The doctrine of the Fourth Commandement, deformed by popery, reformed & restored to its primitive purity objections answered, and the truth cleared, by Gods unworthy servant, J.O.

CHAP. V. Severall Authors produced, which affirme, the Church changed the Sabbath; and why they did it. 2. Three Reasons given, to manifest when it was done. 3. Answers given to se∣verall texts of Scripture, urged to prove the first day of the weeke, to be of a divine Institu∣tion. 4. Four Reasons given, to manifest, it is not of a divine Institution.

EVident it is, that in some tract of time, af∣ter the death of the Apostles, the Romish Church layd aside the duty of the seventh day-Sabbath, and observed the first day of the weeke, instead of it.

Of this Socrates gives us notice, lib. 5. chap. 21. Where speaking of Customes, he saith, Though in manner all Christian Churches throughout the whole world, doe celebrate and receive the holy misteries, every Sabbath day after other: Yet the people, inhabiting Alexandria, and Rome, of an old tradition doth not use it.

The Aegyptians adjoyning to Alexandria, to∣gether with the Inhabitants of Thebaes, use to ce∣lebrate on the Sunday, &c.

2. M^r. Brabourn, in the defence of the Sab∣bath

(against the ten Ministers, page 481) de∣clares out of the Centuries, Centure 4. chap. 6. page 477. layeth it down thus, There was no Ecclesiasticall, or Church Assemblies at Rome, as there was at other Churches, &c.

3. Iustin Martyr [living in Rome, in the yeare 150.] Apol. 2. saith, Ʋpon the Sunday, all of us, assemble in the Congregation, &c. See D^r. Hylyn on the Sabbath, part. 2, chap. 2, sect, 6.

4. Athenasius saith, The observation of the Lords day, was taken up by a voluntary usage in the Church. as D^r. Hylyn in his history on the Sab∣bath, declareth, part 2. chap, 1. Sect. 3. page 8.

5. M^r. Perkins [on Gal, 4. verse 10. spea∣king of the superstition of the popish Church, in observation of holy dayes] saith, First, besides the Lords day, they appointed many other Sab∣baths, &c,

6. M^r. Calvin [in his Institutions, lib. 2. chap, 8. sect, 33.] saith, The old Fathers, not without choyce of their owne, put in place of the Sabbath, the day we call Sunday, &c. And a lit∣tle after exhorteth us, to follow the order, by the Church apointed; &c.

7. Bullenger [in his Book of godly Sermons, page 140.] saith, They of the Primitive Church did change the Sabbath day, least peradventure, they should have seemed to imitate the Jewes; and still to have retained their orders, and cere∣monie,

and made their assemblies and holy meet∣ings, on the first day of Sabbaths; (to wit) the first day of the weeke called Sunday.

8. John Frith [Declare▪ Bapt. page 96] saith, Our Fathers which were in the beginning of the Church, did abrogate the Sabbath, to the intent, that Christians might have an example of Christi∣an Liberty, and that they might know, that neither the keeping of the Sabbath, nor any other day is necessary: That a day should be reserved, in that the people might come together, to heare the Word of God; they ordained instead of the Sabbath, which was Saturdy, the next day following; and although they might have kept Saturday with the Jewes, as a thing indifferent; yet did they much better, to over set the day, to a perpetuall memory, that we are free and not bound to any day, but that we may doe any worke to the pleasure of God, and the profit of our Neighbour, &c. See D^r. White on the Sabbath, page 5.

9. M^r. Tindals answer to D^r. Moore, chap. 25. thus saith, We be Lords over the Sabbath, and may change it to munday, or any other day, as we see need; or may make every tenth day, holy day, if we see cause why; we may make two every weeke, if it were expedient, and one not enough to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday, then to put difference between us and the Jewes; least we should be∣come

servants to the day, after their superstition. As D^r. White hath it, Ibid. page 5.

