Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	faith_n	follow_v	justification_n	7,990	5	9.4298	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16567	A defence of that most ancient and sacred ordinance of Gods, the Sabbath day Consequently, and together with it. 2. A defence of the iiijth commandement. 3. A defence of the integrity and perfection of the Decalogue, morall law, or X. commandements. 4. A defence also of the whole and intire worship of God, in all the partes thereof, as it is prescribed, in the first table of the Decalogue. 5. A discouery of the superstition, impurity and corruption of Gods worship; yea, and idolatry, committed by multitudes, in sanctifying the Lords day, for a Sabbath day, by the iiijth commandement. Vndertaken against all anti-Sabbatharians, both of Protestants, Papists, Antinomians, and Anabaptists; and by name and especially against the X ministers, ... by Theophilus Brabourne.	Brabourne, Theophilus, b. 1590.	1632 (1632)	STC 3473; ESTC S120442	538,800	670

of workes a man is iustified and not of faith only Iam● 2.21.24 But wilt thou vnderstand O thou vaine man that the faith which is without workes is dead Iam. 2.20 The lavv vvhich S. Iames vrgeth here it is the morall lavv as is plaine by his instances in the seuenth and eigth commandements v. 11. and by laying done the summe of the second Table in v. 8. Moreouer that this lavv is vrged vpon beleeuers is plaine by these reasons 1. Because the Apostle stileth them Brethren to vvhom he spake v. 1. yea and his beloued Brethren v. 5. secondly S. Iames vrgeth the lavv vpon such as shall be iustified by faith for he affirmeth and that by the example of Abraham that a man that hath faith he must also haue vvorkes for his iustification Yee see then how that of workes a man is iustified and not of faith only By vvorkes here the Apostle meaneth the vvorkes of the lavv and of that lavv before spoken of in the former parte of the chapter v. 8.11 now choose vvhat sense of this text to fly vnto you please either of Protestants or Papistes both or either of them vvill make strongly for vs and against Anabaptists vvho deny the lavv for if such as haue faith must also bring vvorkes vvith them vnto iustification be they as causes or as signes and fruites of iustification either vvayes the beleeuer is bound to doe the vvorkes of the lavv for vvorkes are as vvell required of him vnto iustification as faith is so saith S. Iames finally since the faith that hath not vvorkes to vvit the vvorkes of the lavv v. 8.11 is a dead faith hence it followeth that the beleeuer is bound to the obseruation of the lavv and to doe the vvorkes of the lavv or else his faith his Anabaptisticall faith vvill proue but a dead faith as many therefore as renounce the lavv and the vvorkes of the lavv and vvill liue by faith only S. Iames counteth those mens faith but a deade faith 7. And that thou hast knowne the holy Scriptures of a child which are able to make thee wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus for the whole scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reprofe for correction for instruction in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect vnto all good workes 2 Tim. 3.15.16.17 In these vvords the Apostle declareth vnto Timothie the vse of the Scriptures of the old Testament and in speciall that some of them are fit to reproue and to correct c. novv of all the Scriptures in the old Testament vvhich doe reproue correct instruct are they not the lavves of God both affirmatiue and negatiue and of all Gods lavves in the old Testament vvhich are either morall or ceremoniall noue can thinke S. Paul sent Timothie vnto the ceremonial lavv it must therefore be the morall lavv vvhich Paul doth here commend vnto Timothie In the last place that this lavv belongeth vnto beleeuers is plaine enough it being made by Paul a direction vnto Timothie vnlesse you vvill suppose Timothie no beleeuer 8. Speake not euill one of an other Brethren he thath speaketh euill of his brother or he that condemneth his brother speaketh euill of the law and condemneth the law and if thou condemnest the law thou art no obseruer of the law but a iudge Jam. 4.11 In these words the Apostle S. Iames reproueth the sinnes against the ninth comm to wit slanderouse speeches this sinne he dissvvadeth from by these reasons 1. He that speaketh euill of his brother he speaketh euill of the Law of God and he that condemneth his brother he condemneth the Law of God 2. Hence follovveth an other mischiefe to wit that if a man condemneth the law then hee is no obseruer of the law but is become a iudge vvhere vve see the Apostle counteth it as a mischiefe and a vice for a man to be no obseruer of the law of this vice are our Antinomians guilty for they will be no obseruers or doers of the law and here we