Disputationibus ipsius de Foedere Legali desumpta et recognita. Ultraj. 1658. 12mo.

See also below, No. 150.

The last three articles shew the revival of the Dutch controversy, referred to by Hengstenberg in a passage quoted above, i. 218. Concerning this revival, he proceeds to say: The principal opponents of the validity of the Mosaic law in this new period of the controversy, which commenced in the year 1658, were Heidanus and Cocceius in Leyden; the chief writers on the other side, Hoornbeek in Leyden,* and Essen in Utrecht. A long series of works appeared on both sides in Dutch and Latin, of which those of Cocceius were the most important, whose opponents went so far as to accuse him of Socinianism, on account of his views. At last the States-General were obliged to interfere. The controversy was stopped by them at Leyden by the edict issued by them on the 7th August 1659, prohibiting any more writing upon the subject, and commanding that the six articles of the Dort Commission should be regarded as final. But it continued at Utrecht with the greater warmth. There Francis Burman appeared as the opponent of the Jewish observance of the Sabbath; and was warmly opposed by his less known colleagues. In Groningen, too, these contests were carried on; Alting defending against Maresius the universal validity of the Mosaic Sabbath law. The controversy was kept up in Holland till the eighteenth century, but with greater calmness. However, the more liberal views gradually advanced, and became more and more prevalent throughout the Reformed Churches, with the exception of Great Britain." (P. 70.)

144. JOHNSTON, NATHANAEL, M.D.-Sententia Sociniana de Sabbato inimica Pietati. 1659. 4to.

145. IVES, JEREMY.-Saturday no Sabbath Day. Lond. 1659. 4to.

146. BRABOURNE, THEOPHILUS (see No. 80).-An Answer to two Books on the Sabbath: the one by Mr Ives, entitled, Saturday no Sabbath Day; the other by Mr Warren, The Jews' Sabbath Antiquated. Lond. 1659. 8vo.

147. STILLINGFLEET, EDWARD, Bishop of Worcester (died 1699). Irenicum; A Weapon-salve for the

* I have not discovered the title of any separate work by Hoornbeek; but his arguments are probably to be found in one or other of his Theologia Practica (Ultraj. 1689; 2 vols. 4to), and Institutiones Theologica. He was professor of divinity at Leyden, and died in 1666.

Church's Wounds: Or the Divine Right of Particular Forms of Church Government, discussed and examined according to the Principles of the Law of Nature, the Positive Laws of God, the Practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church, and the Judgment of Reformed Divines. Lond. 1659.

This celebrated treatise will be found in the author's collected Works, vol. ii. (Lond. 1709, fol.)

In Part I. ch. i., he observes that "whatsoever binds Christians as an universal standing law, must be clearly revealed as such, and laid down in Scripture in such evident terms, as all who have their senses exercised therein may discern it to have been the will of Christ that it should perpetually oblige all believers to the world's end, as is clear in the case of baptism, and the Lord's Supper. But here," says he, "I shall add one thing by way of caution; that there is not the same necessity for a particular and clear revelation in the alteration of a law unrepealed in some circumstances of it, as there is for the establishing of a new law. As to the former, viz., the change of a standing law as to some particular circumstance, a different practice by persons guided by an infallible spirit is sufficient; which is the case as to the observation of the Lord's Day under the Gospel: For the Fourth Command standing in force as to the morality of it, a different practice by the Apostles may be sufficient for the particular determination of the more ritual and occasional part of it, which was the limitation of the observation of it to that certain day." (Works, ii. 162.) Again : "Nature dictates that God should be worshipped; the law informs what day and time to spend in his worship; grace must enable us to perform that worship on that day in a right manner. And because the same reason for God's worship continues still, therefore it is a precept of the natural law that God should be worshipped. What time precisely must be spent in God's worship (as one day in seven), though the reason be evident to the nature of it when it is made known, yet it is hard to conceive that nature could have found out the precise determination of the time. Although I must confess the general consent of nations as to the seventh part (if it were fully cleared), would speak fair to be the voice of nature, or at least a tradition received from the sons of Noah, which, if so, will be an evidence of the observation of the Sabbath before the children of Israel's being in the wilderness. But granting that the seventh part of time was a positive law of God, yet I say it binds immutably, because there is as strong a reason for it now as ever, and ratio immutabilis præcepti facit præceptum immutabile. This I take to be the sense of those who distinguish between morale positivum and morale naturale, i.e. that some things are so moral, that even nature itself can discover them, as that God should be worshipped. Other things are so

