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…

A THIRD DIGRESSION CONTAINING A CONFERENCE With D. Walaeus about the Divine authority of the Lords Day.

I Come to consider somewhat in Walaeus, whose dissertation of the Sabbath, from the first hath liked me so well, and the spirit which it breathes throughout; that I do not affect to differ from him; but rather heartily desire there may be little or no difference between us, and I hope in the end there will be found little or no difference of importance between us, especially in this point of the institution of the Lord Day whether it be divine or humane, and as for the original institution of the Sabbath, namely as from the beginning of the World, and as touching the morality of one day in seven; therein I concur with him really and affectionately. And as touching the quality of the institution; I approve his learned pains in vindicating those three places of the new Testament, Acts 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 2. and Re. 1. 10. from the interpretation that some give of them, to quash the evidence which they import for the observation of the first day of the week, commonly called the Lords Day, even in those primitive ⟨p. 108⟩and Apostolical days of the Christian Church. And I join with him, pag. 167. in admiring, that after so many accurate prejudices of the reformed Churches, concurring in the same translation & interpretation of those places which we embrace; yet some should be found to take so unhappy pains, as to quash the evidence of them which they seem to us plainly to import. A manifest argument in my judgement, that the observation of that day, as in place of the Jews Sabbath, in the very days of the Apostles, doth even convince their consciences, that it can savour of nothing less than Apostolical institution; which, because they do impugn, therefore they desire to impugn the use thereof as nothing so ancient as to be received of the Apostles themselves. For consider, I pray, how should the converted Jews come to change their Sabbath, if not by order from the Apostles themselves, whose doctrine it was that Christ came to set an end to all ceremonies? And as for the substitution of a day in the place of it, that all did jointly concur herein without any dependence of some upon the judgement of others; what strange strength of convicting evidence must there needs be in the resurrection of Christ, to draw them hereunto far beyond Almighty Gods resting on the seventh day from his work of creation?

I Come to consider somewhat in Walaeus, whose dissertation of the Sabbath, from the first hath liked mee so well, and the spirit which it breathes throughout; that I doe not affect to differ from him; but rather heartily desire there may bee little or no difference betweene us, and I hope in the end there will be found little or no difference of importance betweene us, especially in this point of the institution of the Lord Day whether it be divine or humane, and as for the originall institution of the Sabbath, namely as from the beginning of the World, and as touching the morality of one day in seven; therein I concurre with him really and affectionately. And as touching the quality of the institution; I approve his learned paines in vindicating those three places of the new Testament, Acts 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 2. and Re. 1. 10. from the interpretation that some give of them, to quash the evidence which they import for the observation of the first day of the weeke, commonly called the Lords Day, even in those primitive ⟨p. 108⟩and Apostolicall dayes of the Christian Church. And I joyne with him, pag. 167. in admiring, that after so many accurate prejudices of the reformed Churches, concurring in the same translation & interpretation of those places which we embrace; yet some should be found to take so unhappy paines, as to quash the evidence of them which they seem to us plainly to import. A manifest argument in my judgement, that the observation of that day, as in place of the Jewes Sabbath, in the very days of the Apostles, doth even convince their consciences, that it can savour of nothing lesse than Apostolicall institution; which, because they doe impugne, therefore they desire to impugne the use thereof as nothing so antient as to be received of the Apostles themselves. For consider, I pray, how should the converted Jewes come to change their Sabbath, if not by order from the Apostles themselves, whose doctrine it was that Christ came to set an end to all ceremonies? And as for the substitution of a day in the place of it, that all did joyntly concurre herein without any dependance of some upon the judgement of others; what strange strength of convicting evidence must there needs be in the resurrection of Christ, to draw them hereunto farre beyond Almighty Gods resting on the seventh day from his worke of creation?