haue the very word in question betvvixt vs rarified to wit the word obserue and obseruation for we vrge the law vnto obseruation 9. Thus I reason against them they that hold and say that the morall lavv is abolished they must hold this absurd and wicked opinion that no parte of the Old Testament is now in force but that it is wholly abolished in all the partes thereof vnto beleeuers the reason hereof is 1. because all the lawes and precepts in the old Testament and all the directions to leade a godly liefe from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Malachie are referred to one of these lawes the Morall Iudicall or Ceremoniall if then they reiect the morall law much more will they reiect the Iudicall and Ceremoniall lawes and if they reiect the morall law then will they reiect all the expositions and branches thereof deliuered by the Prophets and so they reiect the whole old Testament the law and the Prophets for they reiect all the three lawes the Morall Iudiciall and Ceremoniall with all their appurtenances 2. So much they do imply by saying they are not vnder Moses but vnder Christ not to be gouerned by the law but by the Gospell and the like Now that it is a most absurd and wicked opinion to hold that all the partes of the old Testament are abolished and no rule of our liues shall appeare by this that the Apostles doe euery where send vs for direction into the old Testament see these places Rom. 14.11 Rom. 15.4 1. Cor. 9.8.9.10 1. Cor. 10.11 1. Cor. 14.21 Heb. 13.5 Iam. 2.8.10 Iam. 5.10.11 1. Pet. 1.16 1. Pet. 3.5.6 10. An other absurdety let me adde to shew the vanity of their destinction holding the law to belong vnto and to bind such as are yet vnregenerated and want faith but not to belong vnto nor to binde such as are regenerated and haue faith this distinction is very absurd for it produceth greate confusion and disorder in the Church and no lesse inconvenience in the family for if it be so that beleeuers are not bound to the obseruance of the law then when the Sabbath day cometh these men are not bound to sanctify it it being a parte of that law from which they are freed but others that doe not yet beleeue they are bound to keepe the Sabbath day it being enioyned in that lavv vnto vvhich they are still bound suppose we then the master and the mistris of the family be beleeuers the children and the seruants as yet vnbeleeuers why then the master and the mistris may goe to their workes priuate or publike the seruants and children must then goe to the Church what disorder will this be to haue families thus rent and diuided some goeing to church other some of the same body going to worke yea what a poore Sabbath thinke you will be kept by the inferiours when

well as anciently vnto Ievves yea our Sauiour testifieth in an other place that it is more easie for heauen and earth to passe away then that one title of the law should fall Luk. 16.17 sooner then shall the earth be remoued and the sunne fall from heauen then this law be abolished 2. Children obey your parents in the Lord c. Honour thy father and thy Mother which is the first commandement with promise c. Eph. 6.1.2 Here wee haue one branch of the lavv vrged to wit the fifth comm and it is vrged with respect to obseruation and obedience yea it is also vrged vpon the Children of Christians or Christians Children for as this whole Epistle to the Ephesians was directed vnto the Saintes Ephes 1.1 so this whole sixt chapter is likewise I know they are ready to say that these exhortations were sent vnto the multitude as Sermons are preached vnto a mixed company of good and bad but this precept is vrged vpon the good to wit beleevers for as the duety of children is a branch of the fifth comm so is the duety of seruants now the Apostle in v. 5. speaketh vnto beleeuing seruants for he vrgeth them to obedience to their masters as vnto Christ implying thereby that they did obey Christ and now he exhorteth them to like obedience vnto their masters as they did performe vnto Christ Eph. 5.24 now if they did obey Christ then surely they were beleeuers and did beleeue in Christ and such as these seruants were on whom this fifth command was vrged such wee are to thinke the children were to whom the same comm was vrged at the same time in the same place and all in one breath as it were 3. Doe wee then make the law of none effect through faith God forbid yea wee establish the law Rom. 3.31 In the former parte of this chapter the Apostle had disputed of faith and the faith of Iesus and of remission of sinnes and iustification by faith in Christ for these he stood a maine but as for the lavv and iustification by the workes of the law these he stood against stifly these things being laid downe the Apostle foreseeing some Anabaptisticall spirit ready to snach and to abuse this his doctrine to the