moral, that though the reason of them be founded in nature, yet there wants divine revelation to discover them to us; but when once discovered, are discerned to be very agreeable to common principles of reason: And these when once discovered, are as immutably obligatory as the other, because the reason of them is immutable. And of this nature is the determination of the particular time for God's worship, and limitation of it to one day in seven. But what was in that precept merely occasional, as the first and original ground of its limitation to the seventh in order, God's resting on that day from the work of creation (Gen. ii. 2), and the further ground of its inforcement to the Jews, viz., their deliverance out of Egypt (Deut. v. 15); these being not immutable but temporary and occasional, may, upon as great ground given, and approved of God for that end (as is evident by the Apostles' practice), be sufficient reason of the alteration of the seventh day to the first day of the week. By this may briefly be seen how irrationally those speak, who say we have no farther ground for our observation of the Lord's Day now, than for other arbitrary festivals of the Church, viz., the tradition of the Church of God. I grant, the tradition of the Church doth acquaint us with Apostolical practice; but the ground of our observation of the Lord's Day is not the Church's tradition, but that Apostolical practice conveyed by universal tradition (which, setting aside the festivals observed upon the Lord's Day, can very hardly be found for any other). But supposing universal tradition for other festivals, I say here tradition is not only used as a testimony and instrument of conveyance, as in the other case of the Lord's Day; but is itself the only argument, and the very ground of the original observation: between which two what a wide difference there is, let any rational man judge. (Pp. 166, 167.)

In Part I. ch. v., he argues that the dictates of nature require not only the giving of worship to God, but "the circumstantiating of time and place, and the dedication of both to the end of worship. That these are very consonant to natural reason appears by the universal consent of all nations agreeing in any form of worship of a Deity; who have all had their set times and fixed places to perform this worship in. I shall not insist, as some have done, that the seventh day hath been particularly and solemnly observed for the worship of God by the consent of nations; although there be many probable arguments and plausible testimonies brought for a peculiarity of honour to, if not service on, the seventh day, out of Josephus, Aristobulus Judæus (and by him from Linus, Hesiod, Homer), Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Lampridius, Seneca, Tibullus, and many others; (Joseph. c. Ap., 1. 2; Euseb. Præp., 1. 13, cap. 12; Tertull. Apol., c. 16, c. Notion., 1. 1, c. 13; Lamprid. Vit. Alex. Sever.; Seneca, Ep. 95; Tibullus, Eleg. 3, 1. 1; Lucian, Pseudol., p. 893, ed. Paris.) From which testimonies it appears that some kind of reverence and honour was given to the seventh day; but whether that day was the seventh of the week, or the seventh of the month (which was consecrated among the Greeks to

Apollo, upon which the eagynia and Пvævifiæ, and the seventh of every month were observed in honour of him); whether the title Οἱ ἱερὸν ἅμας did belong to the seventh or one of the ἑορτάσιμοι or ároppades, festival or inauspicious days (for it was common to both); whether observed by any public religious custom, or by some private superstition—are things too large to inquire into, too difficult now to determine, and not necessary for my present purpose; it being sufficient in order to that, if they had any set times at all for worship, which shews how solemn the worship of God ought to be. And this is not denied by any; it being so necessary a consectary from the duty of worship that there must be a time for performance of it; and not only in general that there must be some time, but a sufficient proportion of time to be consecrated to the public exercise of piety, both from the consideration of man's obligation to divine service from his nature, from the weight and concernment of the things that time is employed in, and in the inward sense of immortality upon the soul of man. But then what this proportion of time must exactly be, I see not how mere natural light could determine it, but it would rather suggest it to be highly reasonable to wait for and expect such a determination from the Supreme Rector and Governor of the world; it being far more fit for the master to prescribe unto the servant what proportion of service he expects from him, than that the servant should both divide and choose his own time, and the proportion of service which he owes to his master.... But when God hath thus determined it, nature cannot but assent to that particular determination, that in consideration of the works of God, it is most reasonable that rather one day in a week than one in a month should be dedicated to God's service; that the seventh day of the week, upon God's resting on that day and sanctifying it, should be the precise day, unless some reason equivalent to that of the first institution, and approved by God for that end, be the ground of its alteration to another of the seven, which is the reason of the change under the Gospel." (Pp. 215, 216).

