,</HI> in the Latine Copies of King <HI>Edward</HI> the <HI>Sixth,</HI> that is to &s;ay, <HI>Of the going down of Chri&s;t into Hell,</HI> as in the Engli&s;h Copies of Queen <HI>Elizabeths</HI> Reign. Nor indeed
<PB N="112" REF="59">
was there any rea&s;on why this Article &s;hould have any di&s;tinct place or Title at all, unle&s;&s;e the maintenance of a <HI>local De|&s;cent</HI> were intended by it. For having &s;poken in the former <HI>Article</HI> of Chri&s;ts <HI>Suffering, Crucifying, Death and Burial,</HI> it had been a very great <HI>impertinency</HI> (not to call it wor&s;e) to make a di&s;tinct <HI>Article</HI> of his <HI>De&s;cending into Hell,</HI> if to <HI>De|&s;cend into Hell</HI> did &s;ignifie the &s;ame with this being buried, as &s;ome men then fancied, or that there were not in it &s;ome fur|ther meaning which might de&s;erve a place di&s;tinct from his Death and Burial. The Article &s;peaking thus, viz. <HI>As Chri&s;t died for us, and was buried, &s;o is it to be believed that he went down into Hell,</HI> is either to be under&s;tood of a <HI>local De&s;cent,</HI> or el&s;e we are tied to believe nothing by it but what was <HI>ex|plicitely</HI> or <HI>implicitely</HI> comprehended in the former Ar|ticle.</P>
<P>Now that this is the Churches meaning cannot be better manife&s;ted then in the words of Mr. <HI>Alexander Noel</HI> before mentioned, who being Prolocutor of the Convocation in the year 1562. when this Article was di&s;puted, approved, and ratified, cannot in rea&s;on be &s;uppo&s;ed to be ignorant of the true &s;en&s;e and meaning of this Church in that particular. And he accordingly in his Catechi&s;m publickly allowed of with reference to a local De&s;cent, doth declare it thus, viz. <HI>Ut Chri|&s;tus corpore in terrae vi&s;cera, ita anima corpore &s;eparata ad Infe|ros de&s;cendit, pariterque Mortis ejus vis ad mortuos Infero&s;que adeo ip&s;os u&s;que e&ograve; permanavit, ut &amp; Animae incredulorum tri|&s;ti&s;&s;imae ip&s;orum incredulitati maxim&egrave; debitae condemnationis &s;en&s;um perciperent, ip&s;eque Satanas Inferorum Princeps, tyran|nidis &s;uae &amp; tenebrarum potentiam omnem afflictam, profligatam, &amp; ruina oppre&s;&s;am e&s;&s;e animad verteret.</HI> Id e&s;t, As Chri&s;t de|&s;cended in his body into the bowels of the earth, &s;o in his &s;oul &s;eparated from that body he de&s;cended al&s;o into Hell, by means whereof the power and efficacy of his death was not made known onely to the dead, but the Divels them&s;elves; in&s;o|much that both the &s;ouls of the unbelievers did &s;en&s;ibly per|ceive that condemnation which was mo&s;t ju&s;tly due to them for their incredulity, and Satan him&s;elf the Prince of Divels, did as plainly &s;ee that his tyrannie and all the powers of dark|ne&s;&s;e
<PB N="113" REF="59">
were oppre&s;t, ruined, and de&s;troyed. But on the con|trary, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> alloweth not any &s;uch <HI>local De&s;cent</HI> as is maintained by the Church, and defended by the mo&s;t learned Members of it, who have left us any thing in writing a|bout this Article. And yet he neither follows the opinion of <HI>Calvin</HI> him&s;elf, nor of the generality of tho&s;e of the <HI>Calvini|an</HI> party, who herein differ from their Ma&s;ter; but goes a new way of a later di&s;covery, in which although he had few Lead|ers, he hath found many followers. By Chri&s;ts <HI>De&s;cending into Hell,</HI> he would have nothing el&s;e to be under&s;tood, but his continuing in the <HI>&s;tate of &s;eparation</HI> between the body and the &s;oul, his <HI>remaining under the power of Death</HI> during the time that he lay buried in the grave; which is no more in ef|fect, though it differ &s;omewhat in the terms, then to &s;ay, that he died and was buried, and ro&s;e not till the third day, as the <HI>Creed</HI> in&s;tructs us. And yet to &s;et out this opinion to the be&s;t advantage, he hath laid out more co&s;t upon it, then upon all the re&s;t of his An&s;wer to the Je&s;uits Challenge, thronging together &s;o many citations concerning the word <HI>Hades,</HI> out of old <HI>Greek</HI> Authors, &s;o many Critical Ob&s;erva|tions on their Words and Phra&s;es, out of Grammarians, Scho|lia&s;ts, and Etymologi&s;ts, as &s;erve abundantly both to amaze the ignorant, and to confound the learned. Nothing le&s;&s;e meant in all tho&s;e Collections, then to a&s;&s;ert the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England</HI> in this particular, no more then he hath done in the other Points before remembred, though all of them are either to be found in the <HI>Book of Articles,</HI> to which he had &s;ub&s;cribed, as Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> hath informed us, <HI>p.</HI> 118. or in the <HI>Book of Common Prayer</HI> which he was bound to conform him&s;elf unto, both in judgment and practice, as being impos'd by Act of Parliament on the Church of <HI>Ire|land.</HI></P>
<P>7. I &s;hould now proceed to &s;ee what difference there is be|tween the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England</HI> and the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> own judgment in the point of <HI>Free-will,</HI> which he hath given us in his <HI>An&s;wer to the Je&s;uits Challenge</HI> p. 464. But becau&s;e that point hath &s;ome relation to the <HI>Nine Arti|cles</HI> of <HI>Lambeth,</HI> I &s;hall take no other notice of it, then as it
<PB N="114" REF="60">
is comprehended in tho&s;e Articles; in the defence whereof the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> did appear with &s;o great affection as made him very gracious in the eyes of the <HI>Calvinian Party</HI> both at Home and Abroad. But this together with the little e&s;teem he had of the <HI>Orders, Rites</HI> and <HI>Ceremonies</HI> of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> is left to be the &s;ubject of the following <HI>Section.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XI.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The <HI>Articles</HI> of <HI>Lambeth</HI> when made, and on what occa&s;ion; Di&s;lik't and &s;uppre&s;t by Queen <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> and rejected by King <HI>James</HI> at the Conference at <HI>Hampton-Court;</HI> Counte|nanced and defended by the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> who for &s;o doing is much honoured by the <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Puritans. The History of <HI>Gote&s;chalcus</HI> publi&s;ht by him, and the great thanks he re|ceived for it from Doctor <HI>Twi&s;&s;e.</HI> What el&s;e it was that made the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> &s;o e&s;teemed by the Brethren here. His <HI>Inconformity</HI> to the Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies of the Church of <HI>England</HI> in &s;ix particulars.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>WE are informed by Doctor <HI>Bernard,</HI> that the Lord&punc; <HI>Primate did fully approve the</HI> Articles of Religion <HI>of the Church of England</HI> in points of Doctrine, <HI>as the &s;ame more enlarged in the</HI> Articles of <HI>Ireland;</HI> and that he <HI>al&s;o did ap|prove the</HI> Di&s;cipline and Con&s;titution <HI>of both</HI> Churches, p. 144. By which if Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> means that the <HI>Arti|cles</HI> of <HI>England</HI> were the &s;ame with tho&s;e of the Church of <HI>Ireland</HI> (though more enlarged in theirs of <HI>Ireland,</HI> than in ours of <HI>England</HI>) he is much mi&s;taken, there being many things contained in the Articles of the Church of <HI>Ireland</HI> extremely differing from the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>Eng|land,</HI> as &s;hall be &s;hewn particularly in a place more proper. But becau&s;e the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> is no otherwi&s;e concerned therein then in relation to the <HI>Nine Articles</HI> of <HI>Lambeth,</HI>
<PB N="115" REF="60">
