The Christian Sabbath defended against a crying evil in these times of the antisabitarians…

or the remembrance of Christs nativity, resurrection, ascension, or the coming of the holy Ghost, may be celebrated either on the Lords Day, or any other time: yet there is great difference between the authority of the Church in this case, and the prescription of the Lords Day by the Apostles for the special memory of those things are indifferent of their nature, either to be kept on certain days, or left to the discretion of the Governors of the Church. But to change the Lords Day, or to keep it on Monday, Tuesday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himself, delivered to us by his Apostles. And again, in the next place: The cause of this change, it was not our estimation, that either we have, or ought to have of our redemption before our creation, but the Ordinance of God, who, as first he sanctified the rest from creation for the glory of that week: so now also he sanctifieth the day of the restitution of the world for his glory of the accomplishment of our redemption. Thus we have not only authority Humane, but authority Divine for the alteration of the Day, and that by the testimony of more Bishops ⟨p. 91⟩ancient and late, than this Prefacer makes show of amongst far meaner names. Yet he doth immodestly abuse Doctor Prideaux in putting it upon him, that in the fifth Section, he maintains the alteration of the day to be only an humane and Ecclesiastical institution. For, in that Section, he only opposeth them, who would derive the Divine authority (which they stand for) of the alteration of the Day from the old Testament: but as for those who derive the Divine authority thereof from the new, they he confesseth, do carry themselves herein more warily, the other more weakly, and them alone he disputes against in that Section. In the sixth Section, he comes to the deriving thereof from the new Testament; and first he challengeth them, who boast that they have found the insti ution of the Lords Day in the new Testament expressly, to show the place. Then in the often disputations of our Saviour with the Pharisees about their superstitious observation of the Sabbath Day, he demands where is the least suspicion of the abrogation of it; or any mention that the Lords Day was instituted in the place thereof? And indeed, the time hereof was not yet come;

or the remembrance of Christs nativity, resurrection, ascension, or the comming of the holy Ghost, may be celebrated either on the Lords Day, or any other time: yet there is great difference between the authority of the Church in this case, and the prescription of the Lords Day by the Apostles for the speciall memory of those things are indifferent of their nature, either to be kept on certaine daies, or left to the discretion of the Governours of the Church. But to change the Lords Day, or to keepe it on Munday, Tuesday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority. For it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe, delivered to us by his Apostles. And againe, in the next place: The cause of this change, it was not our estimation, that either we have, or ought to have of our redemption before our creation, but the Ordinance of God, who, as first he sanctified the rest from creation for the glory of that weeke: so now also he sanctifieth the day of the restitution of the world for his glory of the accomplishment of our redemption. Thus wee have not onely authority Humane, but authority Divine for the alteration of the Day, and that by the testimony of more Bishops