the not promoting of it to compell them to desert their Stations and abandon their livings in which their very vitality and livelihood consisted Fol. 127. Then which there could be nothing more uncharitably or untruly said This as he makes there the first project of exasperation which Archbishop Laud and his confederates of the same stamp pitched upon to let his professed Enemies feel the dint of his spirit so doth he call it in the King a profane Edict a maculating of his own honour and a sacrilegious robbing of God All which though afterwards left out declare his willingnesse to make both Prince and Prelates and the dependants of those Prelates the poor Doctor of Cosmography among the rest feel the dint of his spirit and pity 't was he was not suffered to go on in so good a purpose Our Author having intimated in the way of a scorn or jâ—ar that the Divinity of the Lords day was new Divinity at the Court was answered by the Observator that so it was by his leave in the Countrey too not known in England till the year 1595. c. The Observator said it then I shal prove it now and having proved it in the Thesis or proposition will after return answer to those objections which the Pamphleter hath brought against it And first it is to be observed that this new Divinity of the Lords day was unknown to those who suffered for Religion and the testimony of a good conscience under Henry 8. as appeareth by John Fryth who suffered in the year 1533 in a tract by him written about Baptism Our fore-fathers saith he which were in the beginning of the Church did abrogate the Sabbath to the intent that men might have an Ensample of Christian Liberty c. Howbeit because it was necessary that a day should be reserved in which the people should come together to hear the word of God they ordained in stead of the Sabbath which was Saturday the next day following which is Sunday And though they might have kept the Saturday with the Jew as a thing indifferent yet they did much better Next to him followeth Mr. Tyndall famous in those times for his translation of the Bible for which and for many of his Doctrines opposite to the Church of Rome condemned unto the flames annâ— 1536. in the same Kings reign who in his Answer to Sir Thomaâ— More hath resolved it thus As for the Sabbath we be Lords over the Sabbath and may yet change it into Munday or into any other day as we see need or may make every tenth day holiday only if we see cause why neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday but to put a difference between us and the Jewes neither need we any holy day at all if the people might be taught without it The same Doctrine publickly defended in the writings of Bishop Hooper advanced to the Miter by King Edward and by Queen Mary to the Crown the crown oâ— Martyrdome in a Treatise by him written on the Ten Commandements anno 1550. who resolves it thus We may not think saith he that God gave any more holinesse to the Sabbath then to the other daies For if ye consider Friday Saturday or Sunday in as much as they be daies and the work of God the one is no more holy then the other but that day is alwaies most holy in the which we most apply and give our selves unto Holy works No notice taken by these Martyrs of this new Divinity The first speaking of the observation of the Lords day no otherwise then as an institution grounded on their forefathers a constitution of the Church the second placing no more Morality in a seventh-day then in a tenth-day Sabbath and the third making all daies wholly alike the Sunday no otherwise then the rest As this Divinity was new to those godly Martyrs so was it also to those Prelates and other learned men who composed the first and second Liturgies in the reign of King Edward or afterwards reviewed the same in the first year of Queen Elizabeth anno 1558. in none of which there is more care taken of the Sunday then the other Holydaies no more divine offices performed or diligent attendance required by the old Lawes of this Land upon the one then on the other No notice taken of this new Divinity in the Articles of Religion as they were published anno 1552. or as they were revised and ratified in the tenth year after no order taken for such a strict observation of it as might entitle it unto any Divinity either in the Orders of 1561. or the Advertisements of 1565. or the Canons of 1571. or those which â—ollowed anno 1575. Nothing that doth so much as squint towardâ— this Divinity in the writings of any learned man of this Nation Protestant Papist Puritan of what sort soever till broached by Dr. Bound anno 1595. as formerly hath been affirmed by the Observator But because the same truth may possibly be more grateful to our Author from the mouth of another then from that of the ignorant Observator I would desire him to consult the new Church History writ by a man more sutable to his own affections and so more like to be believed About this time saith he throughout England began the more solemn and strict observation of the Lords Day hereafter both in writing and preaching commonly call'd the Sabbath occasioned by a book this year set forth by P. Bound Dr. in Divinity and enlarged with additions anno 1606. wherein the following opinions are maintained 1. That the Commandement of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is moral and perpetual 2. That whereas all other things in the Jewish Church were taken away Priesthood Sacrifices and Sacraments his Sabbath was so changed as it still remaineth 3. That there is a great reason why we Christians should take our selves as strictly bound to rest upon the Lords day as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath it being one of the moral Commandements where all are of equall authority lib. 9. sect 20. After this he