What could be devised to infer greater morality by the very light of nature than this, which should be so forcible to move all to concur herein, and that with the first. But if they received it, some from others, how improbable it is, that the Apostles should receive it from the Churches, and not rather the Churches from the Apostles? Then consider, we no where read of any difference here-abouts among the Apostles, counting Paul amongst them, who received from the Lord after his ascension into heaven what he delivered unto others. How then came it to pass, that they all so throughly, and at the first, agreed herein? If, as having received it from the Lord, then the case is clear, that it is of most Divine institution: But if only as drawn hereunto by the consideration of Christs resurrection on that day, being guided by the Spirit of God infallibly to order as other things, so the time of Divine service, to prevent the danger of division and confusion upon just ground; even ⟨p. 109⟩this is enough to manifest the strength of evidence which the Lords resurrection carrieth with it, as to convince them, so to appoint, and to convince others of the reasonableness thereof, seeing all Churches did so universally and so early yield thereunto, and since that time so constantly persevered therein. The resurrection therefore of Christ, is nothing inferior to the Lords rest on the seventh to draw us to the sanctifying thereof: And the Apostles ordering it in this manner especially as his extraordinary Ministers, is answerable to the Lords Commandment for the sanctifying of the seventh, especially that very commandment by just analogy having force also in this: And albeit Walaeus saith no more, pag. 174. of those three places, Acts 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 2. Apoc. 1. 10. than that the whole Church reformed hath constantly gathered therehence Diet Dominicae usum, the use of the Lords Day: yet both pag. 183. he doth manifestly imply the Apostles to have instituted it, where he saith, that quae ab ipsis Apostolis instituta non sunt, such things as have not been ordained by the Apostles, were never in that manner observed in all Christian Churches throughout the world, as the observation of the Lords Day. And before, pag. 172.

I say not, that the Apostles imprinted any holiness upon the first day of the week, it was Christs resurrection that honoured that day, which I say the Apostles were to respect, not arbitrarily, but necessarily, you may perceive the reason in my Thesis; you cannot observe from the beginning of the world any other inducement to the institution of feasts but Gods work done on the day. Now, neither Austin nor Cyril speak of any institution made by Christ. Eusebius, I confess, doth intimate such an institution, and Gregory the great, and so doth Athanasius seem to express as much, and Sodulius after him; but I am apt to conceive that they meant no other thing hereby, than that the consideration of Christs resurrection by the suggestion of Christs Spirit, should move the Apostles to ordain and establish the celebration of this day unto the Christian world. Junius, in my judgement, seems to have no other meaning, when he professeth the cause of the change of the day to be the resurrection of Christ, and the benefit of instauration of the Church in Christ; it is true, he saith afterwards that the Lords Day succeeded the seventh, (Christi observatione atque instituto, by Christ observation and ordinance; but I understand thereby no other ordinance than ⟨p. 111⟩is bespoken by Christs resurrection on the day and observation of the day. For anon he tells us, that the Lords Day was observed, Christi facto, exemplo, institutoque Apostolorum, & vereris Ecclesiae observation constantissimâ; by Christs fact, example, and by the ordinance of the Apostles; unless instituto there, be to be referred to that which goes before, and ought to be distinguished from Apostolorum which comes after by a comma, though it be not. But let this be the opinion of Junius and Piscator, which, perhaps, we may meet with some more evidence for than hitherto: Neither do I see any necessity of expressing concerning every thing they taught, that they received it of the Lord; Neither do I think fit to conclude, that whatsoever they ordered, they ordered by Gods Commandment. But consider, there is a great difference between things ordered by them: some were concerning particulars, others for the Church universal. Some ordered by them for a certain time, other things to continue to the worlds end. The ordinance of the Lords Day concerned the whole Church;

I say not, that the Apostles imprinted any holinesse upon the first day of the weeke, it was Christs resurrection that honoured that day, which I say the Apostles were to respect, not arbitrarily, but necessarily, you may perceive the reason in my Thesis; you cannot observe from the beginning of the world any other inducement to the institution of feasts but Gods worke done on the day. Now, neither Austin nor Cyril speake of any institution made by Christ. Eusebius, I confesse, doth intimate such an institution, and Gregory the great, and so doth Athanasius seeme to expresse as much, and Sodulius after him; but I am apt to conceive that they meant no other thing hereby, than that the consideration of Christs resurrection by the suggestion of Christs Spirit, should move the Apostles to ordaine and establish the celebration of this day unto the Christian world. Junius, in my judgement, seemes to have no other meaning, when he professeth the cause of the change of the day to be the resurrection of Christ, and the benefit of instauration of the Church in Christ; it is true, he saith afterwards that the Lords Day succeeded the seventh, (Christi observatione atque instituto, by Christ observation and ordinance; but I understand thereby no other ordinance than

and to this day no Church throughout the world hath thought fit to alter it, a notable evidence that the Church generally hath conceived it, as an ordinance of the Apostles intended to continue to the worlds end.

