THE Divine Appointment OF THE Lords Day Proved As a separated Day for Holy Worship especially in the Church Assemblies And consequently the Cessation of the Seventh day Sabbath Written for the satisfaction of some Religious Persons who are lately drawn into Error or doubting in both these Points By Richard Baxter Rev. 1. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Loras Day Col. 2. 16 17. Let no 〈◊〉 judge you in Meat or in Driak or in respect of an Holy day or Feast or of the New 〈◊〉 or Sabbaths which are a shadow of things to come but the Body is of Christ. LONDON Printed for Nevil Simmons at the three Crowns near Holborn Conduit 1671. THE PREFACE Reader IF thou think this Treatise both superfluous and Defective when so many larger have better done the work already I shall not at all gainsay the latter nor much the former The reason of my writing it was the necessity and request of some very upright Godly persons who are lately faln into doubt or Errour in point of the Sabbath day conceiving that because the fourth Commandment was Written in Stone it is wholly unchangeable and consequently the seventh day Sabbath in force and that the Lords day is not a Day separated by God to holy Worship I knew that there was enough written on this Subject long agoe But 1. Much of it is in Latine 2. Some Writings which prove the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath do withal treat so loosly of the Lords day as that they require a Confutation in the latter as well as a commendation for the former 3. Some are so large that the persons that I write for will hardly be brought to read them 4. Most go upon those grounds which I take to be less clear and build so much more than I can do on the fourth Commandment and on many passages of the old Testament and plead so much for the old Sabbatical notion and rest that I fear this is the chief occasion of many peoples Errours who when they find themselves in a wood of difficulties and nothing plain and convincing that is pleaded with them do therefore think it safest to stick to the old Jewish Sabbath The friends and acquaintance of some of these persons importuning me to take the plainest and nearest way to satisfie such honest doubters I have here done it according to my judgement not contending against any that go another way to work but thinking my self that this is very clear and satisfactory viz. to prove 1. That Christ did Commission his Apostles to Teach us all things which he commanded and to settle Orders in his Church 2. And that he gave them his spirit to enable them to do all this Infallibly by bringing all his words to their remembrance and by leading them into all truth 3. And that his Apostles by this spirit did de facto separate the Lords day for holy Worship especially in Church-Assemblies and declared the cessation of the Jewish Sabbaths 4. And that as this change had the very same Author as the Holy Scriptures the Holy Ghost in the Apostles so that fact hath the same kind of proof that we have of the Canon and the integrity and uncorruptness of the particular Scripture Books and Texts And that if so much Scripture as mencioneth the keeping of the Lords day expounded by the Concent and Practice of the Universal Church from the dayes of the Apostles all keeping this day as holy without the dissent of any one Sect or single person that I remember to have read of I say if all this History will not fully prove the point of fact that this day was kept in the Apostles times and consequently by their appointment then the same proof will not serve to evince that any text of Scripture is Canonical and uncorrupted nor can we think that any thing in the world that is past can have Historical proof I have been put to say somewhat particularly out of Antiquity for this evidence of the fact because it is that which I lay the greatest stress upon But I have not done it so largely as might be done 1. Because I would not lose the unlearned Reader in a Wood of History nor overwhelm him instead of edifying him 2. Because it is done already in Latine by Dr. Young in his Dies Dominica under the name of Theophilus Loncardiensis which I take to be the moderatest soundest and strongest Treatise on this subject that I have seen Though Mr. Cawdry and Palmer joyntly have done well and at greater length and Mr. Eaton Mr. Shephard Dr. Bound Wallaeus Rivet and my dear friend Mr. George Abbot against Broad have said very much And in their way Dr. White Dr. Heylin Bishop Ironside Mr. Brierwood c. 3. I chose most of the same Citations which Dr. Heylin himself produceth because he being the man that I am most put to defend my self against his confessions are my advantage 4. And if I had been willing I could not have been so full in this as the Subject will bespeak because I have almost eleven years been separated from my Library and long from the neighbourhood of any ones else I much pitty and wonder at those Godly men who are so much for stretching the words of Scripture to a sense that other men cannot find in them as that in the word Graven Images in the second Commandment they can find all set Formes of Prayer all composed studyed Sermons and all things about Worship of mans invention to be Images or Idolatry and yet they cannot find the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath in the express words of Col. 2. 