subuertion of the lavv he vvisely preuenteth it by a God forbid As if he had said doe you thinke that because I deny iustification by the law and affirme it to be by faith that I intend thereby to abolish the law vtterly no God forbid for I establish the law the law must stand still in force c. that is for obseruation though not for iustification for Paul must be vnderstood so to abolish the lavv in some sense as for all that he ratifieth the lavv in another sense Hereby we see then that the doctrine of faith and iustification by faith doe not abolish the law yea so much the Apostle saith expresly doe wee then saith he make the law of none effect through faith Whence I thus argue that if faith doth not make void the law what should make it voide for our Antinomians say that it is faith and being in Christ that freeth vs from the law the law say they is a scholemaster to bring vs vnto Christ and being in Christ once which is by faith then we are no longer vnder this schoolmaster of the law in any respect we are freed from the law wholly and altogether but the cleane contrary S. Paul affirmeth here namely that faith doth not abolish the lavv that is in all respects Furthermore if faith doeth not abolish the law then the faithfull man is not freed from the lavv So thē when the Apostle saith that he established the lavv it followeth that he established it to the faithfull yea they were the persones of whom Paul spake as you may see by Rom. 3.30 for there circumcision of faith is put for the circumcised and faithfull 4. Owe nothing to any man but to loue one another for hee that loueth another hath fulfilled the law for this Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not steale Thou shalt not beare false witnesse Thou shalt not couet and if there be any other commandement it is briefly comprehended in this saying Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe Rom. 13.8.9 Behold hovv the Apostle presseth the obseruation of the law and hovv that he repeateth 5 or 6 of the seuerall commandements thereof one after an other yea further that all this is vrged vpon beleeuers is plaine in v. 11. vvhere the Apostle vseth a reason to moue to the obseruation of these commandements saying for now is our saluation neerer then when wee beleeued it therefore he spake to them vvhich beleeued vnlesse absurdely you vvill say the question vvas concerning one sorte of people and the argument concerned an other 5. For brethren yee haue bene called vnto liberty only vse not your liberty as an occasion vnto the flesh but by loue serue one an other for all the law is fulfilled in one word which is this Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe Gal. 5.13.14 In these words the Apostle presseth the duty of loue vvhich is the summe of the lavv and hee presseth it for obseruation and that he doth by this reason because in so doing the lavv shall be fulfilled now vvhy should the Apostle moue the Galatians to the duety of loue because of or in respect of the lavv if the lavv did not at all appertaine to these beleeuing Galatians Furthermore the Apostle presseth the lavv here vpon beleeuers for hee calleth them brethren and such brethren also as had obtained a liberty by Christ stand fast therefore in the libertie wherewith Christ hath made vs free Gal. 5.1 of this liberty by Christ he speaketh againe in v. 13. saying brethren yee haue bene called vnto libertie c. Wherefore since they to vvhom the Apostle spake had abtained vvere called vnto a liberty by Christ it is more then manifest that they vvere beleeuers to vvhom he spake here then it is plaine that they that had obtained liberty by Christ from the ceremoniall lavv stood yet bound still vnto the Morall lavv In a vvord it is manifest that Paul spake here vnto beleeuers for he spake vnto them that did runne well v. 7. who were they that did runne vvell but the beleeuers and he spake vnto them that did waite for the hope of righteousnesse by faith v. 5. and who were they but beleeuers and he spake vnto them in vvhom vvas the combate betvvixt the flesh and the spirit v. 17. and vvere not these beleeuers 6. But if yee fulfill the royall law according to the scriptures which saith Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe yee doe well Iam. 2.8 So speake yee and so doe as they that shall be iudged by the law of libertie Iam. 2.12 Was not Abraham our father iustified through workes when he offred Isaack his sonne c. yee see then how that

