sense it is not in force at all for both Lawyers say and reason it self shews that a law is no longer in force then the words of it are in force at least those that contain the substance of it Laud The Primitive Church kept both the Sabbath and the Lords day till the time of the Laodicaean Council about 300 years after Christs Nativity and almost in every thing made them equal and therefore did not esteem the Lords day to be substituted in the place of the obliterated Sabbath but a Feast celebrated by great reason and perpetual consent without Precept or necessary Divine injunction Gr. Ex. part 2. p. 119. Pacif. There are in the few words by you uttered certain things that you must pardon me if I cannot presently close with 1. You say that the Primitive Church till the Laodicaean Council kept both the Sabbath and the Lords Day Quanta est haec propositio Do you mean that the whole Primitive Church did so that will be hard if not impossible to prove for the Books that are come to our hands have neither declared nor do they pretend to declare what all the Churches of Christ did nay it appears from Socrates that the Roman and Alexandrian Church kept not the Saturday at all as I think is acknowledged by Dr. Heylin himself Part. 2. But dato sed non concesso that there had been such an universal custom of observing both dayes how doth it hence follow that the Lords Day was not substituted in the place of the obliterated Sabbath Would you argue that Baptism came not in the place of Circumcision because to gain over the weak Jews they used Circumcision for some season They might use the Saturday as a meeting day that by complying with the Jews and Proselytes they might obtain familiar access and gain opportunity to instruct them in the Christian Faith by reason that the people had been accustomed to meet together on that day Laud Ignatius would have both dayes observed the Sabbath first though not as would the Ebionites in a Jewish sort and after that the Lords Day which he so much magnifieth the better to abate that high esteem which some had cast on the Sabbath Hist. of Sab. Part. 2. p. 41. Pacif. I know the place you intend though you refer us not to any Epistle but you are not ignorant that Ignatius his Epistles are much corrupted and have been so accounted by all great Scholars who have impartially spent their judgement upon them this place particularly which you quote out of this Epistle to the Magnesi is depraved and if you will take the pains to consult either the old Latine Manuscript of Ignatius published by the Right Reverend Archbishop Usher or the Greek Edition published by Isaac Vossius which undoubtedly are the truest that ever were printed you will find no such thing can be drawn out of Ignatius as is by you inferred yea rather it will appear that Ignatius is against the keeping of the Saturday Sabbath at all Laud 'T is true that in some tract of time the Church in honour of Christs Resurrection did set a part that day on which he arose to holy exercises But this upon their own authority and without warrant from above that we can hear of more then the General warrant which God gave his Church that all things in it be done decently and in comely order Hist. Sab. Part. 2. p. 7. Pacif. Our Homily saith it plainly appears that Gods Will and Commandment is to have a solemn time and standing day in the week wherein the people should come together and have in rememberance his wonderful benefits Part. 2. p. 125. And that the Apostolical Church would not change the day from the seventh to the first without authority and Commission from Christ so to do is certain enough 'T is to me sufficient that the Lords Day is of Divine Institution whether immediate by Christ or mediate by his Apostles and that it is of Divine Institution one of these wayes is I take it easily proved by Antiquity and Reason The Homilie entitled De Semente hath these plain words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} This testimony is made use of by Archbishop Usher for the purpose to which I bring it Laud Neither the Author whom he cites nor the authority by him cited will evince the point 1. The Author will not do it the Homily being supposed by the Learned not to have been writ by Athanasius but put into his Works by some that had a mind to entitle him to it 2. The authority or words cited will not do it though at first fight they seem to come home to make proof of it for the words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} are to be understood not as if the Translation of the day were made by his commandment but on his occasion the Resurrection of our Lord upon that day being the principal motive which did induce his Church to make choice thereof for a day of Worship Res. Pet. Pacif. Do you make this gloss upon the words in jest or earnest Do you really think that the meaning of of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is