A26918:210
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.
1. Saith he, Isidore a Bishop of Seville makes it an Apostolical Sanction only, no Divine Commandment: a day designed by the Apostles, for Religious Exercises in honour of our Saviours resurrection; and it was called the Lords day therefore: to this end and purpose, that resting in the same from all earthly acts and the temptations of the world, we might intend Gods holy Worship, giving this day due honour for the hope of the resurrection which we have therein. The same verbatim is repeated by Beds l. de Offic. and by Raban. Maurus l. de inst. Chr. l. 2. c. 24. and by Alcuinus de Die Offic. c. 24. which plainly shows, that all these took it only for an Apostolical usage, &c.
1. Saith he, Isidore a Bishop of Sevil makes it an Apostolical Sanction only, no Divine Commandment: a day designed by the Apostles, for Religious Exercises in honour of our Saviours resurrection; and it was called the Lords day therefore: to this end and purpose, that resting in the same from all earthly acts and the temptations of the world, we might intend Gods holy Worship, giving this day due honour for the hope of the resurrection which we have therein. The same verbatim is repeated by Beds l. de Offic. and by Raban. Maurus l. de inst. Chr. l. 2. c. 24. and by Alcuinus de Die Offic. c. 24. which plainly shews, that all these took it only for an Apostolical usage, &c.
Answ. Reader, is not here a strange kind of proof? This is but just the same that we assert, ⟨p. 47⟩and I am proving; save that he most grossly puts an Apostolical usage, and sanction (sanxerunt) as distinct from, and exclusive of a Command, which I have fully proved to be Christs own Act and Law to us, by virtue of 1. Their Commission: 2. And the infallible Spirit given them.
Answ. Reader, is not here a strange kind of proof? This is but just the same that we assert, ⟨p. 47⟩and I am proving; save that he most grosly puts an Apostolical usage, and sanction (sanxerunt) as distinct from, and exclusive of a Command, which I have fully proved to be Christs own Act and Law to us, by vertue of 1. Their Commission: 2. And the infallible Spirit given them.