goeth on to tell us how much the learned men were divided in their judgements about these Sabbatarian Doctrines some embraced them as ancient truths consonant to Scripture long disused and neglected now seasonably revived for the increase of piety others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottome but because they tended to the manifest advance of Religion it was pity to oppose them seeing none have just reason to complain being deceived into their own good But a third sort flatly fell out with these positions as galling mens necks with a Jewish yoke against the Liberty of Christians That Christ as Lord of the Sabbath had removed the rigour thereof and allowed men lawful Recreations that his Doctrine put an unequal lustre on the Sunday on set purpose to eclipse all other Holy daies to the derogation of the authority of the Church that this strict
as for Vrsine he makes this difference between the Lords day and the Sabbath Catech qu. 103. 2. That it was utterly unlawful to the Jewes either to neglect or change the Sabbath without expresse commandment from God himself as being a ceremonial part of divine worship but for the Christian Church that may design the first or second or any other day to Gods publick service so that our Christian liberty be not thereby infringed or any opinion of necessity or holinesse affixt unto them Ecolesia vero Christiana primum vel alium diem tribuit Ministerio salva sua libertate sine opinione cultus vel necessitatis as his words there are To these adde Dietericus a Lutheran Divine who though he makes the keeping of one day in seven to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandment yet for that day it may be Dies Sabbati or Dies Solis or Quicunque alius Sunday or Saturday or any other be it one in seven Som. 17. post Trinit And so Hospinian is perswaded Dominicum diem mutare in alium transferre licet c. That if the occasions of the Church do so require the Lords day may be changed unto any other provided it be one of seven and that the change be so transacted that it produce no scandal or confusion in the Church of God Nay by the Doctrine of the Helvetian Churches every particular Church may destinate what day they please to Religious Meetings to publick prayers Preaching the Word and Ministring the Sacraments For so they gave it up in their confession cap. 2. Deligit ergo quaevis Ecclesia sibi certum tempus ad preces publicas Evangelii praedicationem nec non Sacramentorum celebrationem And howsoever for their own parts they kept that day which had been set apart for those holy uses even from the time of the Apostles yet that they conceived it free to keep the Lords day or the Sabbath Sed Dominicum non Sabbatum libera observatione celebramus Some Sectaries since the Reformation have gone further yet and would have had all daies alike as unto their use all equally to be regarded And reckoned that the Lords day as the Church continued it was a Jewish Ordinance thwarting the Doctrine of S. Paul who seemed to them to abrogate the difference of daies which the Church retained This was the fancie or the frenzie rather of the Anabaptist taking the hint perhaps from something which had formerly been delivered by some wiser men and after them of the Swinckfieldian and the Familist as in the times before of the Petro-Brusians and if Waldensis wrong him not of Wicklef also By this it will appear that the Doctor had no reason to forge and falsifie Pareus as the Pamphleter saith he did when the whole current of Protestant and reformed Divines do affirm that point for which Paraeus is produced A greater vindication needs not in a case so clear and sooner had this vindication been made if this foul charge had sooner come unto his ears The Pamphleter findes fault with the Observator in that he did not viva voâ—e by conference or by letters hint those mistakes to him which were found in his History as fit considerations for a second impression Fol. 44. The Dr. findes the same fault in him by whom he stands accused of forging and falsifying a Record and thinks it would have represented him to be a man of more Christian yea moral principles to have given him a private admonition touching that mistake if it prove such upon the search of all Editions then lay so soul a charge upon him in so great a controversie By this it also will appear 1. That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines the sanctifying one day in seven is not the moral part of the 4. Commandement 2. That the Lords day hath no other ground on which to stand then the Authority of the Church And 3. That the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other Crack me these nuts my most learned sir and when you have broke your teeth about them as I doubt you will throw me your never-yet-answered piece of 640. and if the Doctors eyes and leisure will not serve to do it 't is ten to one but I will finde some friend or other that shall kick you an Answer CHAP. V. Our Authors opinion touching the Divine right of Episcopacy and his intention doubted in it Bishops and Presbyters not alwayes of equivalent import in Holy Scripture Proofs that the word Bishop in the first of Tim. c. 3. is taken properly and restrictively drawn 1. From the word there used in the singular number 2. From his fitness for Government 3. From the Hospitality required in him And 4. From his being no Novice but of longer standing in the Church Presbyters there included under the name Diaconi more properly in that place to be rendred Ministers The like acceptions of the word in other places Proofs that the Author speakes his own opinion under that of others 1. From the word Asserted which is here explained 2. From some passages in the published and unpublished sheets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not