10. Ʋrsinus on the Catti. part. 3. page 989. saith, The Apostolicall Church, to distin∣guish its selfe from the Jewish Synagogue, &c. Hath, on good reason, made choyce of the first day, &c.

11. D^r. Willet [in his Comment. on Exod. chap. 20. page 360.] saith, The Apostolique Church changed the holy day of rest from the seventh day to the first, which is the Lords day, in remembrance of our redemption by Christ.

12. Dr. White, on the Sabbath, page 109. thus saith. Although the Sunday, or Lords day, in the time of the Law, was an ordinary working-day; yet in the time under the Gospel, the same is an holy day, by a perpetuall Ordinance of the Catholique Church. And in pag. 212, he saith. It is apparent, that Christian people made the Lords day of every week, an ordinary Holy-day, &c. See also Dr. Prideaux on the Sabbath, pag. 24. Sect. 6.

I hasten, and shall take further occasion, to manifest by larger Testimonies, that the first day of the weeke is not of a Divine Instituti∣on, but an Ordinance of the Church: But first I will briefly describe the time when it was done, as near as I can.

I confesse, I have not met with any Author

which hath pointed out the time, except Mr. Brabourne, who, in defence of the Sabbath, pag. 485. speaking of the Counsell held at Laodicea, Anno 364. he saith, now the Sabbath began to be rejected, and the Lords day to be set up as the sole Sabbath, without any other. Now (saith he) the Lords day must forsooth be preferred above the Sabbath, &c.

Mr. Perkins, in his Exposition on the Reve∣lation, Chap. 1. vers. 10. moveth a question, to know who changed the Jewish Sabbath; and then his answer is thus. It is commonly thought (saith he) the Jewish Sabbath was changed into the Lords day by Christian Emperours, long after the Ascension of Christ, &c.

I doe not much dissent from these mens ap∣prehensions, for there is much truth, no doubt, in both their expressions; yet I am not fully, of of their opinions, for, indeed I conceive it was first contrived, yea, and concluded on, inclusively, though not expressed, in the first Nicen Coun∣sell, Anno 326. or thereabout, and my Reasons are three.

The first Reason is, because before that Coun∣sell, there was not any Law, which commanded Christians to keep the first day of the week, in performance of Religious worship; neither before that time were Christians commanded to forbear labour on the Lords day. But this was done by

the Emperour Constantine his Edict, after the Counsell was dissolved. Eusebius in the life of Constant. Lib. 4. Chap. 18.19.

The second Reason is, because after that Coun∣sell was dissolved, Constantine sent an Edict to all Governours of Provinces in his Roman Em∣pire, that they should forthwith observe the Lords day, and honour Holy-daies, consecrated to the memoriall of Martyrs, and solemnly observe the Feasts of the Church, Ibid. Chap. 23. Note, I doe not say the first day of the week was not obser∣ved till this time; for evi∣dent it is, it was observed by many Churches, in few years after the decease of the Apostles. Yea, Dr. White on the Sabbath pag. 193. saith. The Vniversall Church, before the decree of any Generall, or Nationall Counsell, made the Sunday, or Lords Day, a weekely Festivall. But I endeavour to denote, when it was that the Church rejected the Sabbath, and observed the first day of the week in stead of it.

The third Reason why it is probable; the put∣ting down of the Sabbath, and the setting up of the first day of the week in stead of it, was con∣trived in the Nicen Councel, is, because Christians,

