the Lord's day was instituted and which in the order of the Answer was first prov'd the Sabbath must in reason surrender to it 3. I shewed it from Col. 2. 16. where the Sabbath is said to be a shadow of things to come and so was to cease by the coming of Christ as the rest of the same kind He saith of this there is as little reason as Scripture but if there be as much reason as Scripture he had no cause to complain But he first takes care to leave out the Scripture and then to exclaim not one Word of Scripture Well! what has he to say to that little Reason that there is He saith The Sabboth did appertain to the Law of Nature and was not a Shadow only of a thing to come but a Memory he would say a Memorial of the Creation But did it otherwise appertain to the Law of Nature than as it was of Divine Institution Or was it then so a Memorial of what was past as not to be a Shadow of somewhat to come Let him see how the Apostle applies it Heb. 4. 9 10. But suppose that it was a Memorial of the Creation as it was and a Shadow to the Jews as he owns then being both were but one and the same day how could the Observation of the Sabbath be abrogated as a Shadow and not also as a Memorial since the same Day that was for the one was also for the other Thus we find there was a Patriarchal Circumcision and a Mosaical as our Saviour shews John 7. 22. And the question then is Whether the Abrogation of the Mosaical was not also the Abrogation of the Patriarchal Circumcision And whether what holds in the one doth not hold in the other 2 d Branch What Text of Scripture exacts of us the keeping the Sunday holy Or what Scripture have we for the Divine Institution of it As to this by way of Preparation I. 1. Gave a general Reason which our Author for a little Advantage has set last and very unworthily abused I shall set them one against the other before the Reader Answer There is as much in the reason of the thing for this peculiar day to be observed in the Christian Church as there was for the Sabbath in the Patriarchal and Jewish Church for what the Moral Sabbath was to Man upon his Creation and the Ceremonial Sabbath was to the Jews upon their deliverance out of Egypt that is the first day of the Week or the Lord's day to Christians upon our Redemption by Christ which was accomplished and testified in his Resurrection on that day Clear Proof The Moral Sabbath in the Patriarchal Church and the Ceremonial in the Jewish Church were on the days following the Creation and Deliverance from Egypt Therefore 't is not to be kept by Christians on the day in which Christ rested after he had accomplished our Redemption on the Cross by a Solemn Consummatum est and his precious Death Not on Saturday And then he Triumphs What can be I will not say more dull but spoken more directly in spight of Sense and Reason And I will add what can be more false than what he here puts upon the Answerer and that is somewhat a worse Charge than Dulness when in spight of honesty he shall thus manifestly pervert that which lay clear before him into ridiculous Nonsense It 's manifest he has here nothing to say unless he will say there is not as much reason in the nature of the thing for the Observation of one day in seven in memory of our Redemption as there was for it in the Creation or the Deliverance out of Egypt 2. I particularly proved it from the Mark of Divine Institution set upon it in the Name the Lord's day Rev. 1. 10. it being usual in Scripture to have the Name of the Lord applied to Times Places Persons and Things when set apart by Divine Institution To this he Replies The Question is What day of the Week that was in the Revelation Or was it only some peculiar day of the year as easter-Easter-day or Good-Friday To which I Answer 1. If the Name of the Lord be not without a reason applied to a Day then it 's evident that no day of the Week has any Colour or Pretence to it but the First day 2. It cannot be reasonably supposed to be some peculiar day of the year as Easter-day or Good-Friday 1. Because we are certain that the first day of the Week was observed in Apostolical times as I shewed from Scripture but we are not certain of these there being not one word of Scripture that looks that way And when St. Austin saith of the Anniversary Observation of the days of Christ's Passion Resurrection Ascension and the Descent of the Holy Ghost that they were observed in the whole World he adds it 's to be belived such things so observed were commanded and appointed by the Apostles or General Councils He saith it 's to be believed they were appointed by one or the other not being able to determine which but we know that there was no General Council till above 300 years after Christ 2. easter-Easter-day which has the nearest pretence both in Reason and Antiquity cannot be the Lord's day because they were distinguished