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…

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 ⟨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 knowne to all Christians every where what day in the weeke ought to be kept holy, and that by vertue and analogy of the fourth Commandement, and withall to prevent dissension and confusion amongst the Churches thereabouts. 5. and lastly hee joynes the precepts concerning this with precepts concerning faith, and manners; and this hee 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 weeke is it to bee sanctified to Gods Service. As for the places Rom. 14. Gal. 2. & Coloss. 2. I answer, that if wee 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 wee should carry our selves in contradiction to the places mentioned: but seeing we observe times onely 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 mankinde in such sort as in these latter dayes; and of our selves wee are to seeke, of the particularity of the day under a fit proportion of time from the beginning of the World rquired, and hereupon were we left to our owne judgements, a way would bee opened to miserable dissension and confusion;

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.

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

Man could not possibly have known how many days God was creating the world, so to know what day he rested, that they might conform unto him in their rest; unless God had revealed it unto them; but supposing God had revealed it, and withal had called it his holy day, and it were known unto them that one day in the week must be set apart as Gods holy Day, in this case I appeal to every Christian conscience whether this were not sufficient to conclude that surely the day of the Lords rest, being his holy Day, ought to be the day of our rest, and our holy day. Now, thus the case stands with us Christians; we know what day our Saviour rose, having finished the work of mans Redemption; we know the Jews Sabbath is abrogated; we know the proportion of one day in seven remains still to be consecrated as an holy day to the Lord; we know the Lord prescribed to the Jews for their Sabbath his resting day from the creation; which is called his holy day: And in like manner we know, that under the Gospel, the first day of the week being the day of our Saviours resurrection, is called by Saint John the Lords Day; as for Easter and Pentecost, the ⟨p. 119⟩case is nothing like; those festivals being not of single days, but of whole weeks, once in a year, yet this proportion we find between them and the weekly Sabbath. There are in a year seven times seven weeks, and a fraction less than half a seven; so that the memory of the creation was seven times in a year celebrated more than the memory either of their deliverance out of Egypt, or, of their reaping the fruits of the land of Canaan, the one far surmounting the other, yet their Easter began the day of the year whereon they came out of Egypt. And Doctor Lake, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Thes. 41. de Sabbat. professeth, that God sets out the day by the work he doth on the day, the work I say done, doth difference a day from a day: and Thes. 43. Now then, when God doth any remarkable work, then will he be honoured with a commemoration day for that work. If the work concern the whole, by the whole Church; and by a part, if it concern a part: and Thes. 44. And his Will is understood often by his Precept; but when we have not that, the practice doth guide the Church, 45. This is a Catholic rule, observed in the institution of all sacred feasts, both Divine and Humane, 46.

Man could not possibly have knowne how many dayes God was creating the world, so to know what day he rested, that they might conforme unto him in their rest; unlesse God had revealed it unto them; but supposing God had revealed it, and withall had called it his holy day, and it were knowne unto them that one day in the weeke must be set apart as Gods holy Day, in this case I appeal to every Christian conscience whether this were not sufficient to conclude that surely the day of the Lords rest, being his holy Day, ought to be the day of our rest, and our holy day. Now, thus the case stands with us Christians; we know what day our Saviour rose, having finished the worke of mans Redemption; we know the Jewes Sabbath is abrogated; we know the proportion of one day in seven remaines still to be consecrated as an holy day to the Lord; we know the Lord prescribed to the Jewes for their Sabbath his resting day from the creation; which is called his holy day: And in like manner we know, that under the Gospel, the first day of the weeke being the day of our Saviours resurrection, is called by Saint Iohn the Lords Day; as for Easter and Pentecost, the

The work of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekly, monthly, or yearly, as particulars evince in Scripture and history. The very light of nature doth give testimony unto this, as appeareth by the common practice of the heathens; as to give some instance hereof, what is the original of the observation of the Friday, as a festival day amongst Mahometans? surely this; on that day Mahumet fled from Mecca to Jethrib, and so that day is accounted the first day of his kingdom, and from thenceforth it was ordained to be the first day of their year and of their week. So then the Will of God, in the judgement of this reverend Divine, is manifested not only by Precept, but by his Work. And yet I know none speaks more of Precept in this particular, than Doctor Walaeus, as I have often alleged him, pag. 172.