they shall see so bade an example before their eyes as their superiours either idle doeing nothing or following their seruile laboures yea what an aduantage may Sathan get vpon younglings by this distinction to hold them still fast in his clavves for may they say with themselues so long as we beleeue not not remaine in our vnregeneracy it goeth well with vs for now we haue an holy day allowed vs once a weeke wherein we are freed from our toilesome labours but did we beleeue as doe our Master and Mistris then shall we haue no holy day at all then shall we moile and toile day by day vncessantly like horse in a carte who vvold be a beleeuer who wold be regenerated Furthermore if on the Sabbath day it pleaseth the Master or Mistris to set vpon any vvorke vvherein they cannot proceede vvithout the helpe of some of their seruants or children they must in such case keepe holy day too of necessity For they may not command their seruants to helpe them but in case they vvill set vpon some workes vvhich themselues can doe alone then loe what a disordered family is here the Master and Dame vvorking the seruants and children siting by vvithout any vvorke in their hands this makes me call to mind that vve read of Eccl. 10.7 I haue sene seruants on horses and Princes walking as seruants on the ground Furthermore vvhereas the seruants and children must sanctify the day vvhilest they are at home by reading conference singing of Psalmes calling to minde vvhat they vvere taught in the Chureh and meditating diuine things they shall not onely see and behold their gouerners exercised about seruile labours to their great distraction but also heare them talking in the house of worldly affaires asking for this calling for that hovv poorely shall these younglings sanctifie the Sabbath vvhen they haue such disturbances and vvhen they that should goe before them in example to dravv them on are their onely hinderers and pulbackes Surely God is not the authour of this confusion nor of their distinction the ground of it God vvould as well haue beleeuers as vnbeleeuers to sanctify his Sabbath Thus hauing bewraied the absurdety of this Antinomian opinion and also firmly proued it that the law belongeth vnto beleeuers as touching obseruation I come now to answer to their obiectiones brought against this trueth and here I will not spend time in answering vnto all their obiections I will only cull out the chiefe and those wherein they place the most confidence and answer them OBIECT I. It is obiected that we are freed from the law because the Apostle saith plainly yee are not vnder the law but vnder grace Rom. 6.14 And againe If ye be led by the spirit yee are not vnder the Law Gal. 5.18 How euer many answers might be giuen to these textes yet I will content my selfe with one ye erre said our Sauiour Christ because you know not the Scriptures the same I might apply vnto those who thus abuse these Textes did they but vnderstand the Apostles scope and vse of this phrase to be vnder the law they might haue spared vs this labour who so will but obserue the scope and drifte of S. Paul shall easily find it that he disputed only against iustification by the law Rom. 3.20 Rom. 9.31.32 Gal. 5.4 And that he might the better disswad his aduersaries from seeking iustification by the Law and so from being vnder the lavv in that respect he sheweth the danger of being vnder the law and seeking righteousnesse by the lavv for by the law saith he comes the knowledge of sinne Rom. 3.20 and the law causeth wrath Rom. 4.15 and as many as are of the workes of the law are vnder the curse Gal. 3.10 and this is the condition of all such as will be vnder the Law and wil be iustified by the Law where as they seeke for iustification by it they shal find the cleane contrary namely wrath the curse and condemnation On the contrary when the Apostle speaketh to the faithfull who sought iustification by grace and by Christ and renounced the law he speaketh vnto them as vnto men set at liberty saying yee are not vnder the law that is yee beleeuers are not vnder the law now as once yee were before yee beleeued and as those vnbeleeuing Iewes are that is you are not vnder the law for iustification and consequently you are not vnder the law as causing wrath and as being vnder the carse thus you see the Apostle freeth the faithfull from being vnder the law as thos vnbeleeuing Iewes were that is as touching the curse of the law but hers not a word of freeing the faithfull from the obseruation of the law and from being vnder the law in this respect 2. This may further appeare by that other phrase ioyned with it and opposed to it vnder grace whereby is no thing else signified but the free iustification of a beleeuer by the mercy of God for the merite of Christ as you may see Rom. 3.24 Rom. 5.15.17.21 Rom. 6.1 Gal. 2.21 Gal. 5.4 wherfore as this phrase to be vnder grace hath respect only vnto iustification so its opposite not to be vnder the law hath only respect vnto iustification the one phrase expressing hovv beleeuers are iustified the other how they are not iustified beleeuers are iustified by the grace of God not by the workes of the law by being vnder grace not by being vnder the