before that Counsell, were not forbid to observe the seventh day-Sabbath, nor threatned to bee Excommunicated if they did observe it; for that was not done till the Counsell held at Laodicea, Anno 364. which was about 38 yeares after the Nicen Councell, where they made a Law, that Christians should not Jewdize, and rest upon the Sabbath day, but rather worke upon it, and that they should prefer the Lords day above the Sab∣bath day; and, if any were found observing the Jewish Sabbath, they should be excommunicated, or accursed, as Mr. Brabourn hath it in his fore∣mentioned Book, pag. 482. Out of Hospine de Origen Fast. Chap. 9 pag. 27. about this time many other Errours were set a foot; for, Mr. Brabourn in his forementioned Book, pag. 482. saith, you may read in Mr. Perkins his Demon∣stration of the Probleme, about the 300 and 400 years after Christ: Then began Images to creep into Churches; the Crosse to be adored; Invo∣cation of Saints; praiers for the dead; Pilgri∣mage; Purgatory; single life of Ministers; Monkery, and Monasticall profession, &c. Thus have I shewn the time, or neere about, when the Lords holy seventh day-Sabbath was rejected, and the first day of the week instituted in its stead, which causeth me to say with the Pro∣phet, Psal. 119.126. It is time for thee Lord to worke, for they have made void thy Law. Yea,

it appeareth to me, to be a great cause of Gods Judgments on the World, Isa. 24.4, 5.

Lamentable it is, that the Learned of this Land, which professe themselvs to be guids to the blind, and lights of them which are in darknesse, and teachers of them which want knowledge, and to have the forme of knowledge, and truth of the Law, that they should teach men to observe the first day of the week in stead of the seventh, contrary to the Law, upon a pretence that Je∣sus Christ abrogated the Sabbath; and that he, and his Apostles instituted the first day of the week in its stead, when there is not any Word of God that teacheth either the one, or the o∣ther.

I confesse there are many weak reasons, pro∣duced by many men, to prove their doctrine and practice; both for the abrogation of the Sab∣bath, as also for manifesting that the first day of the week is of a divine institution, some principall places of Scripture produced, and perverted by them: I will briefly weigh and examine, com∣mitting it to wise mens consideration, and the Almighties blessing.

Anti-sabatharians say, Our Saviour to ma∣nifest the change of the Sabbath day, did plead for, and performe some things, that the Jewes up∣on

the Sabbath might not doe: and to prove it they urge two Scriptures, the one Mark 2.23, 24. Where it is said, our Saviours Disciples, plucked the eares of Corne on the Sabbath day, and the Pharises urged at our Saviour for that fact. Now say they, Our Saviour justified that fact, although it was a doing of that which the law of the Sabbath forbids, Ergo, the Sabbath was to be changed. Answer,

Our Saviour did not justifie them in that act, as an vnlawfull fact, but justified them in it as a lawfull or justifiable fact, as the cause stood with them, they being hungry, and that from a president in David, and those that were with him, who in the like case did eat the shew bread, &c. As also from that, Of the Priests in the Temple, which brake the Sabbath and were blamelesse, Mat. 12.4, 5. which words of our Saviour doe imply, that had there not bene a necessity, their action had not been lawfull; but being a cause of necessity (as Davids, and the Priests was, the one having a relation to Charity, and the other to Piety) they were blamelesse. And therefore in answer to the necessity of his Disciples, our Saviour said to his Adversaries, If you had known what this meaned, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, Math. 12 7. A repulse to their cavill: And withall our Saviour caused them to know, that the sonne of man is Lord,

also of the Sabbath. Which words of our Saviour doe imply, he being Lord of the Sabbath, knew the extent of the Sabbath better then they; for had they known the extent of the Sabbath, they would not have condemned the innocent, Mat. 12.7. Let no man thinke, that our Saviour, ei∣ther by his goodnesse, or greatnesse, did vouchsafe a dispensation to his Disciples, to act that which was in its nature evill, for that he did not: nei∣ther doth those words of our Saviour, in saying, he was Lord of the Sabbath, import, that he had changed the Sabbath, or would doe it. But those words are to be understood far otherwise, and that very proper to.

Our Saviour may be rightly said, to be Lord of the Sabbath, in a threefold respect.