The worke of the day is the ground of hallowing the day, whether it be weekely, monethly, or yeerely, as particulars evince in Scripture and history. The very light of nature doth give testimony unto this, as appeareth by the common practice of the heathens; as to give some instance hereof, what is the originall of the observation of the Fryday, as a festivall day amongst Mahumetanes? surely this; on that day Mahumet fled from Mecha to Jethrib, and so that day is accounted the first day of his kingdom, and from thenceforth it was ordained to be the first day of their yeere and of their weeke. So then the Will of God, in the judgement of this reverend Divine, is manifested not onely by Precept, but by his Worke. And yet I know none speakes more of Precept in this particular, than Doctor Walaeus, as I have often alleged him, pag. 172.

Fifthly, I grant Junius went too far, in affirming that Christ did observe the same every week between his resurrection and ascension; but neither doth the contrary appear by Scripture; undoubtedly the two first he did, and it is not manifest that the three following he did not; and though ⟨p. 120⟩Cyril infers here-hence the reasonableness of our Christian assemblies on this day, yet we do not; but as Doctor Walaeus concludes that which he concludes not from any one place, but from many places together, that do we; Neither is it any thing to the purpose that Doctor Walaeus observes of Christs appearing on other days, as Joh. 21. 24. once, which was at a fish meeting. And as little material is it, that at such other times of his meetings he spake of the kingdom of God.

Fifthly, I grant Iunius went too farre, in affirming that Christ did observe the same every weeke betweene his resurrection and ascention; but neither doth the contrary appeare by Scripture; undoubtedly the two first he did, and it is not manifest that the three following he did not; and though ⟨p. 120⟩Cyril inferres here-hence the reasonablenesse of our Christian assemblies on this day, yet wee doe not; but as Doctor Walaeus concludes that which hee concludes not from any one place, but from many places together, that do we; Neither is it any thing to the purpose that Doctor Walaeus observes of Christs appearing on other dayes, as Ioh. 21. 24. once, which was at a fish meeting. And as little materiall is it, that at such other times of his meetings he spake of the kingdome of God.

Sixthly, On like sort Christ sending down the Spirit on his Apostles on the day of Pentecost, hath not so much force considered alone, but only in a conjunct consideration with Christs resurrection on that day: And like as after his death he arose on that day manifesting himself mightily thereby to be the Son of God, so after his ascension into heaven, he came down by his Spirit on that day, the seventh, first day of the week after his resurrection, manifesting thereby as Peter signifieth that he had obtained the dispensation of the Spirit. We do not say the Spirit was on the day of Pentecost sent down, because it was the Lords day; But being sent down on that day, as the Law is confessed to have been delivered on that day, this tends to the marking out of that day more and more, for manifestation of the power of Christ. That day they receiving power from on high by the descending of the holy Ghost upon them, whereby they were enabled to preach the Gospel. And that day of the week which is set apart for Divine service as our Christian Sabbath; as that day whereon the Holy Ghost doth ordinarily come down upon his servants in the ministry of his Word, and celebration of the Sacraments, and putting up of our joint prayers unto him for the sanctifying and edifying Christ body which is the Church: and even in this respect that day hath a far better congruity to the day that is to be set apart for Divine service, than any other day in the week besides. The day of his ascension he departed from them as touching his presence corporal, but on the day of Pentecost he came down upon them as touching his presence spiritual; and so he doth still in our Sabbath exercises on the Lords day, though not in so extraordinary a manner, yet no less effectually to that edification and sanctification of our souls.

Sixthly, On like sort Christ sending down the Spirit on his Apostles on the day of Pentecost, hath not so much force considered alone, but onely in a conjunct consideration with Christs resurrection on that day: And like as after his death he arose on that day manifesting himselfe mightily thereby to be the Sonne of God, so after his ascension into heaven, he came downe by his Spirit on that day, the seventh, first day of the weeke after his resurrection, manifesting thereby as Peter signifieth that he had obtained the dispensation of the Spirit. We doe not say the Spirit was on the day of Pentecost sent downe, because it was the Lords day; But being sent down on that day, as the Law is confessed to have beene delivered on that day, this tends to the marking out of that day more and more, for manifestation of the power of Christ. That day they receiving power from on high by the descending of the holy Ghost upon them, whereby they were inabled to preach the Gospel. And that day of the weeke which is set apart for Divine service as our Christian Sabbath; as that day whereon the Holy Ghost doth ordinarily come downe upon his servants in the ministerie of his Word, and celebration of the Sacraments, and putting up of our joynt prayers unto him for the sanctifying and edifying Christ body which is the Church: and even in this respect that day hath a farre better congruitie to the day that is to be set apart for Divine service, than any other day in the week besides. The day of his ascension he departed from them as touching his presence corporall, but on the day of Pentecost he came downe upon them as touching his presence spirituall; and so he doth still in our Sabbath exercises on the Lords day, though not in so extraordinary a manner, yet no lesse effectually to that edification and sanctification of our soules.