law as if the Apostle had said yee beleeuers are not vnder the law for Iustification but are vnder grace for Iustification So still the Apostle freeth not the faithfull from being vnder the Lavv for obseruation but only for iustification 3. That by this Phrase vnder the law S. Paul meante a being vnder the law for iustification I proue it in his Epistle to the Galatians for in Gal. 4.21 he vseth this phrase saying tell mee yee that will be vnder the law c. The which Phrase him selfe by and by in the next chapter expoundeth by expresing the same thing in other and more perspicuouse words saying ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the law Gal. 5.4 so then to be vnder the law is nothing else then to be justified by the law for the Apostle speaketh against the law in one and the same sense in the fourth and fifth chapters his discourse being continued as about one and the same matter so then this phrase being rightly vnderstood it maketh against the vse of the law for iustification but not at all for obseruation I remember I haue heard some of them reply against this distinction and say that the law was not made to iustifie any neither did God euer intend to iustify any by the law Where to I answer that God propounded the law either for iustification or for condemnation see Luk. 10.28.27 Gal. 3.12 Rom. 10.5 but admit that God neuer intended to iustify any man by the law yet many men there were that sought

Christ this text then putteth an end to the law for iustification but not for obseruation OBIECT VI. One text more they obiect Rom. 7.6 But now we are deliuered from the law c. as a vvoman is from hir husband vvho is deade c. I shall giue none other ansvver vnto this text then vnto the former to wit that by the law is vnderstood the penalty of the law the curse of the law or the law in respect of the penalty and curse thereof that this is the Apostles meaning I make it appeare by two reasons from the context 1. See v. 4. So ye my brethren are dead to the law by the body of Christ by the body of Christ that is by the sufferings of Christ in his body now if Christ hath freed vs from the law by his suffering of death what can this intimate but that the law from which he freed vs by death was considered in respect of the penalty and curse and as holding vs in bondage vnto death For by death Christ freed vs from death wherefore when the Apostle saith we are dead to the law or freed from the lavv he considered the law as a killing letter and as it held vs in bondage vnto death 2. See v. 5. When we were in the flesh the affections of sinnes which were by the law had force in our members to bring forth fruit vnto death To bring forth fruit vnto death here the Apostle speaketh of the law not simply but of the law as together with our corruption fructifying vnto death wherefore seeing the Apostle spake of the lavv as tending vnto death it follovveth that vvhen in the very next vvords he said We are deliuered from the law v. 6. he meant that vve are deliuered from the poenalty and curse of the lavv or from the lavv as it respecteth the curse to vvit eternall death and destruction so then here is nothing yet proued against the lavv for obseruation as a rule of liefe It vvas not for nothing that S. Paul added these vvords for righteousnesse saying Christ is the end of the law to wit for righteousnesse c. Rom. 10.4 Shevving thereby that he disputed against the lavv not simply but considered as the meanes of iustification and obtaining righteousnesse Neither is it to be passed by vvithout speciall obseruation that S. Paul disputing in another place against the law doth it not against the lavv simply but against the lavv considered as tending to the curse to those vvho sought righteousnesse thereby and therefore he said not Christ hath redeemed vs from the law Gal. 3.13 but Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law Yea it is remarkable that euery where where S. Paul disputeth against the lavv his maine question is about iustification by the law denying iustification by the law saying By the works of the law shall no flesh be iustified Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2.16 So that S. Paul disputeth against the lavv onely with respect had vnto obtaining righteousnesse and iustification thereby and in respect of the curse of the lavv But it is no vvhere found that Christ is the end of the lavv for obseruation and for a rule of an holy liefe nor is it any vvhere found that Christ hath redeemed vs from obseruation of or obedience to the lavv nor yet is it any vvhere said By the lavv shall no flesh be directed or guided in their liues and conuersation vvherefore for time to come if Anabaptists and Antinomians vvill obiect against the law by way of opposition to vs let them not proue that the lavv is abolished in respect of