16. nor the other Texts which I have cited nor can they find the Institution of the Lords day in all the Texts and Evidences produced for it But though Satan may somewhat disturbe our Concord and tempt some mens Charity to remissness by these differences he shall never keep them out of Heaven who worship God through Christ by the Spirit even in spirit and truth Nor shall he I hope ever draw me to think such holy persons as herein differ from me to be worse than my self though I think them in this to be unhappily mistaken much less to approve either of their own separation from others or of other mens condemning them as Hereticks and inflicting severities upon them for these their opinions sake THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. THE state of the Question with the summary proof of the Divine separation of the Lords Day page 1. CHAP II. That Christ commissioned his Apostles as his principal Church-Ministers to teach the Churches all his Doctrine and to deliver them all his Commands and Orders and so to settle and guide the first Churches p. 5. CHAP. III. Christ promised his Spirit to his Apostles to enable them to do what he had commissioned them to do by leading them into all truth and bringing his words and deeds to their remembrance and by guiding them at his Churches Guides p. 9.
Original is not known 4. That the Antients joyn not the Lords day with these but take the Lords day for an Apostolical institution written in Scripture though the universal practice of all Churches fullier deliver the certain History of it But the rest they take for unwritten Customs as distinct from Scripture Ordinances As Epiphanius fully sheweth 5. That most Christians are agreed that if these later could be proved Apostolical Institutions for the Church universal it would be our duty to use them though they were not in Scripture So that we reject them only for want of such proof But the proof of the Lords dayes separation being far better by concurrence of Scripture and all antient History it followeth not that we must doubt of that which hath full and certain proof because we must doubt of that which wants it 6. And if it were necessary that they stood or fell together as it is not it were necessary that we did receive those three or four Ceremonies for the sake of the Lords day which â—ath so great evidence rather than that we cast off the Lords day because of these Ceremonies Not only because there is more Good in the Lords dâ—y than there is evil to be any way suspected by a doubter in these Ceremonies but especially because the Evidence for the day is so great that if the said Ceremonies had but the same they were undoubtedly of Divine authority or institution In a word I have shewed you somewhat of the evidence for the Lords day Do you now shew me the like for them and then I will prove that both must be received But if you cannot do not pretend a parity 7. And the same Churches laying by the Customs aforesaid or most of them did shew that they â—â—ok them not indeed for Apostolical institutions as they did the Lords day which they continued to observe not as a Ceremony but as a necessary thing 8. And the ancient Churches did believe that even in the Apostles dayes some things were used as Indifferent which were mutable and were not Laws but temporary customs And some things were necessary setled by Law for perpetuity Of the former kind they thought were the greeting one another with a holy kiss the Womens praying covered with a Veil of which the Apostle saith that it was then and there so decent that the contrary would have been unseemly and the Churches of God had no such custom by which he answereth the contentious yet in other Countreys where custom altereth the signification it may be otherwise Also that a man wear not long hair and that they have a Love Feast on the Lords day which yet Paul seemeth to begin to alter in his rebuke of the abusers of it 1 Cor. 11. And if these ancient Churches thought the Milk and Honey and the white Garment and the Station and Adoration Eastwards to be also such like indifferent mutable customs as it is apparent they did this is nothing at all to invalidate our proof that the Lords day was used and consequently appointed in the dayes of the Apostles Obj. At least it will prove it mutable as they were Answ. No such matter Because the very nature of such Circumstances having no stated necessity or usefulness sheweth them to be mutable But the reason of the Lords dayes use is perpetual And it is founded partly in the Law of nature which telleth us that some stated dayes should be set apart for holy things and partly in the positive part of the fourth Commandment which telleth us that once God determined of one day in seven yea and this upon the ground of his own Cessation of his Creation-work that man on that day might observe a Holy Rest in the worshipping of the great Creator which is a Reason belonging not to the Jews only but to the whole world Yea and that Reason whatever Dr. Heylin say to the contrary from the meer silence of the former History in Genesis doth seem plainly to intimate that this is but the repetition of that Law of the Sabbath which was given to Adam For why should God begin two thousand years after to give men a Sabbath upon the reason of his rest from the Creation and for the Commemoration of it if he had never called man to that Commemoration before And it is certain that the Sabbath was observed at the falling of Manna before the giving of the Law And let any considerate Christian judge between Dr. Heylin