A26918:300
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 7
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.
Answ. This is spoken without proof, and the contrary is before proved.
Obj. By this you will make the Christian Sabbath also to be excluded. Is not the Lords day a Sabbath?
Answ. I am here to speak but of the name; of which I say, that the common sense of the word Sabbath was, a Day so appointed to Rest, as that the bodily Rest of it, was a primary part of its observation, to be kept for it self; and such the Jewish Sabbaths were. Though spiritual Worship was then also commanded, yet the corporal Rest was more expressly or frequently urged in the Law, and this not only subordinately as an advantage to the spiritual worship, but for it self, as an immediate and most visible and notable part of Sabbatizing. Even as other Ceremonies under the Law were commanded, not only as doctrinal Types of things spiritual, but as external Acts of Ceremonious operous obedience suited to the Jews Minority, which is after ⟨p. 82⟩called the yoke which they and their Fathers were unable to bear, Acts 15. Whereas the Lords day is appointed but as a seasonable time subserviently to the spiritual work of the day; And the bodily Rest, not required as primary obedience for it self, but only for the spiritual work sake: and therefore no bodily labour is now unlawful, but such as […] hinderance to the spiritual work of the day, […] or accidentally a scandal and temptation to others) whereas the breach of the outward Rest of the Jews Sabbath, was a sin directly of it self, without hinderance of, or respect to the spiritual Worship. So that the first notion and sense of a Sabbath in those days being (in common use) A day of such Ceremonial Corporal Rest, as the Jewish Sabbath was, the Lords day is never in Scripture called by that name; but the proper name is [The Lords day.] And the ancient Churches called it constantly by that name, and never called it the Sabbath, but when they spake Analogically by allusion to the Jews Sabbath; even as they called the holy Table, the Altar, and the Bread and Wine, the Sacrifice. Therefore it is plain, that Paul is to be understood of all proper Sabbaths, and not of the Lords day, which was then and long after distinguished from the Sabbath.