iustification and as a curse c. For all this vve stedfastly beleeue and teach but let them remember to proue vnto vs that the lavv is abolished as a rule of liefe for obseruation for this is that vvhich vve deny onely that Christ hath abolished the poenalty of the lavv vve beleeue it but that he hath abolished the matter of the law this we deny and this as yet they haue not proued nor euer shall be able if we will be S. Pauls schollers we must learne of him so to dispute against the law as that we doe not for all that make it of none effect and so to abolish the law as yet for all that we doe establish it For so he saith Doe we make the law of none effect c God forbid yea we establish the law Rom. 3.31 but our aduersaries haue learned of Paul to abolish the law but not to establish the law We haue novv made answer vnto the most and chiefest of their Scriptures which they alleage against the law others they haue also but they are such as will admit of the same answere giuen to some of these or else are so triuiall as they deserue no answer to conclud then since I haue firmely proued it that the law is still in force and that to all men beleeuers and vnbeleeuers for obseruation and since they can neither answer our Textes nor yet proue the contrary it remaineth that the Morall law is still in force which being so Gods ancient Sabbath commanded in this law is still in force also for both Anabaptistes and Antinomians haue confessed this vnto me that if it can be proued that the Morall law is still in force then it must and doeth vndeniably follow that the Saturday Sabbath is still in force as well as any other thing commanded in the law Thus we haue vindicated Gods Sabbathes from Anabaptistes and Antinomians in the next place we must vindicate them from Protestants and Papists CHAP. II. An exposition of the fourth Commandement together with a discouery of the manifold lamentable shamfull and abhominable corruptions and abuses of this diuine Law of God by many Ministers of these times through their false glosses idle answers and absurd expositions of it SECT I. IN the former Chapter to the end that vve might vindicate the Lords Sabbaths vve haue defended the Morall Lavv against Anabaptists and Antinomians and novv in this and the follovving Chapters of this Booke for the same end namely to vindicate the Lords Sabbaths vve vvil defend the Integrity and perfection of the Morall Lavv against Protestants and Papistes for Anabaptists and Antinomians deny the whole lavv Protestants and Papistes deny the vvholnesse of the lavv they vvill yeeld no obedience at all to the Lavv these vvil yeeld obedience but by halues and of this number are those ten Ministers my professed enemies in this point who in speciall sorte I doe oppose by name Mr. Grenewod Mr. Benton Mr. Hutchinson Mr. Furnace Mr. Gallard Mr. Yates Mr. Chappell Mr. Stinnet M. Iohnson and Mr. Ward dvvelling in and aboute Norvvich As for Papistes tell them of their sinne of Idolatry in vvorshiping of Images c. against the second Commandement of this Law and among other answers this vvil be one that the second Command is Ceremoniall and pertaineth to the Iewes only tell them againe of their sinne of Sabbath-breaking

vs to sanctify the Lords day it is no where said in the new Testament Remember the Lords day to sanctify it 2. As there is no expresse commandement for the Lords day so is there no collection or consequence that can be made out of any text of Scripture whereby it can be necessarily infalliblie proued that euer Christ ordeined this day or left any commandement touching it with his Disciples or Apostles that this is so I proue 1. by the third parte of this my booke where by way of answer I haue showne that none of all their Scriptures nor reasons which they doe alleage for the Lords day will or can proue it any more then a Lecture day at the most they cannot proue it a Sabbath day this first argument is of greate consequence and much to be thought on I proue it also by the Testimony of Diuines of note first of M. Perkines who thus doubtfully argueth for the Lords day in his second reason for it in his Cases of Conscience Chap. 16. Sect. 2. pag. 106. The Sabbath day in the new Testament saieth he in all likelihood is tied to that which we cale the Lords day that as J take it saith he by Christ himselfe And then by by he addeth these words for in these points still we must goe by likelihoods by all which doubting speeches you may see that M. Perkins was of opinion that it could not be proued out of the Scriptures necessarily infallibly that the Lords day is a Sabbath as for doubtfull probable proofes and likelihoods what haue we to doe with them in points of this consequence for if the matter be doubtfull then it cannot be done in faieth Rom. 14.23 He that doubteth eateth not of faith saith Paul and