which are incorporated and contained in tho&s;e of <HI>Ireland,</HI> I &s;hall confine my &s;elf preci&s;ely unto that particular. And I &s;hall find enough in that to &s;hew the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> further differences from the Church of <HI>England;</HI> tho&s;e Articles con|taining all the <HI>Calvinian</HI> Rigours in the Points of <HI>Praede&s;tina|tion, Grace, Free-will,</HI> &amp;c. which have produced &s;o much Di&s;turbance in the&s;e parts of Chri&s;tendom. Tho&s;e <HI>Articles</HI> fir&s;t occa&s;ioned by &s;ome Differences which aro&s;e in <HI>Cam|bridge</HI> between Doctor <HI>Whitaker</HI> the Queens Profe&s;&s;or, and Doctor <HI>Peter Baro</HI> the Lady <HI>Margarets</HI> Profe&s;&s;or in that <HI>Uni|ver&s;ity;</HI> agreed on at a private meeting in <HI>Lambeth-hou&s;e, Anno</HI> 1595. None but the Lord Arch-Bi&s;hop of <HI>Canterbury,</HI> the Bi&s;hop Elect of <HI>London,</HI> and the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Bangor,</HI> with &s;ome learned men of Doctor <HI>Whitakers</HI> own party being pre|&s;ent at it; and being &s;o made were &s;ent to <HI>Cambridge,</HI> rather to &s;ilence Doctor <HI>Baro,</HI> than to compo&s;e the Differences by any equal expedient. So that being made on a particular oc|ca&s;ion, at a private meeting, and by men not impowered to any &s;uch purpo&s;e, they were never looked on otherwi&s;e, than as <HI>private Opinions,</HI> not as the <HI>Tendries</HI> of this Church. So far di&s;liked by Q. <HI>Elizabeth</HI> when &s;he fir&s;t heard of them, that they were pre&s;ently &s;uppre&s;t by her command, and &s;o &s;uppre&s;t, that we hear no more news of them till the Conference at <HI>Hamp|ton-Court,</HI> where they found no better entertainment from the hands of King <HI>James:</HI> for Doctor <HI>Reinolds</HI> having mov'd that the <HI>Nine Orthodoxal A&s;&s;ertions</HI> (as he called them) which were made at <HI>Lambeth</HI> might be added to the Articles of the Church of <HI>England;</HI> the motion was not onely oppo|&s;ed by the Bi&s;hops, but denied by the King: oppo&s;ed by the Bi&s;hops by rea&s;on of their incon&s;i&s;tency with the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England;</HI> denied and rejected by the King, becau&s;e he held the matters therein contained to be fitter for the publick Schools than the Book of Articles. But on the contrary, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> alwayes &s;hewed him&s;elf in favour of tho&s;e Articles, tho&s;e <HI>Orthodoxal A&s;&s;ertions,</HI> as the Doctor called them, praetermitting no occa&s;ion to defend and coun|tenance them, and to that end cau&s;ed them to be in&s;erted into the Articles of the Church of <HI>Ireland, Anno</HI> 1615. For if
<PB N="116" REF="61">
we may believe Dr. <HI>Bernard</HI> (as in this ca&s;e que&s;tionle&s;s we may) it was his doing that the&s;e Nine Articles of <HI>Lambeth</HI> to|gether wth the preci&s;e ob&s;ervance of the New Lords-day-Sab|bath, a different explication of the Article of Chri&s;ts De&s;cent into Hell, from that allowed of by this Church, and almo&s;t all the other Heterodoxies of the Sect of <HI>Calvin,</HI> were inter&s;erted and incorporated into the Articles of <HI>Ireland:</HI> we being told by Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> in the Hi&s;tory of his Life and Death, <HI>p.</HI> 49. that in the Convocation held at <HI>Dublin Anno 1615. he being then a Member of that Synod, was appointed to draw up tho&s;e Articles,</HI> which then and there were approved and ratified for the e&s;tabli&s;ht Doctrine of the Church of <HI>Ireland.</HI> This did he towards the advancing of the <HI>Calvinian</HI> Doctrines in his own native Countrey, and for &s;o doing was much flattered and applauded by the <HI>Engli&s;h Calvini&s;ts</HI> as the chief Patron of the <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> the <HI>Cau&s;e of God,</HI> as &s;ome of them were plea&s;ed to call it. <HI>Vi&s;sius,</HI> a Divine of the <HI>Low Countreys,</HI> publi&s;ht a Book entituled, <HI>The Pelagian History,</HI> demon&s;trating therein that the Fathers, and other ancient Writers, in their &s;everal ages, maintained &s;ucce&s;&s;ively tho&s;e Opinions in the matters of <HI>Pre|de&s;tination,</HI> and the Points depending thereupon, as the <HI>Re|mon&s;trants</HI> (or <HI>Arminians,</HI> as &s;ome call them) did in the <HI>Bel|gick</HI> Churches. A Book which &s;uddenly grew into great reputation with mo&s;t knowing and unbia&s;&s;ed men, who had not been before engaged in the pre&s;ent quarrels. And there|upon to give a &s;top to it in the middle of its full carere, the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> publi&s;hed the Hi&s;tory of <HI>Gote&s;chalcus;</HI> Of which thus Doctor <HI>Twi&s;&s;e</HI> in his Letter to the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> of the 29. of <HI>May</HI> 1640. Where having fir&s;t &s;poken of his <Q><HI>Singu|lar Piety and Wi&s;dom in reference to the nece&s;sitous condition of tho&s;e times,</HI> in in&s;erting the Hi&s;tory of <HI>Pelagius</HI> in his Book <HI>De primordiis Eccle&s;iarum Britannicarum,</HI> &s;o op|portunely coming in his way; he after addeth, that his Hi|&s;tory of <HI>Gote&s;chalcus</HI> was a <HI>piece of the like nature,</HI> and that it came out mo&s;t &s;ea&s;onably in re&s;pect of <HI>Vo&s;sius;</HI> for the relieving of who&s;e credit thereupon, there had been many meetings by &s;ome in <HI>London,</HI> that by the coming forth of that Piece, he was the better inabled in the pur&s;uit of his
<PB N="117" REF="61">
An&s;wer to <HI>Corvinus,</HI> which he was in hand with, and to meet with the Dictates of <HI>N. N.</HI> who endeavoured to ju&s;tifie &s;ome conceit of <HI>Vo&s;sius,</HI> but upon very weak grounds.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Thus (&s;aith he) I have ob&s;erved with comfort the hand of God to have gone along with your <HI>Grace,</HI> for the honouring the Cau&s;e of his Truth, in &s;o precious a Point as is the glory of his <HI>Grace.</HI> And I nothing doubt but the &s;ame <HI>hand of our good God</HI> will be with you &s;till, and his wi&s;dom will ap|pear in all things you undertake, whether of your own choice, or upon the motion of others.</Q> So he; and in him we may partly &s;ee the minds of the re&s;t.</P>
<P>But there was &s;omewhat el&s;e which did as much indear him to that <HI>Party,</HI> as the <HI>Nine Articles</HI> of <HI>Lambeth,</HI> namely the little e&s;teem he had of the Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> which made him &s;o agreeable to them, that they plied him with continual Letters when he was in <HI>Ireland,</HI> Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> telling us (and I dare take it on his word) <Q>That he had &s;een divers <HI>Letters</HI> wrote unto him from tho&s;e who were a&s;per&s;ed with the name of <HI>Puritans,</HI> full of re&s;pect and large expre&s;&s;ions of their <HI>love</HI> to <HI>him, p.</HI> 160.</Q> And at his comings into <HI>England</HI> he was much vi&s;ited by the Grandees and learned Men of that <HI>Faction;</HI> not that they found any rea&s;on to make u&s;e of him for de&s;ign and coun&s;el, but partly for the reputation w^c^h he brought with him to the Cau&s;e; and partly for the benefit they received by conferring with him, who was indeed a <HI>walking Concordance,</HI> and <HI>a living Library.</HI> Nor was he le&s;s courted by their Followers, the Lay-Bre|thren al&s;o; by whom he was care&s;&s;ed, complemented, fea&s;ted where&s;oever he came, many good people being admitted to tho&s;e Meetings as well to feed on his Di&s;cour&s;es, as to fill their bellies. For though Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> plea&s;e to tell us that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> did approve the <HI>Di&s;cipline</HI> and <HI>Con&s;ti|tutions</HI> of both Churches, yet when he comes unto particulars he confutes him&s;elf; giving us <HI>gratis</HI> &s;everal in&s;tances which are but &s;orry proofs of &s;uch Approbation: whether we look upon the Canons of the Church of <HI>England</HI> &s;eparately and in them&s;elves, or on the publick <HI>Liturgy</HI> al&s;o, which though fir&s;t fitted for the u&s;e and edification of the Church of <HI>England,</HI>
<PB N="118" REF="62">
were afterwards impo&s;ed by <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Parliament</HI> in that King|dom on the Church of <HI>Ireland.</HI> In the particulars whereof we &s;hall go no further then Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> doth conduct us. Fir&s;t then,</P>