1. In that as he was God, Iohn 1.1, 2, 3. In which sence, the Sabbath was made by him.

2. In respect it was upheld by him, Iohn 5 17. Col. 1.20.

3. He is rightly said, to be Lord of the Sab∣bath, in that he only holily kept it, in his person, for the perfecting of the Saints imperfect obedi∣ence to it, Rom. 8.3, 4. chap, 10.4. Had our Sa∣viour abolished the law of the Sabbath, he had diminished from the morall Law, which thing he did not, Mat. 5.17. For being man, and cir∣cumcised, he was bound to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5.3. In which regard he was a subject to it,

and so he acknowledged himselfe to be, Mat. 4.7, 10. Yea, I say, It was impossible, that he could, or did diminish from the morall Law, in regard, circumcised men were forbid so to doe, Deut. 4.2. chap. 12 32. It being so, I affirme, that who∣soever doth teach, or affirme, that Jesus Christ did diminish from the holy law, the decalogue, doe charge our Saviour with sinne, although they deserue it not. But to defend his Innocen∣cy therein, I doe affirme, our Saviour Christ did not before his death, nor at his death, nor by his resurrection, diminish any precept of that Law, nor any part thereof: Therefore it followes, that we are as firmly, and as unchangeably bound to the observation of the seventh day-Sabbath, as we are to any duty commanded in that Law.

A second Scripture oft urged by them is, Iohn 5. where mention is made of our Saviours cu∣ring the Impotent man, and bidding him, take up his Bed and walke, verse 18. It being the Sab∣bath day: a thing fordidden by the Law [as they say] therefore they infer, it manifested, that the Sabbath was, or should be changed.

Answer, Surely it is a very weake and slender ground to bear so weighty a matter: yea, so weake it is, that they know not well, what to in∣fer; something they would have to prove their purpose, if they knew what; but surely there is nothing of any force to be gathered from thence,

to prove, that either the Sabbath was, or should be abrogated; and therefore I passe over this Objection, as not worth the answering.

3. Anti-sabatharians, to prove the change of the Sabbath, and to manifest the first day of the week to be of a divine institution. They say, The Apostles assembled on the first day of the weeke, the day of our Saviours Resurrection, and our Saviour honoured them with his presence, Mark 16.19. Ergo, the Sabbath was changed, &c.

Answer, The inference is not to be proved by Scripture; the premises proveth not the thing intended, and therefore I say, not any of this doth prove the change of the Sabbath; nor that the first day of the week, is of a divine institution, not in the least. Neither did their assembling prove, that it was for the celebration of that day, in re∣membrance of any Grace that was brought to the Church, or World, by the resurrection of our Saviour from the dead, as some doe surmise, and that for two Reasons.

The first is, because Saint John saith [chap. 20.19.] That they assembled together for feare of the Iewes; had it been for any other end, doubtlesse, he would have made it known unto us.

2 Because when they assembled they knew not that he was risen from the dead: no, neither did they believe the testimony of the Disciples

which Reported it to them after they were as∣sembled. Mar. 16, 11. for which cause our Saviour reprehended them, v. 14.

4 Our Saviour appearing to his disciples after eight days, Joh. 20.26. is oft vrged to prove the change of the Sabbath, and that the first day of the weeke to be of a Divine Institution, but this helpeth to prove their purpose as the former; in regard, it was not upon the next first day as many do think: But it was upon some one day, after the first day of the week; had it been on the first day of the week that our Saviour appear∣ed to his Disciples, it had been on the eighth day: But, St. John expresly saith, it was after eight dayes, therefore not on the first day, which was the eighth day: It being so, this serveth not in a∣ny wise, to prove the abrogating of the seventh day-Sabbath; nor that the first day of the weeke is of a Divine Institution, for performance of pub∣lique Worship.

5. Another Scripture urged to prove the first day of the week to be a set time for performance of publick worship, is, Act. 20.7. where it is said, when the disciples came together to break bread, upon the first day of the week, Paul preached un∣to them, &c. This doth not prove the first day of the week to be of a Divine institution, nor that their breaking of bread, was the communion of the Misteries of the Lord in the Sacrament, seeing

it was an usuall thing for the Disciples to assemble together, to break bread daily, Acts 2.46. Chap. 5.42.