whatsoeuer is not of faieth is a sinne 2. Doctour Prideaux in his worke vpon the Sabbath day thus writeth where finde you saith he amongst the Euangelists or Apostles any distinct institution of the Lords day yea where is the text of Scripture saith he whereby you can necessarily proue it pag. 143. Herevnto add the Testimony of Caluine of Zanchie of Vrsinus with many others who I haue formerly cited as S. Augustine Peter Martyr Paraeus Chemnitius Zuinglius Melanchton Hemingius Bastingius the two godly Matyrs M. Fryth M. Tindall with the whole Parliament assembled in the daies of Edward the Sixte all saying that the Lords day cannot be found in the Scriptures for a Sabbath My second profe of the minor is from this that our Sauiour Christ made the Lords day a trauailing day for he trauailed too fro in the Country from Ierusalem to Emmaus a matter of 15 miles vpon the Lords day as you may reade Luk. 24.13.15.29.36 so also the Disciples of Christ made this day a trauailing day as you reade in the fore alleaged text Luk. 24.13.15.29.36 yea which is more the Disciples and Apostles of Christ they were altogether ignorant that the Lords day was a Sabbath day this I thus proue the Lords day as the Patrons thereof hold is celebrated in memory of the resurrection of Christ now the Apostles themselues did not beleeue that Christ was risen from the dead vntill the day was past or vntill night as you may see Mark 16.10.11.13.14 Luk. 24.36.38.41.45.46 Ioh. 20.19.26.27 Now since Christ his Apostles did not know beleeue that Christ was risen from the deade vntill this Lords day was past how could they keepe this Lords day in memory of Christ his resurrection wherefore since Christ his Disciples made this Lords day a trauailing day since the Apostles themselues did not so much as know that this Lords day was a Sabbath day therefore no man fearing God may defend the Lords day to be a Sabbath day vnlesse he will reproue not onely Christ but also his Disciples for traualing vpon it and vnlesse hee will be thought to be wiser then the Apostles were that is by knowing the Lords day to be a Sabbath day which they were ignorant of My third profe of the Minor is from the 4th com for there the Lord commandeth vs to labour Sixe dayes saying Sixe dayes shalt thou labour c. Now this commandement was neuer repealed the Lords day is one of these 6 dayes and by name it is the first of the 6 or the first day of the weeke wherefore by Gods ordinance and commandement this Lords day is a labouring day a working day therefore no man fearing God may speake to defend the Lords day to be a Sabbath day a resting day vnlesse he will contradict Almightie God ARGVM II. My 2d argument to proue the 7th day Sabbath still in force is because it was neuer yet abolished thus it may be framed Euery man fearing God must maintaine defend either that the 7th day Sabbath is still in force or else that is was abolished But no man fearing God may maintaine defend that the 7th day Sabbath was abolished Therefore euery man fearing God must maintaine defend that the 7th day Sabbath is still in force For the Major or first of these propositiones it is of vndeniable trueth for either the 7th day Sabbath must be abolished or else it must be in force one of these two must be a trueth for there is no third way so then this first proposition cannot be denied I come to proue the minor or second proposition to wit that no man fearing God may maintaine defend that the 7th day Sabbath is abolished and my reason hereof is because it cannot be defended in faieth no man can say in faieth that the 7th day Sabbath is abolished this I proue because there is no word of God for the grownd of their faieth for there is not in all the new Testament any commandement or Prohibition as a Countermand to the 4th com where it is expresly written Thou shalt not sanctify the 7th day Sabbath no neither is there any text of Scripture out of which it can be necessarily proued that the 7th day Sabbath is abolished that this is true it appeareth by the 4th parte of my booke where by way of answer vnto all their abused textes which they brought against the 7th day Sabbath I haue showne the vanity and absurdety of their arguments wherefore since they cannot soundly infallibly proue that the 7th day Sabbath is abolished therefore may not any mā speake against the 7th day Sabbath for if he doth he speaketh against it not of faieth whatsoeuer is not of faieth it is sinne Rom. 14.23 no man fearing God will wilfully vse his tounge or penne sinnefully 2. I proue the point by many absurdeties that such doe rune into who defend the 7th day Sabbath to be abolished as 1. hereby they deface Gods royall Law mancle it rob it of its Integrity perfection diminish the compleate number of Tenn commandementes make it a morall ceremoniall Law a very monstre among