The ingenuity of Master Perkins is to be commended, confessing ingenuously, that he proposeth his arguments not as necessary, but as probable, only to infer the institution of the first day of the week to be observed by Christians in place of the seventh, I would those that oppose him would carry themselves with the like ingenuity: nothing inferior is the ingenuity of Doctor Walaeus, pag. 156. professing that this opinion touching Christs institution of the Lords Day, seeing it hath so great Divines as favourers thereof, is neither to be accused of novelty, nor easily to be despised as false, provided, that they themselves do not propose it as necessary, but as probable, nor inveigh against such as are of another opinion or condemn them. Now, let us see upon what grounds he prefers the second opinion, making the institution of the Lords Day to depend upon Apostolical authority before it. Therefore, first he urgeth, that the Apostles have given no express ⟨p. 112⟩commandment as being charged thereto by Christ, nor Christ himself. In brief, thus neither Christ hath any where in Scripture commanded it, nor do the Apostles any where signify that he did: I answer, the Apostles do not use to signify that what they deliver in particular was given them in charge by Christ; sometimes they do, but this extends not to the hundred part of that they do deliver. And it may be by S. Johns calling it the Lords Day, compared with that which our Saviour delivers in the Gospel, pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor upon the Sabbath day; and with the denomination of the Jews Sabbath called in the Old Testament the Lords holy day, we shall find sufficient intimation of Christs institution. Especially considering that the question is but of the circumstance of a particular day, not of the proportion of time; and withal the analogy of the day of Christs Resurrection to the day of the Lords rest from Creation. And whereas the Doctor further saith, that it seems not likely that Christ should not command it, if he meant to bind us to the observation of any day, as a part of his worship and service: Now I wonder what the worthy Doctor means to thrust in the circumstance, as a part of Gods Worship. If the Apostles might command it as he thinks they did, yet not as a part of Gods worship;

The ingenuity of Master Perkins is to be commended, confessing ingenuously, that hee proposeth his arguments not as necessary, but as probable, onely to inferre the institution of the first day of the weeke to be observed by Christians in place of the seventh, I would those that oppose him would carry themselves with the like ingenuity: nothing inferiour is the ingenuity of Doctor Walaeus, pag. 156. professing that this opinion touching Christs institution of the Lords Day, seeing it hath so great Divines as favourers thereof, is neither to be accused of novelty, nor easily to be despised as false, provided, that they themselves doe not propose it as necessary, but as probable, nor inveigh against such as are of another opinion or condemne them. Now, let us see upon what grounds he preferres the second opinion, making the institution of the Lords Day to depend upon Apostolicall authoritie before it. Therefore, first he urgeth, that the Apostles have given no expresse

why might not Christ command the observation of that day, yet not as a part of his worship? I am not persuaded, that when God at the first sanctified the seventh day, he made the observation of that day a part of his worship. And it is strange that the circumstance of time should be an homogeneall part of Gods worship.

why might not Christ command the observation of that day, yet not as a part of his worship? I am not perswaded, that when God at the first sanctifyed the seventh day, hee made the observation of that day a part of his worship. And it is strange that the circumstance of time should bee an homogeneall part of Gods worship.

First, it is true, the rest on that day commanded afterwards might be, and was as a ceremony preaching something unto them. All that is to be considered in time pertaining to Gods Worship is the proportion of it; as whether one day in a week be most fit, or one day in a month be sufficient; and this is of momentous consideration, whether we consider the advancing GODS Glory thereby, or our own good, in a greater or lesser proportion, But the particularity of the day in seven whether ⟨p. 113⟩first or last or middlemost, this consideration in my judgement is of no moment. Only for the avoiding of dissension, & confusion we have need of authoritative specification, and that God did not define at the first without congruous reason, to still all motion tending to alteration; and if we have as fair evidence under the Gospel for our Sabbath, as the Jews had for theirs; we are by Gods goodness as much freed from dissension and confusion as they, and nothing the more engaged in superstition, as making the observation of the day a part of Divine worship; which never was but in the way of prefiguration of somewhat in Christ, which kind of pedagogy is now quite out of date, neither is there any place for it in the observation of the Lords day.