and us in this 1. Whether the not falâ—ing of Manna or the Rest of God after the Creation was like to be the Original reason of the Sabbath 2. And whether if it had been the first it would not have been said Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day for on six dayes Manna fell and not on the seventh rather than For in six dayes God created Heaven and Earth c. and rested the seventh day And it is causally added Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it Nay consider whether this annexed Reason intimate not that the day on this ground being hallowed before therefore it was that God sent not down the Manna on that day and that he prohibited the people from seeking it And he that considereth the brevity of the History in Genesis will think he is very bold that obtrudeth on the world his Negative Argument The Sabbath is not there mentioned therefore it was not then kept And if it was a Positive Law given to Adam on the reason of the Creation Rest it was then such a Positive as must be next to a Law of Nature and was given to all mankind in Adam and Adam must needs be obliged to deliver it down to the world So that though the Mosaical Law even as given in Stone be ceased yea and Adams Positives too formally as such yet this is sure that once God himself determined by a Law that one stated day in seven was the fittest proportion of time to be separated to holy Worship And if it was so once yea to all the world from the Creation it is so still Because there is still the same reason for it And we are bound to judge Gods determination of the proportion to be wiser than any that we can make And so by parity of Reason consequentially even those abrogated Laws do thus far bind us still not so far as abrogated but because the record and reason of them is still a signification of the due proportion of time and consequently of our duty Now the Lords day supposing one weekly day to be due and being but that day determined of and this upon the Reason of the Resurrection and for the Commemoration of our Redemption and that by such inspired and authorized persons it followeth clearly that this is no such mutable ceremony as a Love Feast or the Kiss of Love or the Veil or the washing of feet or the anointing of the sick which were mostly occasionall actions and
as he nailed the hand-writing of Ordinances to his Cross so he buried the Sabbath in his Grave by lying buried on that day And therefore the Western Churches who had fewer Jews among them did fast on the Sabbath day to shew the change that Christs burial intimated Though the Eastern Churches did not lest they should offend the Jews And that the ancient Christians were not for sabbatizing on the seventh day is visible in the writings of most save the Eastern ones before mentioned Tertull. cont Marcion li. 1. cap. 20. Chrysost. Theodoret Primasius c. on Gal. 4. expound that Text as that by Dayes is meant the Jewish Sabbath and by Moneths the New Moons c. Cyprian 59. Epist. ad Hidum saith that the eighth day is to Christians what the Sabbath was to the Jews and calleth the Sabbath the Image of the Lords day Athanasius de Sab. Circumcis is full and plain on it See Tertullian Advers Judae c. 4. Ambros. in Eph. 2. August Ep. 118. Châ—ysâ—st in Gal. 1. Hâ—m 12. ad pop Hilary before cited Prolog in Psalm Origen Hom. 23. in Num. Item Tertull. de Idol c. 14. Epipban l. 1. num 30. noting the Nazaraei and Ebionaei Hereticks that they kept the Jews Sabbath In a word The Council of Laodiâ—aea doth Anathematize them that did Judaize by forbearing their Labours on the Sabbath or seventh day And as Sozomen tells us that at Alexandria and Rome they used no Assemblies on the Sabbath so where they did in most Churches they communicated not in the Sacrament Yea that Ignatius himself true or false who saith as aforecited After the Sabbath let every lover of Christ celebrate the Lords day doth yet in the same Epistle ad Magnes before say Old things are passed away behold all things are made new For if we yet live after the Jewish Law and the Circumcision of the flesh we deny that we have received Grace Let us not therefore keep the Sabbath or sabbatize Jewishly as delighting in Idleness or Rest from labour For be that will not labour let him not eat In the sweat if thy brows thou shalt cat thy bread I confess I take the cited Texts to have been added since the body of the Epistle was written but though the Writer favour of the Eastern custom yet he sheweth they did not sabbatize on the account of the fourth Commandment or supposed continuation of the Jewish Sabbath as a Sabbath For bodily labour was strictly forbidden in the fourth Commandment Dionysius Alexandr hath an Epistle to Basilides a Bishop on the Question When the Sabbath Fast must end and the observation of the Lords day begin Biblioth Patr. Graec. Lat. Vol. 1. p. 306. In which he is against them that end their Fast too soon And plainly intimateth that the seventh day was to be kept but as a preparatory Fast being the day that Christ lay in the grave and not as a Sabbath or as the Lords day I cite not any of these as a humane authority to be set against the authority of the fourth Commandment But as the certain History of the change of the day which the Apostles made Qu. How far then is the fourth Commandment Moral you seem to subvert the old foundation which most others build the Lords day upon Answ. Let us not entangle our selves with the ambiguities of the word Moral