rendred Senior as the Pamphleter would fain have it in all learned Authors The word Presbyter fitter to be used then Elder in our English Translations Mr. Selden no good friend to Bishops and the reason why The reason why King Charles his Testimony in behalf of Episcopacy was not produced by the Observator The Pamphleters rage for being said to make Episcopacy but a thing of indifferency That so he must be understood proved from the History it self and the weak arguments brought by the Pamphleter to the contrary An Answer to those Arguments HAving thus vindicated the Declarations of the two Kings about lawfull Sports satisfied the objections of the Pamphleter and cleared the Dr. from the forgings and falsifyings so maliciously imputed to him and therewithall layed down the true state of the Controversie touching the Lords day out of the writings of the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Churches it is high time we should proceed to the rest that follows and free the Bishops and their Actions from those odious Calumnies which are charged upon them Our Author fol. 36. and 37. hath not unhandsomely stated the whole point of Episcopacy ascribing a Divine Right to it and thinks it as demonstrable out of Scriptures as any thing whatsoever not fundamentall That there was a Prelacy or Superiority of some one over other Presbyters within some certain Walks and Precincts that this Superiority was appointed by the very Apostles to be exemplary and to give law to succeeding times Concerning which and many other good expressions which follow after I may justly say as Bellarmine did of Calvin in another Case viz. Vtinam sic semper errasset would he had never erred otherwise then he doth in this Only I could have wished that for the better clearing of
certainly not so commanded by our Saviour Christ and if designed only then not enjoyned by the Apostles Yea Beza though herein he differ from his Master Calvin and makes the Lords day meetings Apostolicae verae divinae traditionis Apoc. 1. 10. to be indeed of Apostolical and divine tradition yet being a tradition only although Apostolical it is no commandement And more then that he tels us in another place in Act 20. that from St. Pauls preaching at Troas and from the Text 1 Cor. 16. 2. Non inepte colligi it may be gathered not unfitly that then the Christians were accustomed to meet that day the ceremony of the Jewish Sabbath beginning by degrees to vanish But sure the custome of the people makes no divine traditions and such conclusions as not unfitly may be gathered from the Text are not Text it self Others there be who attribute the changing of the day to the Apostles not to their precept but their practise So Mercer in Gen. Apostoli in Dominicum converterunt the Apostles changed the Sabbath to the Lords day Paraeus attributes the same Apostolicae Ecclesiae unto the Apostolical Church or Church in the Apostles times Quomodo autem facta sit haec mutatio in Sacris literis expressum non habemus but how by what authority such a change was made is not delivered as he confesseth in the Scripture And John Cuchlinus in Thesib pag. 733. though he call it consuetudinem Apostolicam an Apostolical custome yet he is peremptory that the Apostles gave no such commandment Apostolos praeceptum reliquisse constanter negamus S. Simler de Festis Chr. p. 24 cals it only consuetudinem tempore Apostolorum recâ—ptam a custome taken up in the Apostles time And so Hospinian Although saith he it be apparent that the Lords day was celebrated in the place of the Jewish Sabbath even in the times of the Apostles Non invenitur tamen vel Apostolos vel alios Lege aliqua Praecepto observationem ejus instituisse yet finde we not that either they or any other did institute the keeping of the same by any Law or Precept but left it free Thus Zanchius in 4. praecept Nullibi legimus Apostolos c. We do not read saith he that the Apostles commanded any to observe this Day we only read what they and others did upon it Liberum ergo reliquerunt which is an argument that they left it to the Churches power To those adde Vrsin in his Exposition on the fourth Commandment in Catech. Palat. Liberum Ecclesiae reliquit alios dies eligere that it is left unto the Church to make choice of any day and that the Church made choice of this in honour of our Saviours Resurrection and so Aretius in his common places Christiani in Dominicum transtulerunt that by the Christian people the Sabbath was translated to the Lords day Gomarus and Ryvet in the Tracts before remembred have determined further viz. That in the choosing of this day the Church did exercise as well her wisdome as her freedome her freedome being not obligâ—d to any day by the Law of God her wisdome Ne majori mutatione Judaeos offenderet that by so small an alteration she might the lesse offend the Jewes who were then considerable As for the Lutheran Divines it is affirmed by Dr. Bound That for the most part they ascribe too much unto the liberty of the Church in appointing daies for the assembly of the people which is plain confession But for particulars Brentius as Dr. Prideaux tels us cals it Civilem institutionem a civil institutionem and no Commandement of the Gospel which is no more indeed then what is elsewhere said by Calvin when he accounts no otherwise thereof then ut remedium retinendo ordini necessarium as a fit way to retain order in the Church And sure I am Chemnitius tels us that the Apostles did not impose the keeping of this day as necessary upon the consciences of Gods people by any Law or Precept whatsoever sed libera fuit observatio ordinis gratia but that for orders sake it had been voluntarily used amongst them of their own accord 8 Thus have we proved by the Doctrine of the Protestants of what side