Seventhly, And whereas some urged that if Christ himself had not instituted this day after his resurrection, the most Primitive Church should have been left destitute of a certain day of Gods worship, to wit, from the time of Christs resurrection to the first consecrating of the Lords Day, which they take to be absurd, and I confess, it seems unlikely that the Apostles took upon them to order ought until they received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, that being the day they were to receive power from on high, to execute the commission given them, Mat. 28. 19. to teach all nations; till which time they gathered no Churches. For the strengthening the former reason, it is added; That the Jews Sabbath was now abolished by Christs death and resurrection. This I do not deny, but the Apostles might very well be ignorant hereof as yet, as not having received the Spirit as yet; yea, & after the receiving it, we find they challenged Peter for going to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel, Acts 11. to this argument some answer, as Walaeus saith, that the days between Christs ascension and the coming down of the Holy Ghost upon them, were spent in continual meetings of the Apostles and other Disciples. But from the day of Pentecost, the Lords day thenceforth observed. This answer reacheth not unto the days interceding between Christs resurrection and his ascension. And when I consider Bishop Lake his discourse, grounded, as he professeth, upon universal observation (and which I find no reason to resist) namely, that the work of the day commends the day: If ever any day deserved to be festival to any, surely the day of our Saviours resurrection deserved to be festival unto them, to rejoice in the Lord thereon, according to that of the Psalmist, This is the day which the Lord hath ¹made, let us be glad and rejoice therein; the ancient Fathers accommodating the place thereunto. The two verses immediately preceding, carrying in the forehead of them a manifest relation unto Christ as the proprietary of their meaning. 22. The stone which the builders refused, is become the head of the corner. 23. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.

Seventhly, And whereas some urged that if Christ himselfe had not instituted this day after his resurrection, the most Primitive Church should have beene left destitute of a certaine day of Gods worship, to wit, from the time of Christs resurrection to the first consecrating of the Lords Day, which they take to be absurd, and I confesse, it seems unlikely that the Apostles tooke upon them to order ought untill they received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, that being the day they were to receive power from on high, to execute the commission given them,

Now when was this manifested, namely, that the stone which the builders refused became the head of the corner, but by Christs ⟨p. 122⟩Resurrection from the dead, being thereby mightily declared to be the Son of God. Rom. 14. and was there ever work more marvellous in the eyes of Gods Servants, then the Resurrection of Christ, especially considering the disconsolate condition of his Disciples? Luke 24. 21. We trusted it had been he, that should have delivered Israel. The women departed from the Sepulchre, though with fear, by reason of the consternation received from Angelical presence, their countenance being like lightning, yet with great joy by reason of the news they heard from them of Christs Resurrection; upon the noise whereof (for they were commanded to carry word of it to his Disciples,) the Apostles as it seems were gathered together; and in the evening after he had showed himself to his Disciples going to Emmaus, Christ presented himself in the midst of them. Eight days after they were met together, and Thomas with them who being absent the time before, gave out speeches of peremptory incredulity concerning his Resurrection; therefore then and not till then also the doors being shut, Christ came before them, and calls unto Thomas to see his hand, and to put his finger into his side. These apparitions of our Saviour twice on the first day of the week might well add somewhat to the confirmation of them in the festivity of this day; and howsoever between his ascension, and the day of Pentecost they had their meetings, yet how improbable is it they should put no difference; between such a festival and other days of the week. A second answer Walaeus gives, namely that others say, that from the day of Pentecost it was not necessary that the Lords Day should be observed: but that at the first the Apostles together with the Jews observed their Sabbath not as a ceremony of the Old Testament, but as a free circumstance of divine worship, as for a while they retained Circumcision and difference of meats; which they gave over, after the Jews were found obstinately to refuse the Gospel. So that in these mens judgements the Lords Day was no festival to the Apostles, till by occasion of the Jews obstinateness, a proper occasion for the institution of a new festival.