<P>It is appointed by one <HI>Rubrick</HI> in the <HI>Liturgy</HI> or Com|mon-Prayer Book, <HI>That all Prie&s;ts and Deacons &s;hall be bound to &s;ay daily the Morning and Evening Prayer either private|ly or openly, except they be let by preaching, studying of Divi|nity, or &s;ome other urgent cau&s;e:</HI> and in the re&s;t it is directed in what cour&s;e and order, the &s;aid Morning and Evening Prayer is to be Officiated, on what dayes the <HI>Letany</HI> is to be &s;aid or &s;ung; as al&s;o upon what dayes the Communion-&s;ervice is to be u&s;ed, and in what part of that &s;ervice the Sermon is to have its place, and what other parts of that &s;ervice are to follow af|ter it. Which la&s;t ob&s;ervance being neglected by &s;ome who would not tie them&s;elves unto any Rule by others, becau&s;e be|ing Lecturers onely, they were not charged with <HI>Cure of Souls,</HI> it was required by King <HI>Charles</HI> in &s;ome In&s;tructions which he &s;ent to all the Bi&s;hops &s;everally and re&s;pectively in the Realm of <HI>England Anno 1628. That every Lecturer &s;hould read the</HI> Divine Service, <HI>according to the Liturgy printed by Au|thority, in his Surplice and Hood before the Lecture.</HI> But on the contrary Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> tells us of the Lord <HI>Primate, That he was not &s;o</HI> rigid, <HI>as to tie all men in the</HI> private, <HI>to an ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ary u&s;e of it, or in the</HI> publick, <HI>that a Sermon was not to be heard, unle&s;&s;e that did precede,</HI> p. 145. He took great care (as Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> hath informed us <HI>p.</HI> 155.) for the <HI>often publick reading of the</HI> Ten Commandments <HI>and the</HI> Creed <HI>before the Congregation, according to the cu&s;tome of o|ther Reformed Churches,</HI> of which care there had been no need, if the publick Liturgy had been read as it ought to be, as well the <HI>Commandments</HI> as the <HI>Creed</HI> being appointed to be read publickly in the Cour&s;e thereof. But being it is &s;aid with reference to the <HI>Reformed Churches,</HI> I want rea&s;on to believe that the <HI>often publick reading</HI> of the <HI>Commandments</HI> and the <HI>Creed</HI> &s;upplied the place of the <HI>Publick Liturgy</HI> on the dayes of Preaching, according to the Cu&s;tome of &s;ome of the <HI>Reformed Churches</HI> which were therein imitated.</P>
<P><PB N="119" REF="62">Secondly, it is appointed by the Liturgy or Common-pray|er-Book of Both Churches what dayes &s;hould be accounted holy, and ob&s;erved as Fe&s;tivals, each of them having their &s;e|veral Le&s;&s;ons, Collects, Epi&s;tles and Go&s;pels, as well the Sunday or Lords day it &s;elfe, or as the greater Fe&s;tivals of <HI>Ea|ster</HI> and <HI>Whit&s;untide,</HI> or tho&s;e of the A&s;cen&s;ion and Nativity of our Lord and Saviour. No difference made between them (except it be the addition of &s;ome proper P&s;almes to &s;ome &s;pe|cial Fe&s;tivals) in the intent and purpo&s;e of the publick Litur|gies. But whether the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> ob&s;erved all the&s;e &s;eve|ral <HI>Holy dayes</HI> which the Church allows of, and in &s;uch man|ner as is pre&s;cribed by the Church, may be very well doubted. Its true, that Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> tells us, that it was the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> judgement and opinion, <Q>That the <HI>Annual Comme|morations</HI> of the <HI>Articles</HI> of the Faith, &s;uch as the <HI>Nativi|ty, Pa&s;&s;ion, Re&s;urrection</HI> of our Saviour, &amp;c. were &s;till to be ob&s;erved (which Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &s;aith in his time were in u&s;e <HI>through the whole Catholick Church</HI> of Chri&s;t) and is now in other <HI>Reformed Churches,</HI> as a means to keep them in the <HI>memory</HI> of the vulgar, according to the <HI>pattern</HI> of Gods in|junction to the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> in the Old Te&s;tament, for the <HI>types</HI> of them, as appeared by his then <HI>con&s;tant preaching</HI> on tho&s;e Subjects, </Q><BIBL><HI>p.</HI> 152.</BIBL> But then it is as true withal, that Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> tells us nothing of the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> ob&s;ervation of the other Holy dayes, as certainly he would have done, had there been ground for it. And therefore if the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> were &s;o punctual in keeping the <HI>Anniver&s;aries</HI> of the <HI>Nativi|ty, Pa&s;&s;ion, Re&s;urrection</HI> and <HI>A&s;cen&s;ion</HI> of our Lord and Savi|our, and of the <HI>coming down of the Holy Ghost,</HI> as Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> &s;aith he was; it may be probably conceived, that this was done rather in compliance with &s;ome of the forraign <HI>Reformed Churches,</HI> which ob&s;erve tho&s;e dayes, and tho&s;e dayes onely, than in obedience to the pre&s;cripts of the Chur|ches of <HI>England</HI> and <HI>Ireland.</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, the day of the <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion</HI> of our Saviour, commonly called <HI>Goodfriday,</HI> is by both Churches reckoned for <HI>jejuni|um &s;tatum,</HI> a &s;tanding, though but an Annual Fa&s;t, as well as <HI>Lent,</HI> the <HI>Ember dayes,</HI> and <HI>Rogation week;</HI> and hath its pro|per
<PB N="120" REF="63">
and di&s;tinct office, that is to &s;ay, its proper Le&s;&s;ons, Col|lect, Epi&s;tle, and Go&s;pel, accommodated to the day, and e|very way in&s;tructive in the &s;tory of our Saviours pa&s;&s;ion. And it is ordered by the thirteenth Canon of the year 1603. That <Q>all Mini&s;ters &s;hall ob&s;erve the Orders, Rites, and Cere|monies pre&s;cribed in the Book of Common-prayer, as well in reading the holy Scriptures, and &s;aying of Prayers, as in Admini&s;tration of the Sacraments, <HI>without</HI> either <HI>dimini&s;hing in regard of preaching,</HI> or in any other re&s;pect, or adding any thing in the matter and form thereof.</Q> But on the contrary Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> telleth us, that <Q>the Friday before <HI>Easter (Good Friday</HI> by no means, take heed of that) appointed for the remembrance of the <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion</HI> of our Saviour, was by the Lord Primate at <HI>Droghedah</HI> in <HI>Ireland,</HI> ob&s;erved duly as a <HI>&s;olemn fa&s;t,</HI> inclining the rather to that choice (that is to &s;ay, of making it a <HI>&s;olemn,</HI> not a <HI>&s;tanding</HI> fa&s;t) out of <HI>pru|dence and the &s;ecurity from cen&s;ure,</HI> by the then cu&s;tome of having Sermons beyond their ordinary limit in <HI>England;</HI> and that when the publick prayers were ended, (that is to &s;ay, &s;o much of the publick prayers as might be no hindrance to his preaching) be preached upon that &s;ubject, extending him&s;elf in Prayer and Sermon beyond his ordinary time; which being known to be his con&s;tant cu&s;tom, &s;ome from <HI>Dublin,</HI> as other parts, came to partake of it,</Q>  <BIBL><HI>p.</HI> 154.</BIBL></P>
<P>Fourthly, by the 55. Canon of the year 1603. there is a form of Prayer pre&s;cribed to be u&s;ed by Preachers before their Sermons, the beginning of which Canon is as followeth, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>Before all Sermons, Lectures and Homilies, Preachers and Mini&s;ters &s;hall move the people to joyn with them in pray|er in this Form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may. Ye &s;hall pray for Chri&s;ts holy Catholick Church, &amp;c.</Q>  But on the contrary Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> tells us of the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> that he did not onely &s;pin out his own Prayers to a more then ordinary length, as appeareth by the former pa&s;|&s;age; but that he was al&s;o much for the <HI>Mini&s;ters improving of their gifts and abilities in prayer before Sermon and after, ac|cording to his own practice,</HI> p. 150. and that he required the like extemporary and unpremeditated prayers of his hou&s;hold
<PB N="121" REF="63">
Chaplains in his Family-prayers at &s;ix of the clock in the mor|ning, and at eight at night.</P>
