The Divine Appointment of the Lords Day, Part · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
Though the principal thing desired by the Enquirers is, That I would prove to them the Cessation of the Seventh-day Sabbath, yet because they cast off the Lords day, which I take to be a far greater error and sin, than the observation of both dayes; and because that when I have proved the Institution of the Lords Day, I shall the more easily take them off the other, by proving that there are not two weekly dayes set apart by God for holy Worship: Therefore I will begin with the first Question, Whether the Lords day, or first day of the week, be separated by Gods Institution for holy Worship, especially in publick Church-conventions? Aff.
And here for the right stating of the Question, let it be noted, 1. That it is not the Name of a Sabbath that we now meddle with, or stand upon. Let us agree in the Thing, and we shall easily bear a difference about the name. Grant that it is [A day separated by Gods Institution for holy Assemblies and Worship] and then call it a Sabbath or [the Lords day] as you please. Though for my self, I add That [the Lords day] is the name that the Holy Ghost hath set upon it, and the name which the first Churches principally used; and that they call it also sometimes by the name of the Christian Sabbath; but that is only Analogically, as it is resembled to the Jewish Sabbath; and as they used the names [Sacrifice and Altar]*I speak only de facto, how the Antients used these words. at the same time, for the Christians Commemoration of Christs Sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and for the Table, or as Dr. Young saith, pag. 23. As in Scripture, Baptism is called Circumcision. And that very rarely too.
2. That the Question of the manner of observing the Lords day, and what exercises of Worship it must be spent in, and what Diversions are lawful or unlawful, as also when the day beginneth, are not to be here medled with in the beginning, but afterwards, when the Divine Institution of the Day it self is, first sufficiently proved. Which is done as followeth.
Arg. That day which was separated to holy Worship by the Holy Ghost, was separated to holy Worship by God the Father and the Son. But the first day of the Week was separated to holy Worship by the Holy Ghost: Therefore the first day of the Week was separated to holy Worship, by God the Father and the Son.
The Minor only needeth proof among Christians.
That day which was separated to holy Worship by the Apostles, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, was separated to holy Worship by the Holy Ghost. But the first day of the Week was separated to holy Worship by the Apostles by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the first day of the Week was separated to holy Worship by the Holy Ghost.
The Minor which only needeth proof, is thus proved.
That day which was separated to holy Worship by the Apostles who had the Holy Ghost promised them by Christ, and given them, to lead them into all truth, and to bring all his Doctrines to their remembrance, and to teach the Churches to do all his Commands, and to feed, and guide, and order them, as his principal commissioned Church-Minister, was separated to holy Worship by the Apostles by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
But such is the first day of the Week:
Therefore the first day of the Week is separated to holy Worship by the Apostles by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
I have five Propositions now distinctly to be proved: four for the proof of the Major, and one for the proof of the Minor.
The first Proposition is, That Christ commissioned his Apostles as his principal Church-Ministers, to teach the Churches all his Doctrine, and deliver them all his Commands and Orders, and so to settle and guide the first Churches.
The second Proposition is, That Christ promised them his Spirit, 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 as his Churches Guides.
The third Proposition is, That Christ performed this promise, and gave his Spirit accordingly to his Apostles, to enable them to all their commissioned work.
The fourth Proposition is, That the Apostles did actually separate or appoint the first day of the Week, for holy Worship, especially in Church-assemblies.
The fifth Proposition is, That this act of theirs was done by the Guidance or inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which was given them.
And when I have distinctly proved these five things, no sober understanding Christian can expect that I should prove any more, towards the proof of the Question in hand, Whether the first day of the Week be separated by Gods Institution for holy Worship, especially in Church-assemblies?