this that the Church did translate the day with relation to Christs Resurrection Laud Yes for otherwise the false Athanasius whosoever he was must cress and contradict the true who having told us that it was commanded at the first that the Sabbath should be observed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in memory of the accomplishmrnt of the Worlds Creation ascribes the Institution of the Lords Day to the voluntary usage of the Church of God without any Commandment from our Saviour {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. We celebrate saith he the Lords Day as a memorial of the beginning of the new Creation which is plain enough Resp. Pet. p. 7. Pacif. The words you refer to I acknowledge to be found in Athanasius de Circum Sabbatho and confess them to be plain enough but neither plain enough nor plain at all for the evincing of that for which you produce them for how doth it follow that if Athanasius say {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that he must mean we celebrate the Lords Day by the voluntary usage of the Church without any Commandment from our Saviour may we not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} though there be a Divine Institution of the day But for satisfaction in these points Irefer any indifferent person to what is said by Mr. P. Caw in Sabbat Rediv. fourth Part. Laud What shall we think of Knox and whittingham and their fellows who in their Letter to Calvin depart from the Constitution Ordinance and Practice of the Apostles and Apostolick men and call not this day the Lords Day or Sunday but with the Piety of Jeroboam make such a day of it as they have devised in own their hearts to serve their own turn and Anabaptizing
of it after the mind of some Jew hired to be their God-father call it the Sabbath This name Sabbath is not a bare name or like a spot in their fore-heads to know Labans sheep from Jacobs but indeed it is a mystery of iniquity intended against the Church Others also for the plots sake must uphold the name of Sabbath that stalking behind it they may shoot against the Services appointed for the Lords Day Hence it is that some for want of wit too much adore the Sabbath as an Image dropt down from Jupiter and cry before it as they did before the Golden Calf This is an holy day to the Lord whereas indeed it is the Great Diana of the Ephesians as they use it whereby the minds of their Proselytes are so perplexed and bewitched that they cannot resolve whether the sin be greater to bowl shoot or dance on their Sabbath then to commit murther c. All which doubts would soon be dissolved by plucking off the Vizzard of the Sabbath from the face of the Lords Day which doth as well and truly become it as the Crown of Thorns did the Lord himself This was plotted to expose him to damnable derision and that was plotted to impose on it detestable Superstition yet they will call it a Sabbath presuming in their zealous ignorance guiltful zeal to be thought to speak the Scripture phrase when indeed the dregs of Asded flow from their mouth With us the Sabbath is Saturday and no day else No ancient Father nay no learned man Heathen or Christian took it otherwise from the beginning of the world to the beginning of their Schism in 1554. Dr. Pocklington Sunday no Sabbath p. 7. 13 21 22. compared Pacif. Here 's bitterness enough and though it be expresly directed against none but Puritans yet must it needs redound on the Church of England who in her Homilies gives the Lords Day the name of Sabbath as also sundry of her most eminent sons have done But whereas you say so confidently thatno learned man till 1554 ever called any other day but Saturday by the name of Sabbath you must give me leave to question whether your reading be so great that you have perused all learned men since the beginning of the world till 1554. For I can in my little reading produce a considerable Author who lived in the 4th Century and another who lived in the beginning of the 12th Century who both call the Lords Day a Sabbath and how many others have done so neither you nor I without more search then such a thing is worth shall be able to say but it is to little purpose to contend about a name or word provided we be agreed in the thing and this I am sure of that our Church in the Homily for the time and place of worship commends and enjoyns the Lords Day to be kept as a Sabbath with rest from all week-day and worldly labours and to be spent wholly in the service of God and of this I think none can doubt who comes to the reading of that Homily unprejudiced Laud In that Homily it is thus Doctrinally resolved Albeit this Commandment of God doth not bind Christian people so straightly to observe and keep the other Ceremonies of the Sabbath day as it was given unto the Jews as touching the forbearing of work or labour in time of great necessity and as touching the