soeever and those of greatest credit in their several Churches eighteen by name and all the Lutherans in general of the same opinion That the Lords day is of no other institution then the Authority of the Church which proved the last of the three Theses That still the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other will follow of it self on the former grounds the Protestant Doctors before remembred in saying that the Church did institute the Lords day as we see they do confessing tacitely that still the Church hath power to change it Nor do they tacitely confesse it as if they were affraid to speak it out but some of them in plain terms affirm it as a certain truth Zuinglius the first reformer of the Switzers hath resolved it so in his discourse against one Valentine Gentilis a new Arrian Heretick Tom. 1. p. 254. a. Audi mi Valentine quibus modis rationibus Sabbatum Ceremoniale reddatur Hearken now Valentine by what waies and means the Sabbath may be made a Ceremony if either we observe that day which the Jewes once did or think the Lords day so affixed to any time ut nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transferre that we conceive it an impiety it should be changed unto another on which as well as upon that we may not rest from labour and hearken to the word of God if perhaps such necessity should be this would indeed make it become a Ceremony Nothing can be more plain then this yet Calvin is as plain when he professeth That he regarded not so much the number of seven ut ejus servituti Ecclesias astringeret as to enthral the Church unto it Sure I am Doctor Prideaux in Orat. de Sab. reckoneth him as one of them who teach us that the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other And that John Barclaie makes report how once he had a consultation de transferenda Dominica in Feriam quintam of altering the Lords day unto the Thursday Bucer affirmes as much as touching the Authority And so doth Bullinger and Brentius Vrsine and Chemnitius as Doctor Prideaux hath observed Of Bullinger Bucer Brentius I have nought to say because the places are not cited but take it as I think I may upon his credit But for Chemnitius he saith often that it is libera observatio a voluntary observation that it is an especial part of our Christian liberty not to be tyed to daies and times in matters which concern Gods service and that the Apostles made it manifest by their example Singulis diebus vel quocunque die That every day or any day may by the Church be set apart for Religious Exercises And
that he had carried it with too high a hand others that he had done no more than what he was obliged to do for his own justification What think you my most precious Author where is the creeping aud cringing the crawling and crouching which your Pamphlet speaks of where that servility of carriage which made his Lordship merry at the sight thereof though possibly as the case then stood in that very nick of time when the Bishop might either stand his Friend or appear his Foe a little cringing in the Doctor had not been scandalous as the Gentleman makes it Nor did the Doctor only consult his Fame but he took order to provide for his safety also And therefore understanding what reports had been spread abroad upon the accident some saying that the Bishop had interrupted him for preaching against the Scots some of whose oÌ„ nissioners were then present others for preaching in defence of Transubstantiation others for Arminianism and I know not what he gave an accompt thereof to the King and then transcribed a copy of the whole passage which had been and was to have been spoken and sent it in a letter to Mr. John White of the Temple whom he observed to be at the Sermon desiring him to communicate it at the next sitting of the Committee that when he was to appear before them the second time they might be satisfied in all things touching that particular Which addresse took so good effect that Mr. White though most eagerly bent against the Doctor at his first appearance did the businesse for him reading the whole passage to that Committee and testified what he saw and noted when he was at the Sermon and thereupon it was declared by the unanimous voice of all then present that there was nothing in that passage which did not become an honest man to speak and a good Christian to hear and not so only but that the Bishop was transported beyond his bounds and failed in his accustomed prudence And this perhaps both smoothed the way unto the Doctor for his next appearance where he found better entertainment than he did at the first and drew the Bishop unto gentler and more moderate Counsels But to proceed matters continuing between them in this State till aftre Candelmas the Sub-dean findeth the Doctor walking in the Common Orchard perswades him to apply himself to the Bishop as being better able to help or hurt him than any other whatsoever pressing the point with such a troublesom importunity that the Doctor asked him at the last whether that Proposition came from himself or the Bishop of Lincoln If from himself it would no otherwise be look'd upon than a fruitles motion if from the Bishop it would require some further time of consideration Being assured that it came from the Bishop and that he should not doubt of a fair reception he took some time to consider of it and to acquaint some friends therewith for removing of all such umbrages and misapprehensions as otherwise that interparlance might have occasioned which having done he signified to the Subdean about 2 days after that he would wait upon his Lordship in the evening following being Saturday night when he conceived his Lordship would be most at leasure from the businesse and affairs of Parliament His Lordship being thus prepared the Dr. went