A26918:139
The divine appointment of the Lords day proved as a separated day for holy…
The divine appointment of the Lords day proved as a separated day for holy worship, especially in the church assemblies, and consequently the cessation of the seventh day Sabbath : written for the satisfaction of some religious persons who are lately drawn into error or doubting in both these points / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for Nevil Simmons, 1671
The Divine Appointment of the LORDS DAY, proved, as a separated Day… › Chapter 5
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But Dr. Heylin hath one poor reason against it, viz. Because it was but an accidental thing that the day fell out that year on the first day.
Answ. 1. Was it not according to the course of Nature? How then can that be called Accidental? 2. But however it was no contingent accidental thing (in his sense) that the Holy Ghost was sent down on that day rather than another. If a sparrow fall not to the ground without Gods providence, did God choose that day He knew not why? Or did it fall out hap hazard or by chance?
I need not insist on the confutation of his Cavils about the other Texts forecited. Note only, 1. That as to his exception about Christs travel on his Resurrection day, I have after answered it. 2. That he freely granteth that [Greek or Hebrew], signifieth The first day of the week, both in Act. 20. 7. and 1 Cor. 16. 2. 3. That he himself citeth afterward many testimonies that oblations and contributions were in the Churches a usual ⟨p. 23⟩Lords days work. 4. That he confesseth that Rev. 10. 1. is meant of the Lords day, as by that time grown into reputation. 5. That he thinketh it was in small reputation before, because Paul chose the Sabbath so often to Preach on, to the Jews and Hellenists, or Greeks: whereas he himself is forced to confess that it was not for the days sake, but the Assemblies, to do them good. 6. That he vainly conceiteth [that Because the Lords day was kept on the account of Christs Resurrection,] it implieth that it was not kept by Gods command, which needeth no confutation. 7. That his labour to prove that Paul meant the Jewish Sabbath as abrogated is vain; for we deny it not. 8. That he cannot deny that Christians had all that time of the Apostles a stated day (as Pliny himself witnesseth) for solemn worship, above other days. 9. That he vainly snatcheth a little countenance from Calvin and Beza, &c. when as no man since Cochlaeus writeth more detestably of them. 10. That after he confesseth that [its no doubt but the Religious observation of the day began in the Apostles age with their approbation and Authority, and hath since continued in the same respect.] And what needs he more for confutation?