So St. Austin We saith he solemnly celebrate the Lord's day and Easter And the Eastern Churches particularly that of Ephesus where St. John more especally was did observe Easter according to the Moon and not the day of the Week and that so early as An. 197. when Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and a Council of Bishops concurring with him wrote to Victor Bishop of Rome who threatned to Excommunicate them for it that they feared him not for it was better to obey God than Man. As for Good-Friday's being the Lord's day that I believe is a Nostrum of our Author's as well as the Question put by him is What day of the Week the Lords day is on 2. He answers I find forty Texts that call the day of general Judgment or that of each man's death the Lords day but not one that mentions Sunday under that name What follows Therefore the Lord's day St. John was in the Spirit upon was the day of Judgment or death and not Sunday But he will say this is a little too much for the use he makes of this Observation is to shew that that day whatever it was might be called the Lord's day and yet not be of Divine Institution Very well but yet I find the day of Judgment for indeed the day of death is not as far as I remember call'd the Lord's day in Scripture to be of Divine Ordination So Matth. 24. 36. and Acts 17. 31. He hath appointed a day and is therefore a confirmation of what he would confute by it 3. I offer'd further in proof of a Divine Institution That that day was consecrated by the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon it But to this
Guides of that Church For unless the Scripture be explain'd by some one that cannot err it cannot be understood and ye will dangerously err by reading it as Bellarmin argues And yet whether there be such a Church or whether the Church pretending to it be not a fallible and what is worse a deceiving Church or whether the Guides be not false ones a man cannot be so much as morally sure without he consult and understand the Scripture and when all is done according to this Author's way of arguing he may very well be one of those who wrest the Scripture to his own perdition and consequently hath no good ground for any one act of Faith or can be certain that there is a Church or this or that is the true Church c. This Paragraph of his is a kind of Jargon But it affords occasion to put it to him Who are the false Teachers those that with the Pharisees set up Tradition to an equal Authority with Scripture or those that maintain Scripture alone to be of Divine Authority Those that make Scripture to depend upon the Church or those that make the Church to depend upon Scripture Those that teach we are absolutely to submit to the Church and the Guides of it or those that with the Apostle direct us to follow them only as they follow Christ 1 Cor. 11. 1 Those that say men err by reading the Scriptures and so take away from them that Key of Knowledg or those that with our Saviour teach them they err for not knowing them Mat. 22. 29 Those that discourage men from reading the Scriptures because of their pretended obscurity or those that with our Saviour require that they search them and that because they are as the Psalmist saith a light to their paths Those that with the Fathers hold the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation may be clearly proved from Scripture or those that make them to depend upon Church Authority Those that derive theirs down for a thousand years after Christ without any proof from Scripture and precedent Antiquity or those that Reformed their Church 1500 years after Christ but can deduce the Genealogy of their Doctrines from Scripture and Genuine Antiquity for 4 5 and 600 years after I ask him again Who are the Hereticks in the sense he gives us those that with the Donatists in St. Austin's time confine the Church to their own party or those that with the Apostle comprehend in it all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours 1 Cor. 1. 2 Those that exclude the whole world if not of their corrupt Communion or those that according to his Quotation from St. Austin maintain a communion with the whole world Methinks after all he might to return his own words be as much afraid to mention that word Heretic as a Murtherer to come up to the murther'd Corps considering what havoc and devastation they have made amongst those they have call'd by that name I shall give him Quotation for Quotation from St. Austin and so conclude this Question It suffices us that we hold that Church which is demonstrated by most manifest Testimonies of the holy and Canonical Scripture And again Shew that there is some clear and manifest testimony given from Holy Canonical Scriptures to this thy Communion and I do confess we are to go over to thee Q. 3. What are the necessaries to Salvation Here plain and