Of the morality of the fourth commandment as still in force to bind Christians…Of the morality of the fourth commandement as still in force to binde Christians…

He sayeth they did it freely; but of things freely ¹done without any conscience of duty obliging, it was never known that so universal a concurrence was found as the observation of the Lords Day. Nay Philosophers observe that things freely done as often come to pass to the contrary. Again then it was free for them to observe one day in fourteen as well as one in seven, as Breatius professeth, and consequently as well one in twenty, which Rivetus denies. Nay it stood them upon to change the observation, lest men by universal and perpetual practise might be confirmed in an opinion of the necessity of that which is not necessary. It is apparent that as the Lords Day under the Law was one day in seven; So the Lords Day in the Gospel was and still is one Day in seven. And both himself and Gomarus are driven to profess, that we may not allow a less proportion then one in seven to Divine worship. And I appeal to every conscience, to judge by the very light of nature; whether the Lord requiring of the Jews one day in seven to be consecrated unto him, it doth not manifestly follow that we Christians can allow no less then one in seven; and whether it be not fit that the Lords Day should be our holy Day; and as for the allowance of more in a week then one, let them persuade their own Churches thereunto first, and then it will be time enough for us to hearken unto them. And what should move them to illustrate the memory of Christs Resurrection weekly? whereas they contented themselves with a yearly memorial (if at all they observed any such) of his Nativity, Passion and Ascension, and sending down of the Holy Ghost. Why doth he not consider that the day of the week only whereon Christ rose is called the ⟨p. 74⟩Lords Day in Scripture, whereon John the beloved Disciple received from his loving Lord, and master, that Divine revelation of his concerning things to come.

Hee sayeth they did it freely; but of things freely ¹done without any conscience of duty obliging, it was never knowne that so universall a concurrence was found as the observation of the Lords Day. Nay Philosophers observe that things freely done as often come to passe to the contrary. Againe then it was free for them to observe one day in fourteene as well as one in seven, as Breatius professeth, and consequently as well one in twenty, which Rivetus denies. Nay it stood them upon to change the observation, lest men by universall and perpetuall practise might bee confirmed in an opinion of the necessity of that which is not necessary. It is apparent that as the Lords Day under the Law was one day in seven; So the Lords Day in the Gospell was and still is one Day in seven. And both himselfe and Gomarus are driven to professe, that we may not allow a lesse proportion then one in seven to Divine worship. And I appeale to every conscience, to judge by the very light of nature; whether the Lord requiring of the Jewes one day in seven to bee consecrated unto him, it doth not manifestly follow that wee Christians can allow no lesse then one in seven; and whether it bee not fit that the Lords Day should bee our holy Day; and as for the allowance of more in a weeke then one, let them persuade their owne Churches thereunto first, and then it will bee time enough for us to hearken unto them. And what should move them to illustrate the memory of Christs Resurrection weekly? whereas they contented themselves with a yearely memoriall (if at all they observed any such) of his Nativity, Passion and Ascension, and sending downe of the Holy Ghost. Why doth hee not consider that the day of the weeke onely whereon Christ rose is called the