6. Neither did the Apostles Ordination for Collection at Corinth and Galatia, on the first day of the week, 1 Cor. 16.1. prove that the Churches then were to assemble on the first day of the week, to performe publique worship. Surely there is no such word to be found in the Text, or elsewhere; but that which the Apostle did appoint in Corinth, and at Galatia, was, that every one, on the first day of the week, should lay a part by himself, as God had prospered him, &c. Or this it may be read for our more proper under∣standing of the Apostles meaning, upon one of the week daies, let every one of you lay apart by him∣selfe, &c. Note, not at Church, there is no such word; but at home: And so doth Mr. Tindall, and Tremelius Translate it: It being so, what doth this serve to prove, that all Christian Churches, then, and ever since, were to assemble, for performance of publique worship, on the first day of the week; or, that those words of the Apostles, did either in∣stitute, or constitute it to be a Sabbath. Sure∣ly, nothing at all; See Dr. Prideaux on the Sab∣bath, pag. 28. And also, Dr. Hylyns History up∣on the Sabbath, Part. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 10. Nei∣ther did the Apostles, or Evangelists ever call the first day of the week, by name of a Sabbath, in

relation to a day of Rest; nor when ever they spake of the first day of the week, they never cald it by the name of the Lords day, or Sunday: Had these Titles appertained to it, doubtlesse they would not have been slack to have bestowed them on it.

7. To prove the Sabbath abrogated, Anti-Sabbatharians doe oft urge the Apostles words, Col. 2.16.17. Let no man condemne you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a Holy day, or of the New Moon, or of the Sabbath dayes, &c.

Answ. The Apostle speaketh not in this place of the seventh day-Sabbath, Exod. 20.8. which our Saviour ratified, Mat. 5. It being a part of the Morall Law; yea, and also commanded obe∣dience to God by it inclusively, Mat. 22.37, 38. But of the Ceremoniall Sabbaths, forementioned; which were shadows of good things to come, as Meats, Drinks, and New Moons were, which be∣ing abolished by Christ, became beggerly Rudi∣ments, Gal. 4.9. and frustrateth the work of Grace in the observers thereof, v. 11. Chap. 5.4.

Evident it is, these things there mentioned by the Apostle, were not written in Tables of stone, therefore, serveth not to prove the duty of the seventh day-Sabbath abrogated. Yea, I say, cer∣tain it is, there is no appearance in the New Te∣stament, that the seventh day-Sabbath was abro∣gated by Christ, or should be, after his death: Or,

that ever the first day of the weeke was instituted, or commanded, by him, or his Apostles, to be ob∣served, for performance of publique worship: Neither did God, or Christ, ever sanctifie that day to that end, as many doe imagine; nor never instituted, nor commanded his Church to observe it in stead of the Sabbath. Therefore, I say, see∣ing we are not to presume above what is written, 1 Cor. 4.6. what reason is there, that the first day of the week should be held more high, and holy, than the seventh day-Sabbath, which God instituted, blessed, and sanctified, and commanded us, and all men to observe, by the Morall Law: Yea, what reason is there, or, what word of God is there to be produced, to prove, that it is our du∣ty to abstain from common work on the first day of the week, called Sunday? As also, that we ought to doe common work on the seventh day-Sabbath, called Saturday. Deceive not thy self, nor let any man deceive thee, or cause thee to believe, that it was the practice of Christian Churches, to assemhle every first day of the week, to per∣form publique worship, in the Apostles dayes, for that they did not. Yea, I say, it is not to be proved by Scripture, that ever any one Congre∣gation, did three times assemble successively, to perform publique worship on the first day of the week, called Sunday: Yea, I suppose, that not any Anti-Sabbatharian can prove, that ever

any one Congregation did assemble two first days successively, in the Apostles daies; or, that ever it was by them esteemed more holy, or more honou∣rable, than any other of the 6 daies. Yet, I say, what if it could be proved, that any Congregation in the Apostles days, did assemble 6 first days successively to perform worship on it; yet it would not prove the seventh day-Sabbath abrogated; nor, that the first day of the week was designed for pub∣lique Worship, seeing Christians in those daies, did daily assemble, Acts 2.46. Ch. 5.42. Yea, I say, if such a thing could be proved, (which none can doe) it would bind us no more to the constant performance of the former, than of the latter.