which most properly signifieth Ethical as distinct from Physical c. By Moral here is meant that which is on what ground soever of perpetual or continued obligation And so it is all one as to ask how far it is still obligatory or in force To which I answer 1. It is a part of the Law of Nature that God be solemnly worshipped in families and in holy assemblies 2. It is a part of the Law of Nature that where greater things do not forbid it a stated time be appointed for this service and that it be not left at Randome to every mans will 3. It is of the Law of Nature that where greater matters do not hinder it this day be one and the same in the same Countreys yea if it may be through the world 4. It is of the Law of Nature that this day be not so rarely as to hinder the ends of the day nor yet so frequently as to deprive us of opportunity for our necessary corporal labour 5. It is of the Law of Nature that the holy duties of this day be nâ—t hindered by any corporal work or fleshly pleasure or any unnecessary thing which contradiâ—teth the holy ends of the day 6. It is of the Law of Nature that Rulers and in special Masters of families do take care that their inferiours thus observe it In all these points the fourth Commandment being but a transcript of the Law of Nature which we can yet prove from the nature of the reason of the thing the matter of it continueth not as Jewish but as Natural 7. Besides all this when no man of himself could tell whether one day in six or seven or eight were his duty to observe God hath come in and 1. By Doctrine or History told us that he made the world in six dayes and rested the seventh 2. By Law and bath commanded one day in seven to the Jews by which he hath made known consequentialâ—y to all men that one day in seven is the fittest proportion of time And the case being thus determined by God by a Law to others doth consequentially become a Law to us because it is the determination of Divine Wisdom unless it were done upon some reasons in which their condition differeth from ours And thus the Doctrine and Reasons of an abrogated Law continuing may induce on us an obligation to duty And in this sense the fourth Commandment may be said still to bind us to one day in seven But in two points the obligation even as to the Matter ceaseth 1. We are not bound to the seventh day because God our Redeemer who is Lord of the Sabbath hath made a change 2. We are not bound to a Sabbath in the old notion that is to a day of Ceremonial Rest for it self required but to a day to be spent in Evangelical Worship And though I am not of their mind who say that the seventh day is not commanded in the fourth Commandment but a Sabbath only yet I think that it is evident in the words that the Ratio Sabbati and the Ratio diei septimi are distinguishable And that the Sabbath as a Sabbath is first in the precept and the particular day is there but secondarily and so mutably as if God had said I will have a particular day set apart for a holy Rest and for my Worship And that day shall be one in seven and the seventh also on which I rested from my works And thus I have said as much as I think needful to satisfie the considerate about the day Again professing 1. That I believe that
Church before as what day goeth over their head The Historical hints of the New Testament must be taken together and not a part only that they may prove a usage And 1. That Christ rose on that day is past doubt among Christians Joh. 20. 1. Luk. 24. 1. Mar. 16. 2. Matth. 28. 1. 2. On that same day he taught the two disciples Luk. 24. 13. And the same day he appeared to the Disciples and instructed them and did eate with them Luk. 24. 33 36. Theâ— the Disciples were assembled and theâ— he blessed them gave them their Commission and the Holy Ghost Joh. 20. 19 20 21 22. 3. The next first day of the week Christ chose to appear to them again when Thomas was with them and convinced him Joh. 20. 26. 4. In Act. 20. 7. It is mentioned as the day of their Assembling to break bread which though they did oft on other daies yet no day else was peculiarly appointed for it As for the dissenters cavil about the Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza hath given them Reason enough against it And Grotius and almost all expositors are against them And most that translate it literally una Sabbatorum take Vna and Prima here to be all one And Calvin with others noteth that the same phrase being used of the day of the Resurrection Matth. 26. 1. Luk. 24. 1. Joh. 20. 1. will direct us to expound this unless you mean also to deny the Resurrection to have been on the first day And 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs have the same signification And Mark 26. 9. compared with the other Evangelists so expounds them as Beza noteth who also telleth us that in one old Copy he found added the Lords day and citeth Hierome adv Vigilant saying Per unam Sabbati hoc est in die Dominico c. And Dr. Hammond well noteth that it plainly relateth to the Christian assemblies to which they were not to come empty but to deposite what they brought into the treasury of the Church or if it were in their private repositories it doth not much difference the case Calvins exception against Chrysostome here is groundless as the reasons before evince So that by this Text the custome of holding Church meetings on the Lords day as a peculiar day is intimated though but on the by as most Expositors agree And the denomination of the Lords day Joh. 1. 