<P>Fifthly, it is appointed by the eighteenth Canon of the year 1603. <Q>That as often as in the Divine Service the Lord <HI>JE|SUS</HI> &s;hall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence &s;hall be done by all per&s;ons pre&s;ent, as it hath been accu&s;tomed; te&s;tifying by the&s;e outward Ceremonies &amp; Ge&s;tures, their in|ward Humility, Chri&s;tian Re&s;olution, and due acknowledg|ment, that the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, the true and eternal Son of God, is the onely Saviour of the World, in whom alone all Mercies, Graces, and Promi&s;es of God to mankind, for this life, and the life to come, are fully and wholly compri|&s;ed.</Q>But on the contrary Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> tells us of the Lord <HI>Primate,</HI> p. 147. <Q>That as for <HI>bowing</HI> at the name of <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> though he cen&s;ured not tho&s;e that did, either in <HI>our</HI> or other <HI>Reformed</HI> Churches, according to the cu&s;tome of each (which we of <HI>England</HI> mu&s;t needs take for a &s;pecial fa|vour) yet he did not conceive the injunction of it could be founded upon that of the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 10. and wonder|ed at &s;ome learned mens a&s;&s;ertions, that it was the expo&s;iti|on of all the Fathers upon it; (a touch for Doctor <HI>Andrews,</HI> the late learned and mo&s;t renowned Bi&s;hop of <HI>Winche&s;ter:</HI>) and as the wi&s;e compo&s;ers of the Liturgy gave no direct in|junction for it there;</Q> &s;o in <HI>Ireland</HI> he with&s;tood the putting of it into the Canon, <HI>Anno</HI> 1634.</P>
<P>Sixthly, it is appointed by the &s;aid eighteenth Canon of the year, 1603. <Q>That no man &s;hall cover his head in the Church or Chappel in the time of Divine Service (whereof I hope the Sermon did de&s;erve to be accounted part) except he have &s;ome infirmity, in which ca&s;e let him wear a night-Cap or Coif; and in the &s;eventh Canon of the year 1640. that all good and well-affected people, members of this Church, be ready to tender their acknowledgement unto the Lord (in who&s;e hou&s;e they are) by doing reverence and obei&s;ance at their coming in and going out of the Church, Chancel or Chappel, according to the mo&s;t ancient cu&s;tome of the Pri|mitive Church in the pure&s;t times, and of this Church al&s;o for many years in the Reign of Queen <HI>Elizabeth&punc;</HI></Q> What low
<PB N="122" REF="64">
e&s;teem the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> had of the&s;e two Canons, and how little he conformed him&s;elf to the tenour and intent thereof, might be ea&s;ily proved, but that I am to go no further in the&s;e particulars, then Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> doth conduct me. All there|fore I &s;hall adde is this, that though the&s;e Canons did not bind the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> unto any ob&s;ervance when he was in <HI>Ire|land;</HI> yet at &s;uch time as he was in <HI>England,</HI> and con&s;tantly repaired to one Church or other, he was obliged both in obe|dience to the Law, and for the avoiding of &s;candal, to conform unto them. <HI>Cum Romae &s;um jejuno Sabbato, cum hic &s;um non jejuno Sabbato,</HI> was the rule and practice of Saint <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> who was not only Arch-Bi&s;hop of <HI>Millan,</HI> but perhaps Lord <HI>Pri|mate</HI> of the Dioce&s;s of <HI>Italy</HI> al&s;o.</P>
<P>All this con&s;idered, Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> needed not to have told us of him, <HI>That he did not affect &s;ome arbitrary innovations, not within the compa&s;s of the Rule and Order of the Book; and that he did not take upon him to introduce any Rite or Ceremony upon his own opinion of</HI> Decency, <HI>till the Church had judged it &s;o.</HI> p. 147. It was too manife&s;t by that which hath been &s;aid before, that there were no <HI>works of &s;upererogation</HI> to be lookt for from him. It had been well if he had <HI>readily ob&s;erved what was commanded in the Book</HI> (as Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> &s;ayes he did when he was in <HI>Ireland,</HI> and had applyed him&s;elf to tho&s;e <HI>De+cencies which the Church had judged</HI> to be fit, when he was i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>England.</HI> Nor needed &s;o much boa&s;t be made of his <HI>Conformi|ty to the</HI> Di&s;cipline, Liturgy, <HI>and</HI> Articles <HI>of the Church of En|gland;</HI> or that <HI>many of tho&s;e who were a&s;per&s;t</HI> by the name of Puritans, <HI>received &s;uch &s;atisfaction from him, as to concur with him in the above &s;aid particulars.</HI> p. 160. For this might very well be done, and yet the men remain as unconformable to the Rules of the Church (their kneeling at the Communion ex|cepted onely) as they were before. Matters which had not now been brought to the publick view, if Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> had not given as well the hints, as the occa&s;ion for the&s;e Di&s;cove|ries. So that it may be truly &s;aid in the words of <HI>Tacitus,</HI> though not altogether in his meaning, <HI>Pe&s;&s;imum inimicorum genus lau|dantes,</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Tacit. in<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">. Agric.</NOTE> <HI>viz.</HI> that the <HI>Panegyri&s;t</HI> is &s;ometimes a mans greate&s;t enemy: unle&s;s perhaps it might be Doctor <HI>Bernards</HI> purpo&s;e
<PB N="123" REF="64">
to &s;et forth the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> as the pattern of a complete <HI>Prelate</HI> (as <HI>Xenophon</HI> &s;et forth his <HI>Cyrus</HI> for the example of a gallant and perfect Prince) by telling us rather what he &s;hould have been, then what he was. Finally, whereas the <HI>Doctor</HI> tells us that <HI>each party had a</HI> great <HI>and</HI> reverent opinion <HI>of him,</HI> p. 163. I am &s;orry that any part of it &s;hould be lo&s;t by this un|lucky Adventure, this mo&s;t un&s;ea&s;onable publi&s;hing of his pri|vate Letters. For my part, I had no intent of &s;aying any thing to le&s;&s;en that <HI>great</HI> and <HI>reverent opinion</HI> which each party had of him, and am &s;orry that Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> hath provoked me to &s;ay &s;o much. And &s;o I lay him down again in the Bed of Peace, de&s;iring heartily <HI>ut placida compo&s;tus morte quie&s;cat,</HI> that he may re&s;t in quiet there, without more di&s;turbances.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XII.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>Doctor <HI>Bernards</HI> endevour to revive the old quarrel touching the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> and the Earl of <HI>Strafford;</HI> the <HI>An&s;werers</HI> re|&s;olution not to engage him&s;elf therein. The Canon of the year 1634. for the approving and receiving of the <HI>Articles</HI> of the Church of <HI>England.</HI> A Recapitulation of the Arguments u|&s;ed by the <HI>Ob&s;ervator,</HI> to prove that the <HI>&s;uperinducing</HI> of the Articles of the Church of <HI>England</HI> was a <HI>repealing</HI> of the Articles of <HI>Ireland.</HI> Doctor <HI>Bernards</HI> weak An&s;wers to tho&s;e Arguments, and his weaker Arguments to prove the contra|ry. The Difference between the Articles of <HI>England</HI> and <HI>Ire|land</HI> con&s;i&s;ts not onely in &s;ome <HI>Circum&s;tantials,</HI> as Doctor <HI>Ber|nard</HI> would fain have it. A view of &s;ome material and &s;ub|&s;tantial differences between tho&s;e Articles. The Conclu&s;ion of the whole Di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>ANd now we are come to Doctor <HI>Bernard,</HI> who promi&s;ing no more then the <HI>confirmation</HI> of &s;omething which the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> had written in one of his Letters, <HI>viz.</HI> That the Articles of <HI>Ireland were not called in</HI> Anno 1634. <HI>as Doctor</HI>
<PB N="124" REF="65">