That the first day of the week is not of a Di∣vine Institution, nor is to be observed as a Sab∣bath, I will give 3. Reasons.

The first Reason is; Because if men keep the first day of the week for a Sabbath, and the se∣venth day for a working day, it is to doe ex∣presly against a Precept, both Affirmative, and Negative, Exod, 20.8, 9, 10.

Secondly; It cannot be, that the first day of the week, is an Ordinance of the Gospel; because then, the preaching of Faith, would make void the Law, contrary to Rom. 3.31.

Thirdly; The first day of the week cannot be of a Divine Institution, because then the Law,

which commandeth the seventh dayes rest, would crosse the Gospels Institution, contrary to Gal. 3.31.

I need not to insist to give more reasons, to prove that the first day of the week is not of a Divine Institution, seeing the truth is plentifully confessed by many wise, and learned men, whose understandings are not eclipsed with errour in this particular. Yea, I say, Papists themselves, doe confesse, the observation of the Sunday is not to be proved by the written word of God; and therefore, oftentimes in their writings, they urge at Protestants, because they cry Scripture, Scrip∣ture, to be the Rule of their Faith, and Practice, in the way of Religion, when they observe the first day of the week, which is called Sunday, in stead of the Sabbath, called Saturday, when there is no Word of God to prove, that so they ought to doe.

Christians ought to make the Word of God the Rule of their Faith, and Life, and not the Tra∣ditions of men, though never so ancient, or uni∣versally received; no, nor the sayings of Men, though wise, grave, and learned, if they speake not according to the Law of God, 1 John 4.1. Isa. 8.10. and therefore good it is for every one which loveth truth, and hateth errour, to fol∣low the Councel of Gracehop (placed at the Beginning of the Bible, Printed Anno 1603.)

who saith; Refuse all sence of Scripture, contra∣ry to the First and Second Tables of Gods Com∣mandements. Imbrace his Counsell, for it is good, it tendeth to further men in the way of Godlinesse; for certainly, mens well meaning, or acting in the way of Religion, will not stand them in stead, to bring them into acceptation with God, except it be in the way that God re∣quireth of them, for he will not accept of any worship, or service, which he hath not appoint∣ed, or commanded, Numb. 1. to 41. 2 Chron. 26.18.19. Isa. 66.3.4. Mark 7.6.7.9. Col. 2.20, 21, 22. And therefore, It is not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdome of Heaven; but he that doth the will of my Father, saith Christ, Mat. 7.21.

Had men that due respect to the Law of God, as is meet, there would not be any need to use Scripture Arguments and Reasons to move them to the obedience thereof; or to manifest, they are not to walke in a way contrary to it, as men doe, in observing the first day in stead of the se∣venth, out of a blind Devotion, through a mis∣apprehension, that it is a Gospel-Ordinance, when indeed it is not, but a meer humane In∣vention, or Ecclesiasticall Institution, or Po∣pish Tradition; and to manifest the truth thereof, I will produce the testimony of severall Authors, for an addition to the former, which affirme the same.

13. D^r. Whitguift against Cartwright, page 553. citeth the words of Saint Agustine (ad Romana Janu) Thus, that the Passion of Christ and his Resurrection [note, that is the first day of the weeke] and the day of the comming down of the holy Ghost is (saith he) not celebrated by any command writen, but by the determination of the Church.

14. In the Harmony of Confessions, I finde ma∣many notable expressions of this nature, in page 479. is said, We see, that in ancient Churches, there were not only set houres for meetings, but that also, even the Lords day, ever since the Apostles time, was consecrated to religious exercise, &c We doe celebrate and keepe the Lords day, and not the Sabbath, and that of a free observation.