First, it is true, the rest on that day commanded afterwards might bee, and was as a ceremony preaching something unto them. All that is to bee considered in time pertaining to Gods Worship is the proportion of it; as whether one day in a weeke bee most fit, or one day in a moneth bee sufficient; and this is of momentous consideration, whether wee consider the advancing GODS Glory thereby, or our owne good, in a greater or lesser proportion, But the particularity of the day in seven whether ⟨p. 113⟩first or last or middlemost, this consideration in my judgement is of no moment. Only for the avoyding of dissention, & confusion we have neede of authoritative specification, and that God did not define at the first without congruous reason, to still all motion tending to alteration; and if we have as fayre evidence under the Gospell for our Sabbath, as the Jewes had for theirs; wee are by Gods goodnesse as much freed from dissension and confusion as they, and nothing the more ingaged in superstition, as making the observation of the day a part of Divine worship; which never was but in the way of prefiguration of somewhat in Christ, which kind of pedagogy is now quite out of date, neither is there any place for it in the observation of the Lords day.

Doctor Walaeus his second argument is, because those places of Scripture, Rom. 14. Gal. 4. & Coloss. 2. in which the Apostle takes away all difference of days can hardly be reconciled with this opinion, or if Christ himself not by example only, but by an ordinance commanded unto his Disciples the observation of this day, it cannot be imagined as it seems, that any liberty should now remain in the observation of this day; for that which Christ hath determined is not left under Christian liberty any more then the observation of the seventh day from the Creation was left free to the Jews; when God not only by his example, but also by precept separated it from all other days to his service. To this I answer, 1. I find no liberty at all left to the Church to change the day, by the Doctors own grounds, for he holds it to be invariable p. 168.

Doctor Walaeus his second argument is, because those places of Scripture, Rom. 14. Gal. 4. & Coloss. 2. in which the Apostle takes away all difference of dayes can hardly bee reconciled with this opinion, or if Christ himselfe not by example onely, but by an ordinance commanded unto his Disciples the observation of this day, it cannot bee imagined as it seemes, that any liberty should now remaine in the observation of this day; for that which Christ hath determined is not left under Christian liberty any more then the observation of the seventh day from the Creation was left free to the Jewes; when God not onely by his example, but also by precept separated it from all other dayes to his service. To this I answer, 1. I finde no liberty at all left to the Church to change the day, by the Doctors owne grounds, for hee holds it to bee invariable p. 168.

Secondly, He professeth the change of the day cannot be attempted without the greatest scandal of the Church, p. 169. Now what sober Christian would affect liberty to be scandalous? 3. others who acknowledge the observation of the day by Apostolical institution, and withal to be changeable and left to the liberty of the Church, do withal maintain that the Apostles did not command it as extraordinary Ministers of Christ: but Doctor Waleus p. 172. acknowledgeth the institution of it made by the Apostles as Ministers extraordinary. 4. the Doctor professeth ⟨p. 114⟩that the Apostles were entrusted by the Holy Ghost to give precepts concerning the good government of the Church, and that in this particular case, to make known to all Christians every where what day in the week ought to be kept holy, and that by virtue and analogy of the fourth Commandment, and withal to prevent dissension and confusion amongst the Churches thereabouts. 5. and lastly he joins the precepts concerning this with precepts concerning faith, and manners; and this he doth without specifying any the least difference; nay, the word precepts is once proposed as subservient indifferently as to faith, and manners, so also to the well ordering of the Church, and that in this particular, of notifying unto all what day of the week is it to be sanctified to Gods Service. As for the places Rom. 14. Gal. 2. & Coloss. 2. I answer, that if we made the observation of the day as it denotes a circumstance of time, any part of Gods Service, or for some mysterious signification contained therein, then indeed we should carry our selves in contradiction to the places mentioned: but seeing we observe times only out of respect to order and policy, which is necessary for the edification of the Church; and God having always required one day in seven to be set apart for this, even when there was not so great need, nor had God manifested his love to mankind in such sort as in these latter days; and of our selves we are to seek, of the particularity of the day under a fit proportion of time from the beginning of the World required, and hereupon were we left to our own judgements, a way would be opened to miserable dissension and confusion;