Heylyn <HI>had affirmed,</HI> p. 173. mu&s;t needs go &s;omewhat out of his way, to hook in the remembrance of &s;ome former Quarrels which Doctor <HI>Heylyn</HI> had forgotten, and is not now willing to remember. The Author of the Book called <HI>Extraneus va|pulans,</HI> who&s;oever he was, declares him&s;elf unwilling to receive that Que&s;tion, <Q><HI>Whether the</HI> Lord Primate <HI>had any</HI> &s;harp tooth again&s;t the Lord Lieutenant <HI>or not,</HI> in regard the parties were both dead, and all di&s;plea&s;ures buried in the &s;ame grave with them, <HI>p.</HI> 292. He al&s;o wi&s;hed that the Doctor by his <HI>Panegyrick</HI> had not awakened tho&s;e enquiries, which were like to be &s;o little advantagious to the memory of that lear|ned Prelate, p. 296. And finally conceived, that Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> would have done that reverend per&s;on, and him&s;elf &s;ome right, if he had &s;uffered &s;uch Enquiries to die with the parties mo&s;t concerned in them, without reviving them a|gain by his double diligence,</Q> <HI>p.</HI> 298. Which pa&s;&s;ages if Do|ctor <HI>Bernard</HI> had laid to heart, he would not &s;o un&s;ea&s;onably have endevoured to revive that Quarrel, and brought Doctor <HI>Heylyn</HI> on the &s;tage, provoking him by &s;everal wayes to re&s;ume that Argument, which he had long &s;ince laid a&s;ide, and is re|&s;olved upon no provocation what&s;oever to take up again. He hath laid the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> down again in the Bed of Peace, and will not rai&s;e him from it by a new di&s;turbance. But where|as Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> tells us that it is <HI>left to the</HI> prudence <HI>of a third per&s;on (who hath a</HI> convenient <HI>opportunity in his Hi&s;tory) to clear the whole, in the Examination and Moderation of all the pa&s;&s;ages between Mr.</HI> l'E&s;trange <HI>and him,</HI> p. 114. That <HI>third per&s;on,</HI> who&s;oever he is, mu&s;t be very <HI>prudent,</HI> if he can carry the matter &s;o, and with &s;uch <HI>Moderation,</HI> as not to give offence to both parties, and be called to an account by each of them for his <HI>Examination.</HI> For &s;o it hapneth many times, that he who voluntarily &s;teps in to part a <HI>fray</HI> between two per&s;ons, gets &s;ome knocks on both &s;ides, at the lea&s;t from one. And therefore it was well re&s;olved by one of the old Heathen Phi|lo&s;ophers, <HI>Se nolle inter duos Amicos Arbitrum e&s;&s;e &amp;c.</HI> that he vvould never arbitrate any bu&s;ine&s;s betvveen tvvo of his Friends, becau&s;e he vvas &s;ure that by his &s;o doing, he mu&s;t make one of them to become his Enemy.</P>
<P><PB N="125" REF="65">The preamble of Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> being thus pa&s;&s;ed over, we next proceed unto the <HI>Confirmation</HI> which he hath in hand. And therein al&s;o pretermitting his whole Narrative, touching the carriage of the bu&s;ine&s;s in the Convocation of the year 1634. we will pitch only on the examination of this point, <HI>viz.</HI> whether the &s;uperinducing of the <HI>Articles of the Church of En|gland</HI> were not a virtual repealing of the <HI>Articles of the Church of Ireland.</HI> And for the better proceeding in it, I think it not unnece&s;&s;ary to produce that <HI>Canon,</HI> which is the ground of the Di&s;pute. The Title of it this, <HI>viz. Of the Agreement of the Church of</HI> England <HI>and</HI> Ireland, <HI>in the profe&s;sion of the &s;ame Chri&s;tian faith.</HI> The Body of it this, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>For the ma|nife&s;tation of our Agreement with the <HI>Church of England</HI> in the Confe&s;&s;ion of the &s;ame Chri&s;tian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments; We <HI>do receive and approve the Book of Ar|ticles of Religion, agreed upon by the Arch-Bi&s;hops and Bi|&s;hops, and the whole Clergy, in the whole convocation holden at London, Anno Dom. 1562. for avoiding of the diver&s;ities of opinions, and for the e&s;tabli&s;hing of con&s;ent touching true Reli|gion.</HI> And therefore if any hereafter &s;hall affirm that any of tho&s;e Articles are in any part &s;uper&s;titious or erroneous, or &s;uch as he may not with a good con&s;cience &s;ub&s;cribe unto; Let him be excommunicated, and not ab&s;olved, before he make a publick revocation of his error.</Q> The&s;e are the very words of the Canon it &s;elfe, and from the&s;e words the <HI>Ob&s;er|vator</HI> did conclude that the Articles of <HI>England</HI> were received in &s;tead of the other; but Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> makes this con&s;tru|ction of the Canon, <HI>That there was not a reception of the one</HI> in &s;tead <HI>of the other, but the</HI> one with the other, <HI>p. 119. That in the Canon the Articles of</HI> England <HI>are received not</HI> in &s;tead, <HI>but</HI> with <HI>tho&s;e of</HI> Ireland, <HI>p.</HI> 120. But which of the two is in the right will be be&s;t &s;een by the Arguments produced on both &s;ides, and by the An&s;wers which are made to tho&s;e &s;everal Ar|guments.</P>
<P>And fir&s;t the <HI>Ob&s;ervator</HI> takes notice of &s;ome <HI>&s;candal</HI> given unto the Papi&s;ts, and the occa&s;ion of &s;ome deri&s;ions which they had thereby, that in the Churches of three Kingdoms profe&s;|&s;ing the &s;ame Religion, &amp; being under the patronage of one &s;o|veraign
<PB N="126" REF="66">
Prince, there &s;hould be three di&s;tinct (and in &s;ome points contrary) confe&s;sions; and that for the avoiding of this <HI>&s;candal,</HI> it was thought fit there &s;hould be one Confe&s;&s;ion, or one Book of Articles onely for the Churches of <HI>England</HI> and <HI>Ireland,</HI> not without hope that <HI>Scotland</HI> would &s;oon follow af|ter. And thereupon he doth infer, that if the &s;uperinducing or receiving of a new Confe&s;&s;ion be not a repealing of the old, there mu&s;t be two Confe&s;&s;ions in the &s;ame Church differing in many points from one another. Which would have been &s;o far from creating an uniformity of belief between the Chur|ches, and taking away thereby the matter of deri&s;ion which was given the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> in two di&s;tinct (<HI>and in &s;ome points con|trary</HI>) Confe&s;&s;ions, yet both pretending unto one and the &s;ame Religion; that it would rather have increa&s;ed their &s;corn, and made a greater di&s;agreement in <HI>Ireland</HI> it &s;elfe, then was before between the Churches of both Kingdoms. The &s;econd Argu|ment is taken from the&s;e words of Saint <HI>Paul, Heb.</HI> 8. 13. viz. <HI>Dicendo novum veteravit prius, &amp;c.</HI> that is to &s;ay, <HI>in that he &s;aith a new Covenant, he hath made the fir&s;t old,</HI> as our <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> reads it, and then it followeth, that <HI>that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vani&s;h away,</HI> that is to &s;ay, the old being di&s;anulled by the new, there mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily follow the abo|li&s;hment of its u&s;e and practice. So that unle&s;s it may be thought, that Saint <HI>Paul</HI> was out in his <HI>Logick,</HI> as I think it may not, the &s;uperinducing of a new Covenant mu&s;t be the ab|rogating of the old. His third Argument is taken from the Abrogation of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Sabbath by &s;uperinducing of the Lords day for the day of Wor&s;hip; By means whereof, the Sabbath was le&s;&s;ened in authority and reputation by little and little, and in &s;hort time vvas ab&s;olutely laid a&s;ide in the Church of Chri&s;t; the fourth Commandment, by vvhich it vvas at fir&s;t ordained, being &s;till in force. His fourth and la&s;t Argument vvas, that the fir&s;t <HI>Liturgy</HI> of King <HI>Edward</HI> the &s;ixth confirm|ed in Parliament, vvith &s;everal penalties to tho&s;e vvho &s;hould refu&s;e to officiate by it, or &s;hould not diligently re&s;ort and re|pair unto it, as appears by the Statute 2, &amp; 3. <HI>Edw. 6. c.</HI> 1. vvas actually repealed by the authorizing of the &s;econd <HI>Liturgy</HI> of the 5, &amp; 6. of King <HI>Edw.</HI> 6. vvhich vvas forthvvith received
<PB N="127" REF="66">
into u&s;e and practice in all parts of the Kingdom, the former <HI>Liturgy</HI> being no otherwi&s;e &s;uppre&s;&s;ed and called in, then by the &s;uperinducing of this, the Statute upon which it &s;tood, continuing <HI>unrepealed,</HI> in full force and virtue, and many Clau&s;es of the &s;ame related to in the Statute which confirmed the &s;econd. Upon which Ground it was inferred that the <HI>Articles</HI> of <HI>Ireland</HI> were <HI>virtually,</HI> though not <HI>formally abro|gated,</HI> by the <HI>&s;uperinducing</HI> of the Articles of the Church of <HI>England.</HI></P>