15 Out of the Confession of Auspurge, page 493. in their fourth Article, speaking of Tradi∣tions about holy dayes, saith, Of which sort is, the Lords day, the Nativity, Passover, and the rest, &c. And again, thus, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when to come together: It seemes that the Church for that purpose, did appoint the Lords day, &c. Look the first observation on the Confession.

16. D^r. White on the Sabbath [page 242.] speaking of the Apostles, saith, Immediately

after them, it is apparent, the Christian people made the Lords day of every weeke, an ordinary Festivall. See also page 217, and in page 218. he saith, Constantine, among many other religious constitutions, he ordained the weekly Sabbath of the Lords day, &c.

17. The translator of D^r. Predeaux on the Sabbath, in his Preface, doth affirm, that D^r. Ri∣vet one of the four Professours in Leyden, doth affirm, that the appointing of the Lords day for Gods publicke service, was neither done by God himselfe, nor by his Apostles, but by the authority of the Church.

18. D^r. Hylyn saith, The Emperour Constan∣tine was the first that made any law for the keep∣ing of the Lords day: see his History on the Sabbath, part. 2. chap. 3. sect. 1. And again, ibid. part. 2. chap. 1. sect. 3. speaking of Christ and of the Sabbath, saith, Neither did Christ, nor his Apostles, ordain another Sabbath instead of this; as if they had intended, onely to shift the day, and to transferre this honour to another time; their doctrine and their practice, are directly contrary to so new a fancy. It is true (saith he) in some tract of time, the Church; in honour, to his Resur∣rection, did set apart that day, on which he rose, to holy exercise; but this on their own authority, and without any warrant from above, that we heare of.

19. Muskulous in his Book of Common places, fol. 66. thus saith, We Christian men leaving the Jewes Sabbath, doe keepe our holy rest upon the first day, &c.

20. Know also what the originall Actors, or Authors, of changing the Lords holy Sabbath to the first day of the week, in the Remish Anno∣tations, on Apocalips chap. 1. verse 10. saith, If the Church had authority and inspiration from God, to make Sunday (being a working day) an everlasting holy day; and the Saturday, which was before a holy day, now a common working day: Why may not the same Church prescribe and ap∣point the other Feasts. Easter, Whitsuntide, Christmas and the rest, for the same warrant she had for the one, that she had for the o∣ther &c.

I need not produce larger testimony, to de∣monstrate who it was, that abolished the Lords seventh day-Sabbath, or who it was, that insti∣tuted the first day of the week in its stead; but that which is already said, doth sufficiently de∣clare, who were the originall Authors of it, and of all other superstitious holy dayes, to the disho∣nour of God, and the destruction of the world, without Gods especiall and abundant mercy. But blessed be God, we have yet time to fly unto the Lord for mercy, and to conforme our selves to

the obedience of his will, and let it be our comfort he is abundantly pardonfull, Isa. 55.6.7. James 1.21.

To be short, as it is well known, the Church changed the Sabbath to the first day of the weeke, so also it is known and acknowledged, the Church hath power to change the day to some other day. For, D^r. Prideaux in his Book of the Sabbath, page 34. affirmes, that Calvin, Bullinger, Bu∣cerius Brentius, Chimnitius, Ʋrsinus, and o∣thers of the reformed Churches, still affirmes, the Church hath power to change the Lords day to some other day. Yea, happy shall the Church be, that worshippeth God according to his Law, and giveth him his due, by placing on the seventh day, the honour which God requireth to be perfor∣med on it, which hath been taken from it this 1300. yeares: for greatly hath God been disho∣noured by mens consecrating the first day of the week, to be a holy rest instead of the Sabbath, seeing God never instituted it, nor commanded it to be: and therefore, I say, with D^r. Prideaux [on the Sabbath, page 22, sect. 7.] The instituti∣on of the Lords day, out of the Scripture, either expresly, or by necessary consequence, shew me he that can.

