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…

And indeed Walaeus makes it appear that Calvin writes herein against the superstitious Papists. And did Rivetus oppose them only it were well; but it is apparent that he disputes not so much against Papists in this argument as against Protestants, even such as himself. But can he show of any of them, that they account the Lords Day more holy then any other in respect of any mysterious signification (for so Calvin speaks in this place) of effect? undoubtedly he cannot. We observe a day in the week only for order and policy sake Ecclesiastical: mysterious significations in days were peculiar only to the Jews. Only we think it fit, that to prevent dissension and confusion, God should mark out that day unto us to be observed, and not leave it unto us, and so he hath; the Scripture calling the first day of the week the Lords Day; and that upon ⟨p. 145⟩such a ground as a greater was never known to ground a festivity thereupon consecrated to the exercises of piety, even the day wherein the stone that was refused by the builders was made the head of the corner; This was the Lords doing, and it is and ever shall be marvellous in our eyes, and gives us cause to say with the Psalmist thereupon: This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will rejoice and be glad in it. So that all the passages in the Apostles writings against difference of days are no more against us then against Doctor Rivetus himself. Now it is time to return to our Prefacer. I do not find that Suarez undertakes to defend the Doctrine of Calvin and Chemnitius (such as here is pretended to be their Doctrine) but rather opposeth it. If such were their doctrine as this Prefacer would fain obtrude upon us, from the authority of the D. discourse which he translateth. For Suarez professeth, Celebritatem Dominicae diei haberi ex communi usu & sensu Ecclesiae & in ipsa scriptura Novi Testamenti commendari: that the celebrity of the day is had by the universal use and sense of the Church, and is commended unto us in the very Scripture of the New Testament; I have endeavoured to justify it out of the Old Testament also; and in express terms, that it is to be unchangeable Practicè & moraliter, practically and morally; as Doctor Prideaux acknowledgeth, and withal expoundeth after his understanding of it;

And indeed Walaeus makes it appeare that Calvin writes herein against the superstitious Papists. And did Rivetus opposethem onely it were well; but it is apparant that hee disputes not so much against Papists in this argument as against Protestants, even such as himselfe. But can hee shew of any of them, that they account the Lords Day more holy then any other in respect of any mysterious signification (for so Calvin speaks in this place) of effect? undoubtedly he cannot. We observe a day in the weeke only for order and policy sake Ecclesiasticall: mysterious significations in dayes were peculiar only to the Jewes. Only we thinke it fit, that to prevent dissension and confusion, God should marke out that day unto us to be observed, and not leave it unto us, and so hee hath; the Scripture calling the first day of the weeke the Lords Day; and that upon