accordingly to perform his visit but finding some company in the room whom he knew to be of the Scotish Nation he recoyled again followed immediatly at the heels by a Gentleman whom the Bishop sent after him to let him know that the Company was upon the parting and that he should find his Lordship all alone at his coming back as indeed he did Being returned he was presently taken by his Lordship into his private Gallery his Servants commanded to withdaw and the Doctor left in private with him where after some previous expostulations on the one side and honest defences on the other they came by little and little unto better terms and at the last into that familiarity and freedom of discourse as seemed to have no token in it of the old displeasures the Bishop in conclusion accompanying the Doctor out of the Gallery commanding one of his Servants to light him home and not to leave him till he brought him to his very door After which time the Doctor never saw him more except at the Church till his second commitment to the Tower whither the Doctor going on some other occasion resolved to pay unto him the homage of a dutifull attendance lâ—st else his Grace for then he was Archbishop of York hearing that he had giâ—en a visit to the rest of the Bishops coÌ„mitted at the same time for the Protestation might think the former breach between them was not well made up And at this time I trow there was no need of creeping and â—ringing and crouching The Doctors affairs being at that time and â—ong before â—n a good condition and that Arch-bishops in as bad as the fury of a popular â—atred could expose him to This is the â—ruth the whole truth and nothing but the â—ruth as to the Doctors carriage in this particular and to the sorry plight which â—he Pamphleter makes him to be in at â—he time of these supposed cringings and â—servile crouchings The Readers pardon being asked if any shall vouchsafe to read it for this long but not unnecessary digression I goe on again The Observator being freed from those failings and forgings those falsifyings and corruptings which the Pamphleter had charged upon him it will be worth our time to see whether our Author be not truly guilty of the self same crime which he falsly lays unto his charge in falsifying and corrupting the Text of his own History by soisting many words into it to make his quarrel with the Observator the more just and rational For as I have some where read of Calvin that having first made his Book of Institutions he did afterwards so translate and expound the Scripture as to make it speak agreeable to the sense and Doctrine which he had published in that Book so I may very safely say that our Author having framed his answer to the observations as much to the disadvantage of the Observator as he possibly could did after change and alter the very sense of his History to make it speak agreeable to the words of his Pamphlet as for example 1. The Observator faulted it in the Historian for saying that as a man without a female consort so a King without his supreme Councel was but a half-formed sterill thing the natural extracts of the one for so it followeth in the Author procreated without a wife being not more spurious than the politique descendents of the other without the Caution of a representative This looked on by the Observator as a Paradox most dangerous to supreme Authority in making Parliaments so necessary to all acts of State as if that Kings or they that have the
observance was set up out of Faction to be a character of difference to brand all for Libertines who did not entertain it sect 21. He telleth us finâ—lly that the Book was afterwards called in and commandâ—d to be no more printed The Doctrine opsed by the Archbishop and the maintainers of it punished by Judge Popham though by the diligence and counterworking of the brethren it got ground again This being said we shall proceed unto the answering of the Pamphleters arguments not more remarkable for their paucity then they are for their weaknesse He telleth us first that Archbishop Whitgift in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition saith in the present tense that the Sabbath is superstitiously used by some and speaks soon after of a Sabbath then commanded by the fourth Precept The Pamphleter hereupon inferreth that he could not mean the Jewish Sabbath and if not that it must of necessity be the Lords day Fol. 23. Here is a stout argument indeed able to knock down any man which thinks the contrary for mark the inference thereof Archbishop Whitgift gives unto the Lords day in a Metaphorical and figurative sense the name of Sabbath Ergo which is in English therefore it must be kept with all the rigors and severities which were â—equired unto the observation of the Sabbath by the Law of Moses or therefore which is in Latine Ergo there is as much divinity in the Lords day now by whomsoever it was ordained as had been heretofore ascribed to the Sabbath-day of Gods own appointing And then again the Lords day is by him called a Sabbath and said to be there commanded by the fourth precept therefore there is such a Divinity in it as Dr. Bound ascribes to his Lords daies Sabbath according to his Articles and petitions laid down Did ever man so argue in a point which he makes to be of so great concernment or make so ill a choice both of the Medium and the Author which he groundeth upon First of the Medium for may we not conclude by the self-same Logick that there is a Divinity in all the holydaies of the Church because all grounded on and warranted by the fourth commandement as all learned writers say they are and that there is a Divinity in Tithes and Churches because both places set apart for sacred Actions and maintenance also for the persons which officiate in them as the