Secondly, Hee professeth the change of the day cannot bee attempted without the greatest scandall of the Church, p. 169. Now what sober Christian would affect liberty to bee scandalous? 3. others who acknowledge the observation of the day by Apostolicall institution, and withall to bee changeable and left to the liberty of the Church, doe withall maintaine that the Apostles did not command it as extraordinary Ministers of Christ: but Doctor Waleus p. 172. acknowledgeth the institution of it made by the Apostles as Ministers extraordinary. 4. the Doctor professeth

what cause have we to bless the Lord for marking out a day to us with such notable characters to make it our Sabbath, and to honour it by his appearance amongst his Apostles when they were assembled together both that day, and that day sennight after; as also by his Apostles to commend it, and establish it in such sort, that for 1600. years the observation thereof hath continued unto this day? which order of the Apostles doth carry pregnant presumption that it proceeded originally from the institution of Christ. The necessity of the Church Christian requiring the specification ⟨p. 115⟩of the day for the preventing of dissension, and confusion as much as ever the necessity of the Jewish Church required the like; and over and above by reason of the fourth Commandment we have now better evidence to conclude therehence the observation of the Lords Day, by the congruity that Christs Resurrection hath to the Lords rest from Creation; better means I say to conclude ours, then they without a Commandment to infer the observation of their seventh: for still the day of the Lords rest is made the day of our rest.

what cause have wee to blesse the Lord for marking out a day to us with such notable characters to make it our Sabbath, and to honour it by his appearance amongst his Apostles when they were assembled together both that day, and that day senight after; as also by his Apostles to commend it, and establish it in such sort, that for 1600. yeares the observation thereof hath continued unto this day? which order of the Apostles doth carry pregnant presumption that it proceeded originally from the institution of Christ. The necessity of the Church Christian requiring the specification ⟨p. 115⟩of the day for the preventing of dissension, and confusion as much as ever the necessity of the Jewish Church required the like; and over and above by reason of the fourth Commandement wee have now better evidence to conclude therehence the observation of the Lords Day, by the congruity that Christs Resurrection hath to the Lords rest from Creation; better means I say to conclude ours, then they without a Commandement to inferre the observation of their seventh: forstill the day of the Lords rest is made the day of our rest.

Thirdly, that which is alleged in the third place, that both ancient and late writers do maintain that we celebrate the Lords Day, not as any part of Divine worship, nor as absolutely necessary. For the first of these we willingly grant; for as much as we conceive the observation of the 7th. by the Jews was no otherwise a part of Divine worship, then as it was a ceremony and shadow, the body whereof was Christ prefigured thereby: and it is well known that no Christians observe it in any such Notion. But the observation thereof we hold to be absolutely necessary, and so doth Doctor Walaeus in holding it to be invariable, and that it cannot be altered without the greatest scandal. And Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath, and Wells professeth it to be not, liberae observationis, but necessariae. And if it were free, then not to use this freedom at all doth manifestly give way to superstition in taking that for a thing necessary which is not, though not as touching the substance of Gods worship and service, yet as touching a circumstance thereof, such as is the circumstance of time. As for express precept, if he means a precept expressly written, no man (I trow) ever stood for that, but if he means a precept given by Christs express charge to his Apostles, no man that I have met with, saith more hereupon, then Doctor Walaeus seems to affirm himself; in saying that they were entrusted by the Holy Ghost as extraordinary Ministers, that they should bee faithfull ad tradenda praecepta, to give precepts of faith and manners, and of the good government of the Church, and right order, and particularly in this that might be known to all what day in the week was to be set apart for Gods service; both by virtue and analogy ⟨p. 116⟩of the fourth Commandment, and to prevent dissension, and confusion among the Churches; Neither do we acknowledge any other celebrity of the day then this; and therefore do no more affront Hierome then Doctor Walaeus himself. As for festival days in Socrates, and Nicephorus, I see no cause why as touching that they speak thereof, the Lords Day should be comprehended under them: and as for apostolical precept, concerning this Doctor Walaeus is as express as any.

