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

To this Doctor Rivetus allegeth the answer of Doctor Prideaux, ¹demanding how that we contend for his inferred herehence? we answer, the general practise of the Church in the Apostles days argues it manifestly, that this order was established by the joint consent of the Apostles; otherwise it is incredible it should have been so universally received, and persevered in as it hath been to this day. Secondly, whereas the Jews Sabbath was by divine authority, the abrogation thereof and substituting another day in the place thereof could be done by no less authority then Divine; which also we conceive to be fairly represented by the denomination of our Christian Sabbath, S. John calling it the Lords Day. Secondly, he showeth what Gomarus answereth hereunto; but this answer himself taketh off in this very place in part, and much more in his reply to Gomarus. But these places being granted to denote the first day of the week in the Apostles days set apart to Divine Service; he saith it follows not herehence that it is called the Lords Day, as destinated to Gods Service, much less that so it was by Divine ordination. Yet Walaeus thinks it his safest course to say tis called the Lords Day as destinated to Gods Service, as before we have heard, so to avoid (as he thinks) the implication of Divine Ordination. But to him I have answered before. And Doctor Rivetus in my opinion doth not well consider that not the day of the year, but the day of the week, whereon Christ rose, is called the Lords Day by S. John. Like as the Sabbath in the Old Testament is called the Lords Day: which which if he had, and withal considered how strange it were for us to set any day in the week apart for the exercises of Piety rather then the Lords Day; I am persuaded he would not have contented himself with this answer. For certainly many other holy days have been and are set apart for Divine Service, yet never were called any one of them the Lords day.

To this Doctor Rivetus alledgeth the answer of Doctor Prideaux, ¹demanding how that we contend for his inferred herehence? we answer, the generall practise of the Church in the Apostles dayes argues it manifestly, that this order was established by the joynt consent of the Apostles; otherwise it is incredible it should have beene so universally receaved, and persevered in as it hath beene to this day. Secondly, wheras the Jewes Sabbath was by divine authority, the abrogation thereof and substituting another day in the place thereof could bee done by no lesse authority then Divine; which also wee conceave to bee fairely represented by the denomination of our Christian Sabbath, S. Iohn calling it the Lords Day. Secondly, he sheweth what Gomarus answereth hereunto; but this answer himselfe taketh off in this very place in part, and much more in his reply to Gomarus. But these places being granted to denote the first day of the weeke in the Apostles dayes set apart to Divine Service; hee sayth it followes not herehence that it is called the Lords Day, as destinated to Gods Service, much lesse that so it was by Divine ordination. Yet Walaeus thinkes it his safest course to say tis called the Lords Day as destinated to Gods Service, as before wee have heard, so to avoyd (as hee thinkes) the implication of Divine Ordination. But to him I have answered before. And Doctor Rivetus in my opinion doth not wel consider that not the day of the yeare, but the day of the weeke, whereon Christ rose, is called the Lords Day by S. Iohn. Like as the Sabbath in the Old Testament is called the Lords Day: which which if he had, and withall considered how strange it were for us to set any day in the weeke apart for the exercises of Piety rather then the Lords Day; I am perswaded hee would not have contented himselfe with this answer. For certainly many other holy dayes have beene and are set apart for Divine Service, yet never were called any one of them the Lords day.