In vol. iii. p. 661, he treats of The Particular Duties of the Parochial Clergy, at a visitation, Oct. 27, 1696. A great deal of evidence is there adduced to shew that the Lord's Day had been "set apart for the solemn worship and service of God, especially by the clergy, from the first settlement of a parochial clergy in this Church," (pp. 662-666); his purpose probably being to arm his clergy against the Seventh-Day Baptists or "Sabbatarians." For he adds:"These things I have the more largely insisted upon, to shew that the religious observation of the Lord's Day is no novelty started by some late sects and parties among us, but that it hath been the general sense of the best part of the Christian world, and is particularly inforced upon us of the Church of England, not only by the Homilies, but by the most ancient ecclesiastical law among us." He takes notice by the way, that "Bede distinguishes between the patriarchal and Jewish Sabbath: the latter he calls a 'carnal,' and the other a 'spiritual Sabbath;' the Jewish lay in a

strict abstinence from labour, but the other in prayer, and devotion, and spiritual contemplations." (P. 664).*

148. STENNET, EDWARD (see No. 138).-The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord; in answer to Mr Russel's book, No Seventh-Day Sabbath recommended by Jesus Christ. 1664. 4to.

149. BURMAN, FRANCIS, Professor of Theology at Utrecht (died 1679).-De Moralitate Sabbati. Ultraj. 1665.

See above, No. 143.

150. ESSENIUS, ANDREW (see No. 143).-Disquisitio de Moralitate Sabbati Hebdomadalis. 1665.-Dissertationes de Decalogo et die Sabbathi, adversus Abrahamum Heidanum. Ultraj. 1666.-Vindiciae Quarti Præcepti in Decalogo, seu Lege Divinâ Morali, adversus Fr. Burmannum. Ultraj. 1666. 8vo.

151. TAYLOR, JEREMY, Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore (died 1667).-Whole Works; with a Life of the Author, and a Critical Examination of his Writings, by the Right Rev. Reginald Heber, D.D., Lord Bishop of Calcutta. Lond. 1822. 15 vols. 8vo.

There are several subsequent editions; including one in 3 vols. imperial 8vo, Lond. 1839. All these have a copious index, in which see the articles DECALOGUE, LORD'S DAY, and SABBATH.

66

Bishop Taylor is characterized by Dr Parr as a man fraught with guileless ardour, with peerless eloquence, and with the richest stores of knowledge, historical, classical, scholastic, and theological," (Letter to Milner, in Parr's Works, iii. 428.)

He treats of the Lord's Day in The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living, chap. iv., sect. 6, entitled, "Of keeping Festivals, and Days holy to the Lord, particularly the Lord's Day" (vol. iv. pp. 212217); in the Ductor Dubitantium, b. ii., ch. 2, rule 6, §§ 43-62 (vol. xii. pp. 412-430); and in the Life of Jesus, Part II., Sect. 12, Disc. x., §§ 24, 25 (vol. iii. pp. 28-30.) Referring especially to the first of these works, which has been often reprinted, for a full statement of his views, I shall quote from all the three some passages bearing mainly on controverted points:

The Sabbath contrasted with the Lord's Day." We are eternally bound to confess God Almighty to be the maker of heaven and

See above, vol. i. p. 220.