10. being the same which the Christian Churches ever used of the First day puts it yet further out of doubt As for his conjecture who doubteth whether it may be meant of the Anniversary day of Christs Resurrection when as the constant use of the name by all the Churches sheweth that it was taken ever since for the weekly day it deserveth no other refutation Now though all this set together shew that Scripture is not silent of the matter of fact yet it is the full and unquestionable expository evidence of the practice of all Churches in the world since the very daies of the Apostles which beyond all doubt assureth us that de facto the Lords day was by the Apostles separated for holy Worship especially in publick Church-assemblies But these several intimations being seconded with so full an Exposition tell us that the Scripture is not silent in the case nor doth pass it by I was loth to name the day of the sending down of the Holy Ghost as a proof Because that some do controvert it But it seemeth to me a very considerable thing 1. That the day that year 〈…〉 of Pentecost on which the Holy Ghost was given was indeed the first day of the week even Dr. Heylin granteth without any question or stop And the Churches observation of Whitsunday as the day and that so very early as Epiphanius and many others say from the Apostles doth seem a very credible history or tradition of it 2. It s agreed on that the Passoever that year fell on the Sabboth day and that Pentecost was fifty daies after the Passover which falleth out on the Lords day And Grotius noteth from Exod. 19. 1. that it was the day that the Law was given on and so on which the Spirit was given for the new Law 3. And considering that this great gift of the Holy Ghost which was to make the Apostles Infallible and to enable them for their commission-work and bring all Christs Doctrines and Commands to their remembrance was so memorable a thing that it was as it were the Beginning of the full Gospel-state of the Church and Kingdom of Christ which through all Christs abode on Earth was as the Infant existent indeed but in the womb and on this day was as it were Born before the world and brought into the open light the Lords day also seemeth to me to be as it were Conceived on the day of Christs Resurrection but Born on this day of the Holy Ghosts descent But Dr. Heylin hath one poor reason against it viz. Because it was but an accidental thing that the day fell out that year on the first day Answ. 1. Was it not according to the course of Nature How then can that be called Accidental 2. But however it was no contingent accidental thing in his sense that the Holy Ghost was sent down on that day rather than another If a sparrow fall not to the ground without Gods providence did God choose that day He knew not why Or did it fall out hap hazard or by chance I need not insist on the confutation of his Caviâ—s about the other Texts forecited Note only 1. That as to his exception about Christs travel on his Resurrection day I have after answered it 2. That he freely granteth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiâ—th The first day of the week both in Act. 20. 7. and 1 Cor. 16. 2. 3. That he himself citeth afterward many testimonies that oblations and contributions were in the Churches a usual Lords dayes work 4. That he confesseth that Rev. 10. 1. is meant of the Lords day as by that time grown into reputation 5. That he thinketh it was in small reputation before because Paul chose the Sabbath so often to Preach on to the Jews and Hellenists or Greeks whereas he himself is forced to confess that it was not for the days sake but the Assemblies to do them good 6. That he vainly conceiteth that Because the Lords day was kept on the account of Christs Resurrection it implyeth that it was not kept by Gods command which needeth no confutation 7. That his labour to prove that Paul meant the Jewish Sabbath as abrogated is vain for we deny it not 8. That he cannot deny that Christians had all that time of the Apostles a stated day as Pliny himself witnesseth for solemn worship above other daies 9. That he vainly snatcheth a little countenance from Calvin and Beza c. when as no man since Cochlaeus writeth more detestably of them 10. That after he
other Festivals whatsoever it is yet greater boldness without proof to exclude the principal part from whence the rest did receive the name 3. Besides the Feasts and New Moons being here named as distinct from the Sabbath are like to include so much of the other separated dayes as will leave it still more unmeet to exclude the weekly Sabbath in the Explication of that word Sabbaths when so many Feasts are first distinguished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incuit Grotius hic sunt Azyma dies omer scenopegia dies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Obj. But the Sabbath mentioned in the Decalogue could not be included Answ. This is spoken without proof and the contrary is before proved Obj. By this you will make the Christian Sabbath also to be excluded Is not the Lords day a Sabbath Answ. I am here to speak but of the name of which I say that the common sense of the word Sabbath was a Day so appointed to Rest as that the bodily Rest of it was a primary part of its observation to be kept for it self and such the Jewish Sabbaths were Though spiritual Worship was then also commanded yet the corporal Rest was more expresly