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…

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