<P>Of the fir&s;t and la&s;t of the&s;e four Arguments, Doctor <HI>Ber|nard</HI> takes no notice at all, and returns but one An&s;wer to the &s;econd and third, which notwith&s;tanding may &s;erve al&s;o for the fir&s;t and la&s;t; ju&s;t as an Almanack calculated for the <HI>Meridi|an</HI> of <HI>London,</HI> may generally &s;erve for the u&s;e of all <HI>Great Britain.</HI> The An&s;wer is, <Q>That the Apo&s;tles &s;peech of <HI>making void the old Covenant by &s;peaking of a new,</HI> or taking in the fir&s;t day of the Week to be the <HI>Sabbath</HI> in&s;tead of the la&s;t, when but one of the &s;even was to be kept, doth not fit the Ca&s;e; for in the&s;e there was a <HI>Superinduction</HI> and reception of the one for the other; but in the Canon, the <HI>Articles</HI> of <HI>England</HI> are received not <HI>in&s;tead,</HI> but with tho&s;e of <HI>Ireland;</HI></Q> which by his leave is not &s;o much an An&s;wer to the <HI>Ob&s;ervators</HI> Arguments, as a plain begging of the Que|&s;tion: For if this An&s;wer will hold good in <HI>Ireland,</HI> it might have held good al&s;o in the Land of <HI>Judaea,</HI> and the Parts ad|joyning, where both the Lords-day and the Sabbath, the old Law and the Go&s;pel, did for a time remain together. As for the <HI>Doctors</HI> Arguments, <Q>That the <HI>Reception</HI> of the Articles of the Church of <HI>England</HI> doth no more argue an Abro|gation of the Articles of <HI>Ireland,</HI> than that the <HI>Apo&s;tles Creed</HI> was abrogated by the reception of the <HI>Nicene</HI> and <HI>Athana&s;ian</HI> </Q><BIBL>p. 118.</BIBL> it is ea&s;ily an&s;wered. For as the <HI>Doctor</HI> well ob&s;erves, the <HI>Nicene</HI> and <HI>Athana&s;ian</HI> Creeds are but <HI>En|largements</HI> of the other, and that in &s;ome particular Points onely in which the Hereticks of tho&s;e times had di&s;turbed the peace of the Church. So that tho&s;e <HI>Creeds</HI> are but the Explanations of the other in the Points di&s;puted, and were re|ceived by the Church with reference onely to the condemna|tion
<PB N="128" REF="67">
of &s;ome Here&s;ies, and the Explication of &s;ome Ortho|dox or Catholick Doctrines, which had been oppo&s;ed by tho&s;e Here&s;ies. More ea&s;ily is the Argument an&s;wered, importing <Q>That the reception into our u&s;e the form of the Lords Pray|er according to S. <HI>Matthew,</HI> &s;hould by the &s;ame rea&s;on ab|rogate that of S. <HI>Luke</HI> being the &s;horter.</Q> For fir&s;t the Lords Prayer as it &s;tands in S. <HI>Lukes</HI> Go&s;pel was never recei|ved into the <HI>Lyturgie</HI> of the Church, and therefore could not be abrogated by the Churches making choice of the other which we find in S. <HI>Matthew.</HI> And &s;econdly it was not in the power of the Church to have abrogated that Prayer as it &s;tands in S. <HI>Luke,</HI> becau&s;e it is a part of the Go&s;pel of the word of God, which the Church hath no Authority to change or alter, and much le&s;&s;e to <HI>abrogate.</HI> All that the Church can be &s;aid to have done in this particular, is that the Church made choice rather of the Lords Prayer as it &s;tands in S. <HI>Mat|thew,</HI> then as it &s;tands in S. <HI>Luke,</HI> when it was ab&s;olutely in her power to make choice of either. No contrariety to be found in any one clau&s;e of the &s;aid two <HI>Pater No&s;ters,</HI> nor a|ny the lea&s;t contradiction to be met with between tho&s;e three Creeds, or any one Article of the &s;ame, differing no otherwi&s;e in a manner but as the Commentary and the Text. But &s;o it is not in the Ca&s;e which is now before us, nor in the &s;uppo&s;i|tion of making one general confe&s;&s;ion of all the Reformed Churches, if they were &s;everally &s;ub&s;cribed with the <HI>Iri&s;h</HI> Articles. He that &s;ub&s;cribes unto the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> may without any doubt or &s;cruple &s;ub&s;cribe unto the Articles or Confe&s;&s;ions of all the Reformed (or <HI>Calvinian</HI>) Churches. But if he take the Articles of <HI>England</HI> al&s;o into that account, he mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity &s;ub&s;cribe to many plain and manife&s;t con|trarieties.</P>
<P>Again&s;t this nothing hath been &s;aid, but that there is no <HI>&s;ub|&s;tantial difference</HI> between tho&s;e Articles, as was conceived by the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> p. 118. that <HI>both Confe&s;&s;ions are con&s;istent</HI> as is affirmed by Doctor <HI>Bernards mo&s;t eminent, learned,</HI> and <HI>judicious</HI> per&s;on, <HI>p.</HI> 121. and finally that there is <HI>no difference in &s;ub&s;tance, but onely in Method, number of Subjects determined, and other circum&s;tantials,</HI> as is declared by Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI>
<PB N="129" REF="67">
p. 119. But if the contrary be proved, and that it &s;hall appear that there is a <HI>&s;ub&s;tantial</HI> difference between tho&s;e Articles, that the Confe&s;&s;ions of both Churches are <HI>incon&s;i&s;tent,</HI> and that they do not onely differ in the <HI>Circumstantials</HI> of <HI>Method, Number,</HI> and the like; I hope that then it will be granted that the <HI>approving</HI> and <HI>receiving</HI> of the <HI>Articles</HI> of <HI>England</HI> was <HI>virtually</HI> and in effect an Abrogating of the former Ar|ticles of the Church of <HI>Ireland.</HI> And for the proof of this I &s;hall compare &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages in the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> as they pa&s;&s;ed in <HI>Convocation Anno</HI> 1615. with the Doctrines publickly profe&s;&s;ed in the Church of <HI>England,</HI> either con|tained expre&s;ly and <HI>in terminis</HI> in the <HI>Book of Articles,</HI> or el&s;e delivered in &s;ome other publick Monument of Record of the <HI>Church of England</HI> to which tho&s;e Articles relate: Fir&s;t then,</P>
<P>The Articles of the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>Ireland</HI> have entertained and incorporated the <HI>Nine Articles</HI> of <HI>Lambeth,</HI> containing all the <HI>Calvinian</HI> Rigours in the Points of <HI>Prede&s;tination, Grace, Free-will,</HI> &amp;c. which <HI>Articles,</HI> or any of them, could never find admittance in the Church of <HI>England,</HI> by rea&s;on of their incon&s;i&s;tency with the authorized Doctrines of it, as before was &s;aid: &s;o that by the incorporating of tho&s;e Nine Arti|cles into the Articles of <HI>Ireland,</HI> there are as many aberrations from the doctrine of the Church of <HI>England.</HI> Secondly, It is &s;aid of Chri&s;t (<HI>Num.</HI> 30.) that for our &s;akes he <HI>endured mo&s;t grievous torments immediately in his Soul,</HI> and mo&s;t painful &s;ufferings in his Body. The enduring of which grievous torments in his Soul, as <HI>Calvin</HI> not without &s;ome touch of <HI>Bla&s;phemy</HI> did fir&s;t devi&s;e, &s;o did he lay it down for the true &s;en&s;e and meaning of the <HI>Article</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts de&s;cending into Hell.</HI> In which expre&s;&s;ion as the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> have taken up the words of <HI>Calvin,</HI> &s;o it may rationally be conceived that they take them with his meaning and con&s;truction al&s;o; the rather in regard that there is no particular Article of <HI>Chri&s;ts de&s;cend|ing into Hell,</HI> as in tho&s;e of <HI>England,</HI> and con&s;equently no &s;uch Doctrine of a <HI>local De&s;cent</HI> as the Church of <HI>England</HI> hath maintained.</P>
<P>Thirdly it is declared (<HI>Num.</HI> 50.) <Q>That the Ab&s;tinencies
<PB N="130" REF="68">
which are appointed by publick order of that State, for eat|ing of Fi&s;h, and forbearing of Fle&s;h at certain times and dayes appointed, are no wayes meant to be Religious Fa&s;ts, nor intended for the maintenance of any &s;uper&s;tition in the choice of meats, but are grounded meerly upon Politick Con&s;iderations for provi&s;ion of things tending to the bet|ter pre&s;ervation of the Common-wealth.</Q> But the Church of <HI>England</HI> not taking notice of any <HI>Politick Con&s;iderations,</HI> for the breeding of Cattle, increa&s;e of &s;hipping, or the like, as the Stati&s;ts do, (nor intending the <HI>maintenance of any Super&s;tition in choice of meats,</HI> as the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> do) retaineth both her Weekly and her Annual Fa&s;ts <HI>ex vi Catholicae con&s;uetudi|nis,</HI> as Apo&s;tolical and Primitive In&s;titutions; and &s;he retains them al&s;o not as <HI>Politick,</HI> but as <HI>Religious</HI> Fa&s;ts, as appears by the Epi&s;tle for <HI>A&s;h-wedne&s;day,</HI> taken out of the &s;econd Cha|pter of <HI>Joel</HI> from <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 12. unto <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 18. and by the Go|&s;pel for that day, taken out of the &s;ixth Chapter of S. <HI>Matthew</HI> from <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 16. unto <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 22. And more particularly from the Prayer appointed to be u&s;ed on the <HI>fir&s;t Sunday</HI> in <HI>Lent, viz.</HI> <Q>O Lord, which for our &s;akes did&s;t fa&s;t fourty dayes and fourty nights, give us grace to u&s;e &s;uch <HI>abstinence,</HI> that our fle&s;h being &s;ubdued to the Spirit, we may ever obey the Godly motions in righteou&s;ne&s;s and true holine&s;&s;e to thy honour and glory, which live&s;t and reigne&s;t, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q> </P>