Pamphleter afterwards alledgeth are included also in this precept If there be a Divinity in these let our Author speak out plainly and pleaâ— as strongly for the Divinity or divine Institution of Tithes and Churches as he hath done or endevours to do at least for the Divinity of the Lords dayes Sabbath If none in these and I conceive our Author will not say there is though grounded on the warrant of the fourth Commandement let him not dâ—eam of any such Divinity in the Lords day because now kept by vertue of that precept also But worse luck hath the Gâ—nt in the choice of his Author then in that of his Medium there being no man that more disrelished and opposed this new Divinity of the Sabbath and all the Sabbatarian errors depending on it then this most reverend Prelate did insomuch that he commanded Bounds Book to be called in upon the first discovery of the Doctrines delivered in it which certâ—inly he had not done if he had been of the same Judgement with that Doctor or had meant any such thing in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition which our Pamphleteâ— hath put upon him Assuredly unless the Pamphleter had been bribed to betray the cause and justifie the Observator he would have passed over the debating of this new Divinity or else found more then one man in the space of 36 years so long it was from the first of Queen Elizabeth to the coming out of Bounds Book to have spoken for him and such a man as had not shewed himself so professed an enemy to the newnesse of it by causing the Book to be called in that the Brethren commonly used to say that out of envy to their proceedings he had caused such a pearl to be concealed Let us next see what comfort he can finde from the book of Homilies of which he saith that there was not any thing more especially taught in them then the Divinity of the Lords day This he affirmes but they that look into that Book will finde many points more specially taught and more throughly pressed then this Divinity he talketh of witnesse those long and learned Homilies upon the peril of Idolatry against disobedience and rebellion of these last six at least in number besides many others But if it can be proved at all no matter whether specially or more specially that shall make no difference and that it may be proved he telleth us that they say God in that Precept speaking of the â—ourth commandeth the observation of the Sabbath which is our Sunday Fol. 23. If this be so and to be understood of such a Divinity or such a divine institution of the Lords day as our Author would fain put upon it first then we must have some expresse warrant and command from God himself altering the day from the seventh day of the week on which he commanded it to be kept by the Law of Moses unto the first day of the week on which it is now kept by the Church of Christ But secondly that Homily I mean that Of the time and place of prayer doth inform us thus That the goldly Christian people began to follow the example and commandement of God immediately after the Ascension of our Lord Christ and began to choose them a standing day of the week to come together yet not the seventh day which the Jewes kept but the Lords day the day of the Lords Resurrection the day after the seventh day which is the fiâ—st day of the week c. And thirdly it is said in the same Homily that by this commandement we ought to have a time as one day in the week wherein we ought to rest yea from our lawful and needful works c. Which passages being laid together will amount to this first that the Homilie doth not say that by the fourth Commandement we ought to have one day in the week which is plainly peremptory but that we ought to have a time as one day in the week which is plainly Arbitrary Secondly that being Arbitrary in it self and so esteemed of by the Christians in the Primitive times they thought it good immediately after Christs â—scension to choose a standing day of the week to come together in namely the Lords day or the day of the Resurrection Not that they were required so to do by the fourth commandement which limited the Sabbath the ordinary time of worship to the day foregoing nor commanded so to do by Christ this choice of the day not being made till after his ascension and no command of his approving
in the holy Scripture nor finally by any Precept or Injunction of the holy Apostles of which as the Scriptures are quite silent so the Homilie ascribes it wholly to the voluntary choice of godly Christian people without any mention made at all of their authority So the then meaning of those words produced by our Author for the ground of this new Divinity will be only this that as God rested on the seventh day and commanded it to be kept wholly by the Jewes so the godly Christian people after Christs Ascension following his example and warranting themselves by his Authority did choose a seventh day of the week though not the same which had been kept holy by the Jewes for the day of worship And this is all we are to trust to for the Divinity or Divine institution of the Lords day Sabbath from the Book of Homilies neither so positively nor so clearly rendred as to lay a fit or sure foundation for so great a building In the next place the Pamphleter quarrels with the Observator for making it a prodigie and a paradox too that neither the order nor revenues of the Evangelical Priesthood should have any existence but in relation to the Divinity of the Lords day But Sir the Observator doth not only say it but he proves it too and proves it by the authority of the holy Scriptures mentioning the calling of the Apostles of the seventy Disciples of S. Paul and others to the work of the Ministery and pleading strongly in behalf of an Evangelical maintenance as belonging to them at such time as the