full Scripture will be of great use we may expect shoals of Texts What answer from Scripture is given to this Question think you E'en the same as honest Bays returns to a hard one in the Rehearsal YGad I won't tell you No he gives not one word of answer to it tho it be so material Any one may guess at the reason without casting a figure With what Confidence can the Prover thus impose upon the Reader Was there not one word of Answer returned to this Question Of that let the Answer speak Where it 's thus put Q. 3. What are these Necessaries to Salvation The Answer begins thus Our Author offers three Instances of such Necessaries as are not clearly revealed in Scripture viz. the Trinity the Incarnation of our Saviour and the Observation of the Lords Day And of these the Answerer Discourses for near eight Pages together to shew that the Addresser had to little purpose objected against them So that if the Trinity and Incarnation and the Lord's day are necessaries and for that reason were singled out as Instances of the Scriptures insufficiency and obscurity by the Addresser and on the contrary were defended by the Answerer then surely the 3 d Question no more wants an Answer than the Prover wants Confidence that denies it He writes indeed as if the Question was barely proposed in the Answer and he has used some art to confirm it when he has made as many Questions as there are Instances viz. of the Trinity Incarnation and the Lord's day So that Question the 4 th in the Answer is Question the 7 th in the Proof And this he does that the Reader if he has not the Answer before him may not be aware of his Falsification nor suspect that a man that first of all writes for the Publick and then engaged to set down the Questions in the order of the Answerer could be so false to both as to affirm there is not one word of Answer Q 4 'T is in its whole extent this By what Text of Scripture are we plainly taught that God is One in Substance Three in Person For as Joh. 10 50. Christ says I and my Father are One so 17. 21. he prays That all Believers may be One as he and his Father are one This second place may seem to expound the first and then Christ and his Father will be One only morally as all the Believers be One. Or else what Texts declares the Three Persons to be One by identity of substance Ans Not one Text of Scripture to give us the dubious Sense of the two in Question And yet these men pretend to clear Scripture for each Fundamental Point The Answerer supplies this want of Scripture with two Reasons The first is this Of the Three that bear record in Heaven `t is said they are One but of the Three that bear witness on Earth they agree in one I will admit this English Translation tho Apocryphal But what then But if in both were meant only a moral Vnion it would have been as well said of the Three that bear record in Heaven they agree in One therefore they have more than a moral Vnion Is not this special Logic Would not this way of arguing prove equally that the Believers are one with more than a moral Union because otherwise it might as wâ—ll have been said Joh. 17. May they agree in one The Question is Whether this second clear Text concerning the Three that
of God as his Plenipotentiary Where first his account of a Moral Vnion is very extravagant as if the being employed by another would make him for that reason to be Morally one with him that employs him but that Author is to be pardoned who understands not the difference betwixt a Moral and Political Union And again he shewed himself not acquainted with the matter of Fact when he saith the Heresie of Nestorius consisted in this that he denied Christ to be united to the Word otherwise than Morally whereas St. Cyril saith he granted that Emanuel or Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was constituted and compounded of the Word of God and an Intelligent Soul and a Body But then saith he he divided one Christ into Two so that he that is born of the Virgin is perfect man and the other the Word of God the one mere man the other true God The Word the true and Eternal Son of God but that which is born of the Virgin is equivocally the Son of God. Thus that Father But he will say I am now better informed Thanks to the Answerer who gently intimated to him that he was out of the way and to his Friend that has since set him in the right But after all was there not one word in the Answer as to the Vnity of one Person uniting these two Natures Let him but cast his eye upon it again and he will see this to be the Conclusion of the Argument Then there must be in him Christ two Natures united which is the Incarnation If the Incarnation be the Union of two Natures in Christ the Word and this was rightly inferred from what went before then what shall I say Our Author has not dealt fairly with his Adversary And if this be to