<P>Fourthly, It is affirmed <HI>Num.</HI> 56. <Q>That the fir&s;t day of the week which is the Lords day, is wholly to be dedicated to the &s;ervice of God; and therefore we are bound to re&s;t therein from our common and daily bu&s;ine&s;&s;e; and to be&s;tow that lei&s;ure upon Holy Exerci&s;es, both publick and private.</Q>  How contrary this is to the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>Eng|land</HI> in the Book of Homilies, we have &s;een already; and if it be contrary to the Book of Homilies, it mu&s;t be al&s;o contrary to the Book of Articles by which tho&s;e Homilies are appro|ved, and recommended to the u&s;e of the Church. Be&s;ides, it is declared in the &s;eventh of tho&s;e Articles, fir&s;t, that the Law given by <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> as touching Ceremonies and Rites do not bind Chri&s;tian men, nor ought the Civil Precepts thereof to be received in any Common-wealth; and &s;econdly, that no
<PB N="131" REF="68">
Chri&s;tian what&s;oever is free from the obedience of the Com|mandments which are called Moral. So that the Ceremonial part of the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> being wholly abrogated, there is no more to be ob&s;erved in any of the &s;aid Commandments then that which is naturally and plainly moral. For otherwi&s;e the <HI>Old Te&s;tament</HI> mu&s;t be <HI>contrary to the New,</HI> which is denied in the fir&s;t clau&s;e of this Article; and &s;econdly, this Article mu&s;t be contradicted by the Book of Homilies, which in an|other of the&s;e Articles is approved, as before was &s;aid. As Ad|ver&s;aries to which truth the Author of the Book entitled, <HI>The Faith, Doctrine, and Religion profe&s;&s;ed and protected in the Realm of England, &amp;c.</HI> being a Commentary on the 39. Articles, <HI>Peru&s;ed, and by the lawful Authority of the Church of England allowed to be publick,</HI> doth account all &s;uch as have taught and publi&s;hed, fir&s;t, <HI>that whereas all other things were &s;o changed, that they were clean taken away, as the Prie&s;thood, the Sacrifice, and Sacraments, this day</HI> (that is&punc; the Sabbath day) <HI>was &s;o changd that it yet remaineth;</HI> and &s;econdly, <HI>that the Commandment of &s;anctifying every &s;eventh day</HI> (as in the Mo|&s;aical Decalogue) <HI>is Natural, Moral, and Perpetual.</HI> If &s;o, then no &s;uch thing required of Chri&s;tians, as to dedicate the fir&s;t day of the week <HI>wholly</HI> to the &s;ervice of God, or to re&s;t thereon from our common and dayly bu&s;ine&s;s, as it is po&s;itive|ly determined in this Article of the Church of <HI>Ireland.</HI> Adde here, tho&s;e de&s;perate con&s;equences, which have been rai&s;ed by &s;ome men from the&s;e Sabbath-Doctrines; <Q>It having been preacht in &s;ome of the Pulpits in this Kingdom (as Mr. <HI>Ro|gers</HI> tells us in his Preface to the Book above mentioned) that to do any &s;ervile work or bu&s;ine&s;s on the Lords day, is as great a &s;in as to kill a man, or commit adultery; that to throw a Bowle, to make a Fea&s;t, or dre&s;s a VVedding Dinner on the Lords day, is as great a &s;in, as for a man to take a knife and cut his childs throat; and that to ring more Bells then one on the Lords day, is as great a &s;in, as to com|mit a wilful murder.</Q> Mo&s;t de&s;perate con&s;equents indeed, but &s;uch as naturally do ari&s;e from &s;uch dangerous premi&s;es.</P>
<P>Fifthly, it is declared, (<HI>Num.</HI> 71.) <Q>that we ought to judg tho&s;e Mini&s;ters to be lawfully called and &s;ent, which be cal|led
<PB N="132" REF="69">
and cho&s;en to the work of the Mini&s;try, by men who have publick Authority given them in the Church.</Q> This &s;erves to countenance the Ordination of Mini&s;ters beyond the Seas, ordained (if I may &s;o call it) by the impo&s;ition of the hands of two Lay-Elders for each &s;ingle Presbyter, without the a&s;|&s;i&s;tance or benediction of the Bi&s;hop; and is directly contra|ry to the Book, entituled, <HI>The form and manner of making and con&s;ecrating Bi&s;hops, Prie&s;ts, and Deacons;</HI> according to which Book (ju&s;tified and approved by the 36. Article of the Church of <HI>England</HI>) no Prie&s;t or Presbyter can be otherwi&s;e ordai|ned, then by the laying on of the hands of the Bi&s;hop.</P>
<P>Sixthly, it is declared (<HI>Num.</HI> 74.) <Q>That God hath given power to his Mini&s;ters, not &s;imply to forgive &s;ins (which prerogative he hath re&s;erved onely to him&s;elfe) but in his name to <HI>declare</HI> and <HI>pronounce</HI> unto &s;uch as truly repent, and unfainedly believe his Holy Go&s;pel, the ab&s;olution and for|givene&s;s of &s;ins.</Q> VVhich Doctrine, how contrary it is to the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> hath been &s;hewed at large in the tenth <HI>Section</HI> of this Book. To which I &s;hall now onely adde, that for the better encouragement of the penitent party, to make a true and &s;incere confe&s;&s;ion of his &s;ins, that &s;o the Prie&s;t may proceed to <HI>Ab&s;olution</HI> on the better grounds, it is ordered by the 113. Canon of the year 1603. <Q>That if any man confe&s;s his &s;ecret and hidden &s;ins to the Mini&s;ter, for the unburthening of his con&s;cience, and to receive &s;pi|ritual con&s;olation and ea&s;e of mind from him; the &s;aid Mi|ni&s;ter &s;hall not at any time reveale and make known to any per&s;on what&s;oever any crime or offence &s;o committed to his tru&s;t and &s;ecrecy (except they be &s;uch crimes, as by the Laws of this Realm his own life may be called into que|&s;tion for concealing the &s;ame) under <HI>pain of Irregularity:</HI></Q> By incurring of which <HI>pain of Irregularity,</HI> he doth not onely actually forfeit all tho&s;e &s;piritual promotions of which he is at that time po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed, but is rendered utterly uncapable of re|ceiving any other for the time to come.</P>
<P>Seventhly, it is declared (<HI>Num.</HI> 80.) <Q>That the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> is &s;o far from being the Supreme head of the Univer|&s;al Church of Chri&s;t, that his works and Doctrine do plainly
<PB N="133" REF="69">
di&s;cover him to be <HI>that man of &s;in,</HI> foretold in the holy Scri|ptures, <HI>whom the Lord &s;hall con&s;ume with the &s;pirit of his mouth, and aboli&s;h with the brightne&s;s of his coming.</HI></Q> Of which opinion the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> al&s;o was, as is affirmed by Do|ctor <HI>Bernard,</HI> p. 162. where he telleth, that the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> had in two learned Sermons given his judgement at large, that the <HI>Papacy</HI> was meant by <HI>Babylon</HI> in the &s;eventeenth and eigh|teenth of the <HI>Revelation.</HI> But there is no &s;uch Doctrine con|cerning <HI>Antichrist</HI> in the Book of <HI>Articles,</HI> or in any other publick Monument or Record of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> but the contrary rather. And this appeareth by a prayer at the end of the &s;econd <HI>Homily</HI> for <HI>Whit&s;unday,</HI> viz. <HI>That by the mighty power of the Holy Gho&s;t, the comfortable Doctrine of Chri&s;t may be truly preached, truly received, and truly followed in all places, to the beating down of Sin, Death, the Pope, the Devil, and all the Kingdom of Antichri&s;t.</HI> In which words, the <HI>Pope,</HI> the <HI>Devil,</HI> and the <HI>Kingdom of Antichrist,</HI> being reckoned as the three great enemies of the Church of Chri&s;t; it mu&s;t needs be, by the Doctrine of this Church in the <HI>Book of Homilies,</HI> that the Pope and Antichri&s;t are as much di&s;tingui&s;hed, as either the Devil and the Pope, or the Devil and Antichri&s;t, which no man of rea&s;on can conceive to be one and the &s;ame.</P>
