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…

As for Zanohy, in the place cited by Gomarus; he confesseth, hunc diem ex traditione Apostolica esse, & optimo jure ab Ecclesia retentum. That the Lords Day is (to be observed) by Apostolical tradition, and by the best right retained by the Church—this the Prefacer in his wisdom omitted; indeed he saith, we no where read that the Apostles commanded it: but left it free; but take with you the rest, ita liberum, ut omnino ipse dies sanctificandus sit, nisi charitas aliud postulat. In such a manner free, that omnino, undoubtedly the day it self ought to be sanctified, unless charity require otherwise. I conceive his meaning is, and the meaning of all that use this language, that we are to keep it by no other obligation (not of special commandment) than the reason of the day doth minister unto us, it being the day that the Lord hath made, joyful to Gods Church by the resurrection of Christ from the dead; and in this sense they say it doth not bind mens consciences, to wit, as a Precept doth, whether we know the equity of it or no. And it were very strange, that Christians in keeping any holy day in the week, should not make choice of the Lords Day for that, without any express commandment. Anetius saith no more than that Christians changed the Sabbath unto the Lords Day; and can any man doubt, but that the Apostles ⟨p. 99⟩were meant hereby? For which is most likely, that the practice and judgement of others was a leading cause to the Apostles, or rather that the judgement and practise of the Apostles was a leading cause unto all others? Simler hath no more but this, that he calls it the custom of the Church, so doth Tilenus, yet he proposeth it as likely to have had its institution from Christ. Paraeus in the very place cited by Gomarus, ascribeth the change of the day to the Apostolical Church, and expressly saith, that the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to meet together the first day of the week, and make their collections. I wonder the Prefacer omits Cuohlinus, was it because that which others call consuetudinem Ecclesiae, he calls consuetudinem Apostolicam? In the last place, Bucer is named by the Prefacer, but Gomarus is well content to omit what is delivered by him. But to the contrary, I will not forbear to set down what I find in his book De Regno Christi, lib. 1. cap. 11.

As for Zanohy, in the place cited by Gomarus; hee confesseth, hunc diem ex traditione Apostolica esse, & optimo jure ab Ecclesia retentum. That the Lords Day is (to be observed) by Apostolicall tradition, and by the best right retained by the Church—this the Prefacer in his wisedome omitted; indeed hee saith, we no where reade that the Apostles commanded it: but left it free; but take with you the rest, ita liberum, ut omnino ipse dies sanctificandus sit, nisi charitas aliud postulat. In such a manner free, that omnino, undoubtedly the day it selfe ought to be sanctified, unlesse charity require otherwise. I conceive his meaning is, and the meaning of all that use this language, that wee are to keepe it by no other obligation (not of speciall commandement) than the reason of the day doth minister unto us, it being the day that the Lord hath made, joyfull to Gods Church by the resurrection of Christ from the dead; and in this sense they say it doth not bind mens consciences, to wit, as a Precept doth, whether we know the equity of it or no. And it were very strange, that Christians in keeping any holy day in the weeke, should not make choice of the Lords Day for that, without any expresse commandement. Anetius saith no more than that Christians changed the Sabbath unto the Lords Day; and can any man doubt, but that the Apostles