be a Nestorian then so was St. Cyril so was the Couneil that condemncd him for so St. Cyril describes the Incarnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Word was united to a Body informed by a Rational Soul. Q. 6. The first branch of this Question is What Scripture hath absolved us from obeying one of the Commandments which imposes the keeping of Saturday holy The second What Text of Scripture exacts of us the keeping holy as the Lords day the Sunday Ans To the first part not one word of Scripture and for excuse he tells us That there was no need of an express abrogation because Sunday being set apart for the publick and solemn Worship of God the Sabboth-day as well as the Holy-days and New-moons of the Jews being a shadow must surrender to the Sunday Here is as little Reason as Scripture for the Sabboth did appertain to the Law of Nature and was not a shadow only of a thing to come but a memory of the past and never-to-be-forgotten benefit of the Creation from the work whereof God rested on that day and blessed the seventh day Here 't is pity at what a loss the Answerer is to find the Chapter and Verse wherein the abrogation of Circumcision is clearly exprest 'T is a charitable condescendency to instruct him let him look then in Gal. 5. 2. where behold Paul tells you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For the second part he produces a Text Rev. 1. 10. I was in spirit on the Lords day then he flourishes to teach us ignorant people that 't is usual in Scripture after that Times Places Things and Persons were set apart for the service of God by Divine Institution to have his Name as a mark of propriety given to them But in the name of sense and reason what means all this There is a Lords day no doubt St. John was in spirit that day 't is certain but the question is What day of the week was it or was it only some peculiar day of the year as easter-Easter-day or Good-friday Hath he Scripture for this Not one word I find forty Texts that call the day of general Judgment or that of each man's death the Lord's day but not one that mentions Sunday under that name I find Act. 2. 46. how they that believed were daily continuing with one accord in the Temple or breaking Bread from house to house but not a word of a day appointed for stated Assemblies Scripture failing our Adversary he seeks supplies from Reason but the misfortune is that the first and chiefest he offers at stands against him The Moral Sabboth says he in the Patriarchal Church and the Ceremonial in the Jewish Church were on the days following the Creation and Deliverance from the Slavery of Aegypt True but what follows Therefore 't is not to be kept by Christians on the day in which Christ rested after he had accomplish`d our Redemption on the Cross by a solemn Consummatum est and his precious Death Not on Saturday Raillery aside what can be I will not say more dull but spoken more directly in spight of sense and reason Our Author for convenience to himself has transposed the Questions so that the first in the Address is now the last Let him quietly enjoy the benefit of it I shall begin as he now begins Q. 1. What Scripture hath absolved us from c. To this I gave in short a Threefold answer 1. He requiring Chapter and Verse I told him When he could find out Chapter and Verse for an express and clear abrogation of Circumcision I would shew him Chapter and Verse for that of the Sabbath Here out of his abundant charitable condescendency he vouchsafes to instruct me and hands me to Gal. 5. 2. Where behold Paul tells you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And yet I do not find there is a clear and express abrogation of it An Abrogation is a total abolition of it and if it was abrogated so as that whoever was thereafter Circumcised could have no profit by Christ then all so Circumcised were in a state of Damnation And here it would be fit to know when this abrogation did commence For Act. 16. 3. we find Paul to Circumcise Timothy and not long before St. Paul's being a Prisoner and being carried to Rome the solemn Assembly declared that there were many thousands of the Jewish Christians which were zealous of the Law and that St. Paul was reputed to be too forward in teaching the Gentiles ought not to circumcise their children Act. 21. 20 21. So that the Apostle's censure of it is not to be universally understood but is only a preventing of their imposing it upon the Gentiles and requiring it as necessary to Justification and Salvation And of these that held it thus necessary he saith If ye be circumcised upon these terms Christ shall profit you nothing if ye are justified and expect justification by the Law ye are fallen from grace ver 4. 2. I shewed there was no more a need of an express abrogation of the Sabbath than there was of the abrogation of Circumcision because if