Thirdly, that which is alleadged in the third place, that both ancient and late writers doe maintaine that wee celebrate the Lords Day, not as any part of Divine worship, nor as absolutely necessary. For the first of these wee willingly grant; for as much as wee conceave the observation of the 7th. by the Jewes was no otherwise a part of Divine worship, then as it was a ceremony and shadow, the body whereof was Christ prefigured thereby: and it is well knowne that no Christians observe it in any such Notion. But the observation thereof wee hold to bee absolutely necessary, and so doth Doctor Walaeus in holding it to bee invariable, and that it cannot bee altered without the greatest scandall. And Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath, and Wells professeth it to bee not, liberae observationis, but necessariae. And if it were free, then not to use this freedome at all doth manifestly give way to superstition in taking that for a thing necessary which is not, though not as touching the substance of Gods worship and service, yet as touching a circumstance thereof, such as is the circumstance of time. As for expresse precept, if hee meanes a precept expressely written, no man (I trow) ever stood for that, but if hee meanes a precept given by Christs expresse charge to his Apostles, no man that I have met with, saith more hereupon, then Doctor Walaeus seemes to affirme himselfe; in saying that they were entrusted by the Holy Ghost as extraordinary Ministers, that they should bee faithfull ad tradenda praecepta, to give praecepts of faith and manners, and of the good government of the Church, and right order, and particularly in this that might be known to all what day in the weeke was to be set apart for Gods service; both by vertue and analogy

And it is not credible to me, that the Apostles should make such an invariable ordinance to the Church, and not be verily persuaded that it was the Will of God the Father, and of God the Son it should be so: whether manifested by Christs particular charge unto them; or by comparing Christs Resurrection with the Lords rest from the works of Creation. Otherwise in my judgement they had never called that day the Lords Day.

And it is not credible to mee, that the Apostles should make such an invariable ordinance to the Church, and not bee verily perswaded that it was the Will of God the Father, and of God the Sonne it should bee so: whether manifested by Christs particular charge unto them; or by comparing Christs Resurrection with the Lords rest from the workes of Creation. Otherwise in my judgement they had never called that day the Lords Day.

Fourthly, he excepts against the argument drawn from Christs Resurrection; denying that therehence it follows that that day was to be consecrated to God. But herein he opposeth all the ancients; neither do I think he can allege any one that doth not hereon build the observation of the Lords Day; which nuiversall concurrence doth manifestly argue to be more then probable: Austin as Waleus allegeth him professeth not as his peculiar opinion, but as he took it generally received without contradiction: that Dies Dominicus Christianis resurrectione Domini declaratus est; and that resuscitatio Domini consecravit nobis diem Dominicum. And Athanasius plainly takes notice of the analogy it hath to the fourth Commandment; (and analogy Doctor Walaeus grants, and I wonder he takes no notice of it here) by comparing the second Creation with the first Creation; and so Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester professeth that the new Creation requires a new Sabbath, especially seeing the old must be abrogated as ceremonial. But the analogy I confess may be differently shaped; Athanasius shapes it thus, that the Jews Sabbath was the end of the first Creation; and that the Lords Day is a beginning of the second Creature; to wit, as the day of Christs resurrection; in reference whereunto the ⟨p. 117⟩Apostle saith, Old things are passed, behold, all things are become new. And I conceive reason to justify Athanasius, in making the beginning of the new creature to be our Sabbath, answerable to the end of the first creation, to wit, because the second creation hath no end in this world: Again, Adam and Eve were made but the immediate day before the seventh, and the seventh he was to spend in rejoicing in Gods works; so Christs death was the worlds redemption; and immediately after, to wit, with Christs rising, it was as fit we should Sabbatize with God for joy of our Redemption. Otherwise the analogy (which Doctor Walaeus grants, but doth not explicate) may be conceived thus. The seventh day of the week was the Lords rest from the work of creation, the first day of the week was the Lords rest from the work of redemption, in the morning thereof rising from his grave; and in respect of Christs resurrection on this day, what colour hath any other day of the week comparable hereunto, to make it fit to stand in competition with this. Yes, saith D.