or frequently urged in the Law and this not only subordinately as an advantage to the spiritual worship but for it self as an immediate and most visible and notable part of Sabbatizing Even as other Ceremonies under the Law were commanded not only as doctrinal Types of things spiritual but as external Acts of Ceremonious operous obedience suited to the Jews Minority which is after called the yoke which they and their Fathers were unable to bear Acts 15. Whereas the Lords day is appointed but as a seasonable time subserviently to the spiritual work of the day And the bodily Rest not required as primary obedience for it self but only for the spiritual work sake and therefore no bodily labour is now unlawful but such as 〈◊〉 hinderance to the spiritual work of the day 〈◊〉 or accidentally a scandal and temptation to others whereas the breach of the outward Rest of the Jews Sabbath was a sin directly of it self without hinderance of or respect to the spiritual Worship So that the first notion and sense of a Sabbath in those dayes being in common use A day of such Ceremonial Corporal Rest as the Jewish Sabbath was the Lords day is never in Scripture called by that name but the proper name is The Lords day And the ancient Churches called it constantly by that name and never called it the Sabbath but when they spake Analogically by allusion to the Jews Sabbath even as they called the holy Table the Altar and the Bread and Wine the Sacrifice Therefore it is plain that Paul is to be understood of all proper Sabbaths and not of the Lords day which was then and long after distinguished from the Sabbath And this Ceremonial Sabbatizing of the Jews was so strict that the Ceremonicusness made them the scorn of the Heathens as appeareth by the derisions of Horat. li. 1. sat 9. Persius sat 5. Juvenal sat 6. Martial lib. 4. and others whereas they derided not the Christians for the Ceremonious Rest but for their Worship on that day The Lords day being not called a Sabbath in the old sense then only in use but distinguished from the Sabbath cannot be meant by the Apostle in his exclusion of the Sabbath Obj. But the Apostles then met in the Synagogues with the Jews on the Sabbaths Therefore it is not those dayes that he meaneth here Col. 2. 16. Answ 1. You might as well say that therefore he is not for the cessation of the Jewish manner of Worship or Communion with them in it because he met with them 2. And you may as well say that he was for the continuance of Circumcision and Purification because he purified himself and circumcised Timothy 3. Or that he was for the continuance of their other Feasts in which also he refused not to joyn with them 4. But Paul did not keep their Sabbaths formally as Sabbaths but only take the advantage of their Assemblies to teach them and convince them and to keep an interest in them And not scandalize them by an unseasonable violation and contradiction 5. And you must note also that the Text saith not Observe not Sabbath dayes but Let no man judge you that is Let none take it for your sin that you observe them not nor do you receive any such Doctrine of the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses The case seemeth like that of things strangled and blood which were to be forborn among the Jews while they were offensive and the use of them hindred their conversion Obj. But the ancient Christians did observe both dayes Answ. 1. In the first Ages they did as the Apostles did that is 1. They observed no day strictly as a Sabbath in the notion then in use 2. They observed the Lords day as a day set apart by the Holy Ghost for Christian Worship 3. They so far observed the Jews Sabbath materialy as to avoid their scandal and to take opportunity to win them 2. But those that lived far from all Jews and those that lived after the Law was sufficiently taken down did keep but one day even the Lords day as separated to holy uses except some Christians who differed from the rest as the followers of Papias did in the Millenary point 3. And note that even these dissenters did still make no question of keeping the Lords day which sheweth that it was on foot from the times of the Apostles 〈◊〉 whoever it was and whenever he wrote saith that After the Sabbath we keep the Lords day And Pseudo-Clemens Can. 33. saith Servants work five dayes but on the Sabbath and Lords day they keep holy day in the Church for the Doctrine or Learning of Godliness The Text of Gal. 4. 10. is of the same sense with Col. 2. 16. against the Jews Sabbath and therefore needeth no other defence And I would have you consider whether as Christs Resurrection was the foundation of the Lords day so Christs lying dead and buried in a Grave on the seventh day Sabbath was not a fundamental abrogation of it I say not the Actual and plenary abrogation For it was the Command of Christ by his Word Spirit or both to the Apostles before proved which fully made the change But as the Resurrection was the Ground of the new day so his Burial seemeth to intimate that the day with all the Jewish Law which it was the symbolical profession of lay dead and buried with him Sure I am that he saith when the Bridegroom is taken from them then shall they fast and mourn but he was most notably taken from them when he lay dead in the Grave And if they must fast and mourn that day they could not keep it as a Sabbath which was a day of joy Therefore as by death he overcame him that had the power of death Heb. 2. 14. and