The divine appointment of the Lords day proved as a separated day for holy…

XI. The Controversy, whether it be lawful to separate an Anniversary day for the Commemoration of Christs Nativity, Circumcision and such like things which were equally existent in th• ⟨p. 152⟩Apostles days, and the reason for observing them equal with following times, (and so the Apostles had the same reason to have appointed such days had they thought it best, as we have) I acknowledge too hard for me to determine▪ not being able to prove it lawful, I cannot own and justify it; And not seeing a plain prohibition I will not condemn it, nor be guilty of unpeaceable opposing Church Customs or Authority in it, but behave my self as a peaceable doubter.

XI. The Controversie, whether it be lawful to separate an Anniversary day for the Commemoration of Christs Nativity, Circumcision and such like things which were equally existent in th• ⟨p. 152⟩Apostles dayes, and the reason for observing them equal with following times, (and so the Apostles had the same reason to have appointed such dayes had they thought it best, as we have) I acknowledge too hard for me to determine▪ not being able to prove it lawful, I cannot own and justifie it; And not seeing a plain prohibition I will not condemn it, nor be guilty of unpeaceable opposing Church Customes or Authority in it, but behave my self as a peaceable doubter.

XII. But that no earthly power may appoint a weekly day, in commemoration of any part of our Redemption, besides the Lords day, and so make another separated weekly stated Holy day, I think plainly unlawful, Because it is a doing the same thing for one day which God hath done already by another; And so seemeth to me, 1. An usurpation of a power not given, and 2. An accusation of Christ and the Holy Ghost, as if he had not done his work sufficiently, but man must come after and do it better.