Fourthly, he excepts against the argument drawne from Christs Resurrection; denying that therehence it followes that that day was to bee consecrated to God. But herein hee opposeth all the ancients; neither doe I thinke hee can alleage any one that doth not hereon build the observation of the Lords Day; which nuiversall concurrence doth manifestly argue to be more then probable: Austin as Waleus alleadgeth him professeth not as his peculiar opinion, but as he took it generally received without contradiction: that Dies Dominicus Christianis resurrectione Domini declaratus est; and that resuscitatio Domini consecravit nobis diem Dominicum. And Athanasius plainly takes notice of the analogy it hath to the fourth Commandement; (and analogy Doctor Walaeus grants, and I wonder hee takes no notice of it here) by comparing the second Creation with the first Creation; and so Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester professeth that the new Creation requires a new Sabbath, especially seeing the old must bee abrogated as ceremoniall. But the analogy I confesse may be differently shaped; Athanasius shapes it thus, that the Jewes Sabbath was the end of the first Creation; and that the Lords Day is a beginning of the second Creature; to wit, as the day of Christs resurrection; in reference whereunto the

Walaeus, the Thursday may, and that in consideration of Christs ascension on that day; yet Doctor Walaeus well knows, that that day of the week was never thereupon called the Lords Day, either by the Apostles, or by the Church, as the day of our Saviours resurrection was. Again, consider Christs resurrection and ascension are to be computed but as one complete motion; save that he was to stay some time by the way here on earth for the confirming of his Disciples faith, and giving them commission for preaching the Gospel, and order to wait at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high to carry the glad tidings of salvation all the world over. So Christs dying and continuing under the power of death, is but one work of Redemption. He confesseth, that Christs resurrection afforded an argument to the Church Apostolical, to prefer this day before all others (very well, even before the day of his ascension) for religious assemblies, as all the ancients testify. But it followeth not therefore, that Christ by this his fact did institute the same day to the same end. Now, this is a very strange phrase, by his fact on the day to institute the day to such an end. Tis well known facts do not institute otherwise than as therefrom ⟨p. 118⟩may be concluded that such a day is to be kept; and in this sense he doth as good as confess, that Christ by his fact, did institute; for the Apostolical Church did hereupon prefer this day, as he confesseth all the ancients do testify. And did they not infer this there-hence also, as most agreeable to the Will of God? Doctor Walaeus proceedeth thus: So God in the creation of the world rested the seventh day; but unless God had proposed this rest of his as an example, and confirmed it by precept, never had the Church of the old Testament been bound as from heaven to the weekly observation thereof. To this I answer, that the like may be said of the observation of one in seven; yet seeing God did command this proportion to the Jews, without any new commandment, we can infer that surely God requires as good a proportion of us Christians. In like manner, seeing God commanded unto them the day of his rest from creation, we without any the like commandment, may better infer that Christs resting day from the work of Redemption ought to be our rest, than they could, that the seventh day ought to be their rest. 2.

Walaeus, the Thursday may, and that in consideration of Christs ascension on that day; yet Doctor Walaeus well knowes, that that day of the week was never thereupon called the Lords Day, either by the Apostles, or by the Church, as the day of our Saviors resurrection was. Againe, consider Christs resurrection and ascension are to be computed but as one compleate motion; save that he was to stay some time by the way here on earth for the confirming of his Disciples faith, and giving them commission for preaching the Gospel, and order to wait at Jerusalem untill they were endued with power from on high to carry the glad tidings of salvation all the world over. So Christs dying and continuing under the power of death, is but one worke of Redemption. He confesseth, that Christs resurrection afforded an argument to the Church Apostolicall, to prefer this day before all others (very well, even before the day of his ascention) for religious assemblies, as al the ancients testifie. But it followeth not therefore, that Christ by this his fact did institute the same day to the same end. Now, this is a very strange phrase, by his fact on the day to institute the day to such an end. Tis well knowne facts doe not institute otherwise than as therefrom