As I have disavowed, That the honour due to God on the seventh day-Sabbath, to be placed on the first day of the week, called Sunday, or Lords

day, (or Sabbath, as mens opinions leads them) So I doe disavow the Title of the Lords day, pro∣perly to belong to the first day of the week, and therefore I say, very improperly are the words of St. John, Revel. 1.10. applied to it, for there is no such thing there manifested in the Text, that the Apostle had any such meaning. Yea, I say, there is no more reason that that Title should be given to the first day of the week, the day of our Saviours Resurrection, than to the day of his Birth, Death, or Ascension, unlesse because it was anciently given to it; or else, because men will have something to credit that which they will have Honourable.

Ignatius, calling it by the name of the Lords Day, proves not, that that Title is due to it by a Divine institution, no more than his bringing in of Anthemes into the Church, doth prove that it was of a Divine institution, Socrat. Lib. 6 Chap. 8.

Yea, I say, there is more reason to be given, that St. John meant the seventh day of the week, rather than the first, because it was knowne by name the Lords day, Isa. 58.13. Exod. 20.11. But the first day of the week was never knowne by that name: Yet, I doe not say, that St. John spake of that day neither; but of the day of Christ, or time of his Reign in Power and Glo∣ry, or of the day, or time of Judgment, 2 Thes.

2.2. 2 Pet. 2.9. 1 Cor: 5.5. who being in the Spirit, saw it in his Vision, as if the day had been present.

What if the Roman Church hath, and doth observe the first day of the week, in remembrance of our Saviours Resurrection, as they doe the Wednesday, in remembrance that he was betray∣ed; and the Friday, in remembrance of his Pas∣sion: Ought we therefore to follow their vain Idolatrous custome and tradition in these things? Oh no, we ought not; for certainly, God doth not require these things at our hands, neither by Law, nor Gospel.

If this, which hath been said in this Subject, will not satisfie men, viz. that it is our duty to rest the seventh day, to wit, Saturday; and worship God on it, which is Gods Sabbath, Exod. 20.9, 10, 11. As also, that it is our duty to work the first day of the week, called Sun∣day; let it be proved either by Law, or Gos∣pel, that it is our duty to work Saturday, and to rest Sunday. If this, none can doe, I affirme, to the honour of God, and the advancement of his Holy Law; and for the beating off of all un∣righteous, and ungodly intrenching upon the Lords Holy Sabbaths; and for the awaking of all those out of errour, which would not wil∣lingly perish in it; and to reduce all that love Gods Law, to the due obedience of it. I af∣firme,

that it is as great a sinne, to observe the first day of the week, in stead of the seventh; as it is to worship an Image, in stead of the true God: For, to doe the one, is contrary to the Second Commandement of Gods Law; and, to doe the other, is contrary to the fourth Com∣mandement of the same Law: It being so, I de∣sire my Brethren, my Friends, yea, and all men, to consider of this, (which condemneth Idola∣try, and yet justifieth themselves in a weekly trangression of the Lords seventh day-Sabbaths) that they may cease to doe evill, and learn to doe well, Isa. 1.16, 17. For, their obtaining of grace here, and glory hereafter: For, the worke of Righteousnesse is Peace, and the effect of Righte∣ousnesse, is quietnesse, and assurance for ever, Isa. 32.17. And so I conclude with the saying of Solomon, Eccles. 12.13, 14.

Let us heare the conclusion of all, Fear God, and keep his Commandements; it is the whole duty of man.

Notes

• At this time, or a little be∣fore, is the time that Socrates speaketh of lib. 5. chap. 21. saying, some despised the com∣mandements of God, and made them cannons of their owne; they set at nought, and made no account of the law, published by the Apostles; so unadvisedly (saith he) they put in practise decrees contra∣ry to the will of God himself.
• Note, I pray, if it be not according to the words of the law and testimony, it is because there is no light in them, Isa. 8.20.
• See the latter confession of Helvetia.