<P>Eighthly, the Church of <HI>England</HI> in the tenth Article &s;peaks very favourably of the <HI>will</HI> of man in the act of Conver&s;ion, and all the other Acts of Piety which depend upon it, <HI>viz.</HI> That <HI>we have no power to do good works plea&s;ant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ</HI> preventing us, <HI>that we may have a good will, and working</HI> with us, <HI>when we have that good will;</HI> according to that memorable &s;aying of Saint <HI>Au|gu&s;tine,</HI> the greate&s;t Champion of Gods grace again&s;t the <HI>Pe|lagian</HI> Here&s;ies, <HI>Praevenit nos gratia Dei ut velimus, &s;ub&s;equi|tur, ne fru&s;tra velimus.</HI> Whereas it is declared in the Arti|cles of <HI>Ireland,</HI> that man is meerly pa&s;&s;ive in the work of his own Conver&s;ion, <HI>velut inanimatum quiddam,</HI> as was &s;aid by <HI>Luther,</HI> the Article affirming (<HI>Num. 32.) That no man can come unto Chri&s;t, unle&s;s the Father draw him;</HI> that is to &s;ay, un|le&s;s the Father doth &s;o <HI>draw him,</HI> that nothing be a&s;cribed to mans will, either in receiving of <HI>Grace preventing,</HI> or working
<PB N="134" REF="70">
any thing by the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of <HI>Grace &s;ub&s;equent,</HI> or Grace con|curring; no other kind of drawing by our Heavenly Father being allowed of in this Act in the Schools of <HI>Calvin.</HI> For on this ground <HI>Calvin</HI> di&s;likes that &s;aying of Saint <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> that God draws none but &s;uch as are willing to come. <HI>Illud totum &agrave;</HI> Chry&s;o&s;tomo <HI>repetitum repudiari nece&s;&s;e est, Quem trahit volentem trahit.</HI> So he in the &s;econd Book of his In&s;ti|tutions, <HI>Cap.</HI> 3. Upon which Dictate of their Ma&s;ter the <HI>Cal|vini&s;ts,</HI> or Contra-Remon&s;trants, (whom the Lord <HI>Primate</HI> in compiling the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> followeth point <HI>per</HI> point) affirmed expre&s;ly in the Conference holden at the <HI>Hague; Sicut ad Nativitatem &s;uam nemo de &s;uo quicquam confert, neque ad &s;ui excitationem &agrave; mortuis quicquam confert de &s;uo: Ita eti|am ad Conver&s;ionem &s;uam nemo homo quicquam confert;</HI> That is to &s;ay, that as a man contributes nothing either towards his natural Generation, or Re&s;urrection from the dead; &s;o doth he not contribute any thing towards his Conver&s;ion and Rege|neration.</P>
<P>Ninthly, the twentieth Article of <HI>England</HI> a&s;cribes unto the Church a power in determining Controver&s;ies of the faith; of which the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> are utterly &s;ilent, as if the Church were ve&s;ted with no &s;uch authority, contrary to <HI>Acts</HI> 15. v. 6, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Tenthly, it is declared in the 34. Article of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> <Q>That who&s;oever through his private judgement, willingly and purpo&s;ely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common Authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like) as he that offendeth again&s;t the common order of the Church, and hurteth the Authority of the Ma|gi&s;trate, and woundeth the con&s;ciences of the weak Bre|thren.</Q>But of this there is nothing &s;aid in the Articles of <HI>Ireland,</HI> and thereby a wide gap laid open to all private men, either out of &s;ingularity, faction, or perver&s;ene&s;s of &s;pirit, to oppo&s;e the Ceremonies of the Church, and deny conformity thereunto at their will and plea&s;ure.</P>
<P>Eleventhly, the 36. Article of <HI>England</HI> approves the Book
<PB N="135" REF="70">
of the Con&s;ecration of Arch-Bi&s;hops and Bi&s;hops, &amp;c. of which Con&s;ecration we find nothing in the Articles of <HI>Ire|land,</HI> as if &s;uch Con&s;ecrations had &s;omething in them <HI>which of it &s;elfe is &s;uper&s;titious and ungodly,</HI> or that the calling of Bi|&s;hops was not warranted by the word of God.</P>
<P>Twelfthly, it is declared in the 38. Article of <HI>England,</HI> That <HI>the riches and goods of Chri&s;tians are not common, as touching the right, title, and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the &s;ame, as certain</HI> Anabapti&s;ts <HI>do fal&s;ly boa&s;t.</HI> Of which the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> are as &s;ilent as in the point of Con&s;ecration of Arch-Bi&s;hops and Bi&s;hops; the dangerous con&s;equence whereof may be felt too &s;oon. I know that the&s;e two la&s;t pa&s;&s;ages may rather argue &s;ome deficiency in the Articles of <HI>Ireland,</HI> then any contrariety unto tho&s;e of <HI>England:</HI> But I have cau&s;e enough to think that many of tho&s;e who willingly &s;ub&s;cribe the Articles of <HI>Ireland</HI> (as being to|tally <HI>Genevian</HI> both in the matter and method) will be apt to boggle at the&s;e two; the fir&s;t as being contrary to the com|mon Principles of the Presbyterians; the &s;econd as being no le&s;s oppo&s;ite to that <HI>levelling</HI> humour which doth affect as great a Parity in the Civil State, as the others have contended for in the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical.</P>
<P>And thus far I have gone along with Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> in an|&s;wering all the &s;everal <HI>Charges</HI> which are laid upon me, and freeing my &s;elfe from all &s;uch <HI>oppo&s;ition</HI> to the publick Doctrine of this Church as I &s;tand accu&s;ed for; A crime for which I could not ea&s;ily acquit my &s;elf, and not take notice by the way, how much the Doctrine, Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of <HI>England</HI> were oppo&s;ed by him who laid that heavy charge upon me. In the pur&s;uit of which particulars I have not gone much further (though &s;omewhat further I have gone) then I am warranted and in&s;tructed by Doctor <HI>Bernard</HI> him&s;elf, and po&s;&s;ibly had not gone &s;o far, but that I knew how &s;peedily the examples of &s;ome men may be drawn into practice, their pra|ctice made exemplary, and the <HI>Obliquities</HI> of their judgement taken up as a Rule for others, if warning of the danger be not given in convenient time. <HI>Magnos errores magnorum virorum authoritate tran&s;mitti</HI> (as was well ob&s;erved by <HI>Vadianus</HI>) is a thing too ordinary. It is my wi&s;h, that the bu&s;ine&s;s may re&s;t
<PB N="136" REF="71">
here, though I fear it will not; the Doctors Book being &s;uch a <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;uch an occa&s;ion of creating new contentions, and reviving the old, as if it had been publi&s;ht and intended to no other end then <GAP DESC="foreign">, to put the whole State of <HI>Greece</HI> into fre&s;h combu&s;tions. Others there are, who either are concerned by name, or intere&s;&s;ed in the defence of that which they have formerly written in the Churches cau&s;e, who may conceive them&s;elves obliged to the like engage|ments; as well to do them&s;elves right in the eyes of the world, as to maintain the dignity of the <HI>Epi&s;copal</HI> calling in behalfe of the Church. And to the&s;e la&s;t I &s;hall refer the further pro|&s;ecuting of the point of Epi&s;copacy, as it relates to Doctor <HI>Bernards</HI> actings in it; who by furni&s;hing the Lord <HI>Primates</HI> naked Affirmation with &s;ome Armour of Proof, and citing ma|ny Forraign and Dome&s;tick Authors of the &s;ame opinion, hath made him&s;elf a <HI>&s;econd</HI> party in the Quarrel, and con&s;equently &s;tands bound by the Laws of Duel to abide the Combat. If in that part which I have done, I have done any thing ami&s;s (as I hope I have not) I &s;hall crave pardon for my errors; though I may &s;ay with truth and mode&s;ty enough, <HI>Si fuit errandum, cau&s;as habet error hone&s;tas,</HI> in the Poets language: if well in any thing, I &s;hall expect no thanks for it from the hands of men, con&s;idering that when I have done the be&s;t I can, I am but an unprofitable &s;ervant in the Church of Chri&s;t.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