Lords day no such existence no such Divinity of existence as our Author speaks of In stead of answering to these proofs the Pamphleter telleth us that there is not a man of note who treateth of the 4. Commandement himself especially for one and the chief one too that owneth not this prodigious opinion and therefore askeâ—h where this Observator haâ—h been brought up that this Tenet of his yeâ— of all learned men should be so wondred at to be called a prodigie Fol. 23. But the reply to this will be very easie For first all the men of note which write upon the 4. Commandement all learned men our Author too into the bargain are no fit ballance for S. Paul nor able to counterpoise the expresse and clear Authority of the holy Scriptures And secondly the Pamphleter after his great brag that all learned men almost all men of note which write upon the 4 Commandement are of his opinion is fain to content himself at the present with only one and such an one who though he be instaâ— omnium with the Pamphleter is not so with me nor with the Observator neither Not that we fail in any part of due honour to that Reverend Prelate whose name he useth to make good the point which is in question but that we think the work imputed to him by the Pamphleter to be none of his never owned by him in his life nor justified for his by any of relation or nearnesse to him therefore to undeceive so many as shall read these papers they may please to know that in the year 1583. Mr. Andrewes was made the Catechist of Pembrook-hall for the instruction of the younger students of that house in the grounds of Divinity that though he was then but a young man yet his abilities were so well known that not only those of the same foundation but many of other Colledges in that University and some out of the Countrey also came to be his Auditors that some of them taking notes of his Lectures as well as they could were said to have copies of his Catechizing though for most part very imperfect and in many points of consequence very much mistaken that after his coming to be Bishop he gave a special warrant unto one of his Chaplains not to own any thing for his that was said to have been taken by notes from his mouth And finally that hearing of the coming out of that Catechism as in discourse with those about him he would never own it nor liked to have it mentioned to him so he abolished as it seemeth his own original Copy which they that had command to search and sort his papers could not finde in his study and though this Catechism came out since in a larger volume yet not being published according to his own papers although under his name it can no more be said to be his then many false and supposititious writings foisted into the works of Ambrose Augustine and almost all the ancient Fatheâ—â— may be counted theirs Of all this I am punctually advertised by an eminâ—nt person of near admission to that Prelate when he was alive and a great honourer of him since his death and have thought fit to signifie as much upon this occasion to disabuse all such whom the name of this most reverend Prelate might else work upon which said there needs no Answer to this doughty argument which being built upon a ruinous and false foundation fals to the ground without more â—doe as not worth the answering We see by this that all the learned men which our Author brags of are reduced to one which one upon examination proves as good as none if not worse then nothing But the Pamphleter may be pardoned for coming short in this present project in regard of the great pains he had taken in writing a Book of the Doctrine of the Sabbath or Divinity of the Lords day published in the year 1640. unto which Treatise he refers all men who shall desire his judgement in that subject that Book being never yet answered by any as he gallantly braves it Fol. 24. In this there are many things to be considered For first it is probable enough that this Treatise to which we are referred for our satisfaction was either so short lived or made so little noise abroad that it was not heard of For had it either moved so strongly or cryed so loud that it intituled our Author the dear Father of it to any Estate of Reputation for term of life as Tenant by the courtesie of the gentle Reader it is not possible but that we should have had some tale or tidings of it in so long a time and therefore I conceive that it was still-born and obscurely buried and perhaps buried by the Man-midwife I mean the Bookseller or Printer who gave it birth before the Godfathers and Godmothers and the rest of the good Gossips could be drawn together to give a name unto the Inâ—ant or at the best like the solstitial herb in Plautus quae repentino orta est repentino occidit withered as soon as it sprang up and so came to nothing Secondly if it were not answered I would not have the Gent think that it was therefore not answered because unanswerable though he were apt enough to think so without this Praecaution but for other reasons For first the year 1640. was a busie year