Now when was this manifested, namely, that the stone which the builders refused became the head of the corner, but by Christs

And give me leave to differ from them in yoking ⟨p. 123⟩Circumcision and difference of meats with the Jews Sabbath, neither of them prefiguring Christ as to come, like as the Jews Sabbath did, prefiguring his rest that day in the grave; as the ancients have conceived it, without any contradiction that I know. Had they permitted sacrifices for a time, their comparison had been more congruous. I see no reason to withhold me from concurring with Austin, and in him with all the ancients, for ought I know to the contrary, that Dies Dominicus Resurrectione Domini declaratus est Christianis, & ex illo coepit habere festivitatem suam, yea with the very words of Scripture Psal. 118. 22. The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner 23. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoice and be glad in it. Neither is it credible to me that the Apostles were ignorant of it or of its application, to the day of Christs Resurrection, from the very day thereof. Heresbachius upon these words, Haec dies quam fecit dominus. They are (saith he) the words of the people exulting in the Kingdom of David, most of all of the glorious Resurrection of Christ, which of all others was most glorious to mankind: as whereon Christ redeemed us in a triumphant manner, from the Tyranny of Satan, and from everlasting death, and restored unto us everlasting righteousness. Arnobius interprets it of the Lords Day.

And give mee leave to differ from them in yoking ⟨p. 123⟩Circumcision and difference of meats with the Jewes Sabbath, neither of them prefiguring Christ as to come, like as the Jewes Sabbath did, prefiguring his rest that day in the grave; as the ancients have conceived it, without any contradiction that I know. Had they permitted sacrifices for a time, their comparison had beene more congruous. I see no reason to withhold me from concurring with Austin, and in him with all the ancients, for ought I know to the contrary, that Dies Dominicus Resurrectione Domini declaratus est Christianis, & ex illo coepit habere festivitatem suam, yea with the very words of Scripture Psal. 118. 22. The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner 23. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoyce and be glad in it. Neither is it credible to mee that the Apostles were ignorant of it or of its application, to the day of Christs Resurrection, from the very day thereof. Heresbachius upon these words, Haec dies quam fecit dominus. They are (saith hee) the words of the people exulting in the Kingdome of David, most of all of the glorious Resurrection of Christ, which of all others was most glorious to mankinde: as whereon Christ redeemed us in a triumphant manner, from the Tyarnny of Satan, and from everlasting death, and restored unto us everlasting righteousnesse. Arnobius interprets it of the Lords Day.

Eighthly, the last argument, and which he acknowledgeth of greatest moment is that, which is taken out of Apoc. 1. 10. Where the first day of the week is called the Lords Day, whence they conclude, that it is of the Lords institution. And indeed Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester in his Star Camber speech professeth, that this denomination is given only to the first day of the week, as called in Scripture the Lords day, and to the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, as called the Lords Supper, and that to show that the word Dominicum (the Lords) is to be taken alike in both. In the same sense we call the Prayer which our Saviour taught his Disciples the Lords Prayer. But let us hear Walaeus his answer, that we may consider it. This consequence ⟨p. 122⟩(saith he) is not necessary, for it may be called the Lords, not only that which is of his institution, but even that which is made to the remembrance, or in the honour of him, or for his worship, as the ancients speak, as the altar of the Lord, and feast of the Lord are often so called. And that in this sense it was taken of the ancients it appears by this, that the ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin, called Temples by the name of Dominica, and [Greek or Hebrew]. That which we urge is the language of the Holy Ghost, now throughout the holy Scripture, it is not the language of the Holy Ghost, to call either Altars the Lords Altars, or Feasts the Lords Feasts, but such as are of the Lords institution. Neither do the fathers (in my observation) call the first day of the week the Lord's day otherwise then in reference to Christs Resurrection, as the cause of the festival nature thereof. Temples indeed they call [Greek or Hebrew] as consecrated to the Lord; but the denomination is not to distinguish it from other Temples; as the Lords Day hath its denomination to distinguish it from other days. But the day of Christs Resurrection being called the Lords Day not as such a day in the year, but as such a day in the week, this to my understanding doth manifestly infer the succession of it into the place of the Lords day of the week amongst the Jews. Both ancient and modern Divines do hold it lawful to consecrate other days to the service of of God, such as we usually call holy days. But never any man (I think) was found that durst call any of them Diem dominicum the Lords Day.

Eightly, the last argument, and which hee acknowledgeth of greatest moment is that, which is taken out of

Add to this, wherefore doth our Saviour say, that the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, but plainly to conclude hence, that he can dispense with it, he can abrogate it, and bring another into the place of it? and none hath power for this but he who is Lord of the Sabbath.

Adde to this, wherefore doth our Saviour say, that the sonne of man is Lord of the Sabbath, but plainely to conclude herence, that hee can dispense with it, hee can abrogate it, and bring another into the place of it? and none hath power for this but hee who is Lord of the Sabbath.