precise keeping of the seventh day after the manner of the Jews yet notwithstanding whatsoever is found in the Commandment appertaining to the Law of Nature as a thing most godly most just and needful to the setting forth of Gods glory it ought to be retained and kept of all good Christian people Dr. Heyl. Res. Pet. Pacif. These words do indeed occur in that Homily but mark the words that follow therefore by this Commandment we ought to have a time as one day in the week wherein we ought to rest yea from our lawful and needful works Doth not the Church here resolve that by vertue of the fourth Commandment Christians ought to observe one day in seven and that with cessation from lawful and needful works and this is if not the all yet the most that Puritans contend for Laud It is here said that there is no more of the fourth Commandment to be retained and kept of good Christian people then whatsoever is found in it appertaining to the Law of Nature but there is nothing in the fourth Commandment but that sometime be set apart for Gods publick Service the Precept so far forth as it enjoyns one day in seven or the seventh day precisely from the Worlds Creation being avowed for ceremonial by all kind of Writers Dr. Heyl. 245. Hist. Sabba p. 2. p. 245. Pacif. It is not said that there is no more to be retained and kept of good Christians but what is required of the Law of Nature this only is said that whatever is of the Law of Nature that is to be retained c. Now Logick tells us that these Propositions are heavenly wide and the Homily sufficiently implyeth that the Precept so far as it enjoyneth one day in seven was not an utter Ceremony for it saith that we by vertue of that Precept are bound to have a time as one day in seven Laud 'T is not said that we should spend the day wholly in heavenly exercises for then there were no time allowed us to eat and drink which are meer natural employments but that we give our selves wholly that is our whole selves body and soul to the performance of those heavenly exercises which are required of us in the way of true Religion and Gods Publick Service Sab. Hist. Part. 2. p. 247. Pacif. What a strange gloss is this you say it was Ceremonial that one day of seven be spent wholly Why do you not also argue that there was not any such Law given to the Jews because then there would no time have been allowed for eating and drinking Works of natural necessity do consist and alway did consist with the Sanctification of the Day of Rest and whereas you say the Homily doth only require that for the time appointed to Gods Publick Worship we wholly sequester our selves from all worldly business I believe you do not think that is all the meaning of the Homily for are not the words plain Gods obedient people should use the Sunday holily and rest from their common and dayly business and also give themselves c. The Sunday not a part of it should be used holily and with rest from common dayly business But what do I trouble my self about this had the Homily said just the whole day you would also have found out some evasion as you do for St. Chrysostomes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Part. 2. p. 80. We will proceed to the Commandments of the 2d Table the sum of which is comprised in those words Thou
be observed in that work annexed unto Herodotus and translated by Jungermanuus Thus Eratosthenes wholly translated Timotheus de infulis not reserving the very Preface The same doth Strabo report of Eudorus and Ariston in a Treatise Eutituled de Nilo Clemens Alexandrinus hath observed many examples hereof among the Greeks and Plinie in his Preface spcaketh very plainly that conferring his Authors and comparing their works together he generally found those that went before verbatim transcribed by those that followed after and their original never so much as mentioned To omit how much the wittiest peece of Ovid is beholding unto Parthenius Chius even the magnified Virgil hath borrowed almost in all his works in his Eclogues from Theocritus his Georgicks from Hesiod and Aratus his AEneads from Homer the second Book whereof containing the exploit of Sinon and the Troian Horse as Macrobius observeth he hath Verbatim derived from Pisander Our own prosession is not excusable herein Thus Oribasus Etius and AEgineta have in a manner transcribed Galen But Marcellus Empiricus who hath left a famous work de medicamentis hath word for word transcribed all Scribonius Largus de compositione Medicamentorum and not left out his very Peroration Thus Plagiary had not its Nativity with Printing but began in times when thefts difficult and the paucity of Books scarce wanted that invention Rhodiginus a famous writer is chastised by the Varro of our age Gerh. Vossius de Orig. Idol lib. 3. c. 84. for not relating the names of those to whose labours he had been beholden Unde ista hauserit non addit Quam facile fuerat