and brought so much trouble and encumbrance on the English Clergy as gave them neither list nor leisure to answer all impertinent scribbles which by the liberty of that time and the audaciousnesse thereby prompted unto severall men did break out upon them Securi de salute de gloria certemus as you know who said Men have small edge to fight for honour and undertake unprofitable and fruitlesse quarrels when unsecure of life and safety and all things else which are most near and dear unto them But secondly taking it for granted that some men were at leisure to attend those services how may we be assured that there was any thing in the book which was worth the answering or that any credit could be gotten from the work or Author For it is possible enough that every man might not have such opinion of you as you say the Observator had who did therefore if you judge aright of his intentions professe an high esteem of your parts and person only to make the world believe that you were worthy the overcoming And if they did not think so of you they had all the reason in the world to decline a combate ubi vincere inglorium esset atteri sordidum in which to overcome or to be conquered is like inglorious But whatsoever opinion the Observator had of you you have not the like opinion of his Alter idem the Doctor in Cosmography as you please to taunt him whom you accuse for forging and falsifying a Record so boldly the modest Gent. will not say so impudently and that too not in an idle circumstance but in the grand concernment of a controversie with spight and calumny enough And why all this Marry say you in the second book and 6. Chapter of his History of the Sabbath published in the year 1636. he hath misreported the words of Pareus in putting down quomodo for quando adding withall in vindication whereof he never attempted any thing as yet Fol. 24. This I confesse is grave crimen ante hoc tempus inaudiâ—um a grievous câ—ime the like to which was never charged upon him by his greatest enemies In answer whereunto I must tell you for him that being plundred of his Books and keeping no remembrances and collections of his Studies by him he cannot readily resolve what Edition he followed in his consulting with that Author He alwaies thought that Tenure in capite was a nobler and more honourable tenure then to hold by Copy and therefore carelesly neglected to commit any part of his readings unto notes and papers of which he never found such want as in this particular which you so boldly charge upon him Or were it so as you inform us both he and I have cause to wonder why our learned Author did not rather choose to confute that whole History of the Sabbath then spend his time in hammering some petit Tractate of which the world hath took no notice that being a work which might have rendred him considerable and made more noise then all the Geese in the Capitol to the awakening of the dull Doctor and the drowsie Clergie or if he thought this task too great and the burden too heavie for his shoulders why did he let these falsifyings and forgings slâ—p 20 years together and never call to an accompt for it till this present time when it may justly be supposed that not your zeal unto the truth but secret malice to his person did exâ—ort it from you Thirdly I am required to tell you that if there be such a mistake in the citation which he more then doubts it was not willingly and wilfully committed by him and therefore not within the compasse of those forgings and falsifyings which you tax him with For he would fain know cui bono or cui malo rather to what end whether good or bad he should use those forgings or falsifyings in that Author when he was compassed about with a cloud of witnesses attesting positively and plainly to the point in hand or what need there should be of practising on Pareus to appear fair for him when more then a whole Jury of learned and Religious men as learned and as good as he had given up their verdict in the case Now that this may appear to be so indeed and that withall the Reâ—der may understand the true state of the Question I will lay down that Section which the Pamphleter doth refer us to together with the next before it and the next that followes and so submit the whole controverâ—ie to his better judgement This only is to be premised that the 5. section shews that the Reformators found great fault both with the new Doctrine of the Papist about the natural and inherent holinesse which they ascribe to some daies above the rest and the restraints from Labour on the Lords day and the other holy daies upon which it followeth in these words viz. 6 Indeed it is not to be thought that they could otherwise resolve and determine of it considering what their Doctrine is of the day it self how different they make it from a Sabbath day which doctrine that we may perceive with the greater ease we will consider it in three propositions in which most agree 1. That the keeping holy one day of seven is not the Moral part of the fourth Commandement or to be reckoned as a part of the Law of Nature 2. That the Lords day is not founded on divine Commandement but only on the authority of the Church And 3. That the Church â—ath still Authority to change the day and to transfer it to some other First for the first it seems that some of Rome considering the restraints before remembred and the new Doctrine thence arising about the natural and inherent holinesse which one day had above another had altered what was formerly delivered amongst the Schoolmen and made the keeping of one day in seven to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandement This Calvin Instit l. 2. c. 8. 11. 34. chargeth them withall that they had taught the people in the former times that whatsoever was ceremonial in the fourth Commandement which was the keeping of the Jewes seventh day had been long since abrogated Remanere vero quod morale est nempe unius diei observationem in hebdomade but that the moral part thereof which was the keeping of one day in seven did continue still Which what else is it as before was said then in dishonour of the Jewes to change the day and to affix as great a sanctity thereunto as the Jewes ever did As for his own part he proâ—esseth that howsoever he approved of the Lords day meetings Non tamen numerum septenarium ita se morari ut ejus servituti ecclesias astringeret yet stood not he so much for the number of seven as to confine the Church unto it If Calvin elsewhere be of another minde and speak of keeping holy one day in seven as a matter