Athaenei nomen apposuisse Nempe hoc actum Rhodigino passim ut dissimulatis scriptoribus unde sua hausisser non alius quam ipse testis laudaretur hic nos etiam fontes unde quidque hauserint dissimulandi summis aliquot viris saeculo nostro est perfamiliaris And the learned and pious Barthol Keckerman telleth us in his praecognita Logica that the admired piece of Peter Hispan is not Hispan's own but taken out of Psellus an Author ancienter then himself yea and that the very doctrine of Supposition which we look upon as a School invention is by him handled in a whole Chapter The same Keckerman also somwhere tells us the censures passed upon Aristodes Logick by Ramus are most of them taken out of Ludovicus Vives and that the Methodus Theologiae made by Hyperius was reprinted under the name of Laurentius Villavincentius an Augustinian Monk It is a most undoubted truth that the commentaries of the Papists especially of the Jesuits do owe very much to Bucer Mercer Bullinger Lavater Beza Calvin Martir yet these men are never mentioned except with censure and blame Bishop Laud stands charged by Mr. Prynne for having stoln all his supposition out of Bellarmine and that with so little Art that the whole school could not but take notice of it The learned Dr. Downham is said by his answerer to have taken his arguments for Episcopacy out of Bishop Bilson Mr. Mountague indeed hath told us that the day was yet to come in the which he ever read word of any of Arminius his works but his antagonists have shewed the same Testimonies and Authorities commended by one and the other and not to disturb the ashes of men in their graves Mr. Bagshaw hath vontured to call Dr. Hamond Grotius his Interpreter how justly the Dr. best knows yet thus far I will venture to say that the learned Annotator hath ploughed more with Grotius his heyfer and made more use of his labours then I have done of any or of all the men with stealing from whom Mr. P. hath charged me Dr. Jer. Taylor is a great master of Language and one of vast reading and yet he borroweth sufficiently from Mr. Hales in his Preface to Liber of Prophe. from Episcopius he borroweth almost every thing in his unhappy Tract of Original sin but sure Dr. Heylin who hath cast so many stones at Mr. Hickm for filching is frce from that fault nay if ever man was guilty of that crime he is I will not blot Paper with making parallels in many particulars take him but in his master peece his Fides veterum his whole p. 16. and half the 17. is almost Verbatim transcribed out of Dr. Thom. Jackson his Original of unbelief as any one may easily see who will but be at pains to compare them and how much he hath made use of the same Author in the Articles of our Saviours Resurrection Ascension Session at the right hand he is not ignorant so that if he were so willing to shew his reader a Plagiary he needed not to have sent him so far as Mag. Col. he might have found one as near as Seneca was wont to find a fool the truth is this Dr. is Felo de se he robbeth his own Preface to adorn his Book In the Preface to the Reader he serveth us up these words My opinions as they are but opinions so they are but mine as opinions I am not bound to stand to them my self as mine I have no reason to obtrude them on another man c. and these he brings a second time to the Table in his Book p. 283. and yet he thrasonically enough tells us in the Preface That whatsoever other censure might be laid upon his Book that of nil dictum est quod non dictum fuit prius could find no place But we need not much trouble our selves that what he takes out of others he carryeth as if it were his own seeing that he is so unhappy when he doth quote an Author Quis nescit qualia demens AEgyptus portenta colat He ascribes to Lucan in his Pharsal lib. 10. And yet I believe there 's many a boy in M. School who knows that it was Juven. and not Lucan who in those words upbraided the AEgyptians with their Idolatry I have sufficiently proved that if I am guilty of what Mr. P. and Dr. H. charge me with yet I am not the first that did offend in this kind But I farther plead Not guilty to the accusation and do here confidently aver That what he chargeth me to have borrowed from Mr. Prynne I borrowed not from him but took from the books that I quote them out of those questions and answers in the Bible printed 1607. I saw and read before I knew there was such a Tract in the world as Mr. Prynnes Anti-Armin and all my Fathers house can bear me witness that they are in the very Bible that we constantly made use of as oft as we read Chapters in the Family And I must now inform Dr. Heylin That he is much mistaken if he think what he would feign have others think that those questions and answers are no older then 1607. for I my self can direct him to a Bible printed twenty years before that time that hath them and how many Bibles there may be older than that I know