the Gentiles; which yet made no new institution, nor declared any, but only determined of the continued forbearance of some things forbidden before of God, in the precepts called Noah's, and Paul's epistles, which reduce the churches to orders before settled, and urge them to duty, and decide some doubts about particular cases of conscience.)

The proof is visible; 1. In the writings themselves. 2. In that all the churches were in the possession and use of all the things in question, long before: (for mutual orders and circumstances are none of the things in question.) It would be vain to write a history now to tell the Englishmen of this present age, that the Lord's-day is used in England, as a day set apart for public worship; or that persons are baptized, or receive the Lord's-supper in England. For seeing it is the common usage of all the Christians almost of the land, it is needless to tell men among us by writing that it is so (unless it be to infer somewhat else from it).

Prop. 8. Yet these holy Scriptures which were written to men of those times, were also intended for the instruction of all succeeding ages; and so the four evangelists wrote the history of Christ, and Luke wrote the history of Paul till his coming to Rome, and longer, and of some more of the apostles; and on the by, in the epistles extant, the church's customs of those times are much intimated; and all this together with the subordinate history and the universal tenour and practice of the churches, is that history by which we must know the matter of fact of those times; nor is there any room left for a rational pretence of Rome, or any other church, to produce Divine institutions, which were committed only to them, or entrusted to their particular keeping only, and were not delivered in Scripture, nor in common to the whole church.'

Prop. 9. 'Thus according to the use of the writings of the New Testament, the matter of fact in question (of the Lord's-day's separation) is historically touched on, and proved; though but briefly and on the by, as a thing as well known to the church before, as what day goeth over their head.'

The historical hints of the New Testament must be taken together, and not apart only; that they may prove a usage. And 1. That Christ rose on that day, is past doubt among Christians. (John xx. 1; Luke xxiv. 1; Mark xvi. 2; Matt. xxviii. 1.)

2. On that same day he taught the two disciples, (Luke xxiv. 13,) and the same day he appeared to the disciples and instructed them, and did eat with them. (Luke xxiv. 33. 36.) Then the disciples were assembled, and then he blessed them, gave them their commission and the Holy Ghost. (John xix. 20-22.)

3. The next first day of the week Christ chose to appear to them again, when Thomas was with them, and convinced him. (John xx. 26.)

In Acts xx. 7. it is mentioned as the day of their assembling to break bread (which though they did oft on other days, yet no day else was particularly appointed for it). As for the dissenters' cavil about the translation of 'Ev τn má τῶν ςαββάτων, 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 una' and 'prima' here to be all one. And Calvin with others noteth, that the same phrase being used of the day of the resurrection, (Matt. xxvi. 1; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1,) will direct us to expound this; unless you mean also to deny the resurrection to have been on the first day.

And kara μíav (1 Cor. xvi. 1. 2.) must needs have the same signification; and Mark xxvi. 9. compared with the other two evangelists so expounds them as Beza noteth; who also telleth us that in one old copy he found added "the Lord'sday," and citeth Jerome 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 deposit what they brought into the treasury of the church; or if it were in their private repositories, it doth not much difference the case. Calvin's exception against Chrysostom here is groundless, as the reasons before evince. So that by this text the custom of holding church-meetings on the Lord'sday, as a peculiar day, is intimated, though but on the by, as most expositors agree.

And the denomination of the Lord's-day, John i. 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 Christ's 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 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 days of the apostles, which beyond all doubt assureth us that' de facto' the Lord'sday was by the apostles separated for holy worship, especially in public 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 loath 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 church's 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 is agreed on that the Passover that year fell on the Sabbathday, and that Pentecost was fifty days after the Passover: which falleth out on the Lord's-day. And Grotius noteth from Exod. xix. 1, that it was the day the law was given on, and so on which the Spirit was given for a 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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 Lord's-day also seemeth to me to be as it were conceived on the day of Christ's resurrection, but born on this day of the Holy Ghost's descent.

But Dr. Heylin hath one poor reason against it, viz. 'Because it was 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 thing (in his sense) that the Holy Ghost was sent down on that day rather than on another. If a sparrow fall not unto the ground without God's providence, did God choose that day he knew not why? or did it fall out haphazard, or by chance?

I need not insist on the confutation of his cavils about the other texts forecited. Note only, 1. That as to his exception about Christ's travel on his resurrection-day, I have after answered it. 2. That he freely granted that uía Twv oaßßárov, signifieth the first day' of the week, both in Acts xx. 7, and 1 Cor. xvi. 2, 3. That he himself citeth afterward many testimonies that oblations and contributions were in the churches an usual Lord's-day's work. 4. That he confesseth that Rev. i. 10, is meant of the Lord's-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 day's sake, but the assemblies, to do them good. 6. That he vainly conceiteth (that because the Lord's-day was kept on the account of Christ's resurrection,) it implieth that it was not kept by God's 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. 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 days. 9. That he vainly snatcheth a little countenance from Calvin and Beza, &c. when as no man, since Cochlæus, writeth more detestably of them. 10. That after he confesseth that it is no doubt but the religious observation of the day began in the apostles' age, with their approbation and authority, and hath since continued in the same respect.' And what needs he more for confutation?

As to his allegations of the judgment of the Reformed, Lutheran, and Roman church, 1. We take none of them for our rule, (so impartial are we), But, 2. He himself citeth Beza, Mercer, Paræus, Cuchlinus, Simler, Hospinian, Zanchius, &c. as holding that it was an apostolical and truly divine tradition, that the apostles turned the Sabbath into

the Lord's day, that it was an apostolical custom, or a custom received in the apostles' times, &c.

And whereas afterward he would persuade us that they spent but a little of the day in holy worship, he himself cited Mr. George Sandys's travels, saying of the Copties, that 'On Saturday, presently after midnight, they repair unto their churches, where they remain well nigh till Sunday at noon (of the evening he speaketh not, but of their first meeting), during which time they neither sit nor kneel, but support themselves on crutches; and they sing over the most part of David's psalms at every meeting, with divers parcels of the New Testament.' (This is the old way; and such a liturgy we do not contradict or scruple.)

Sandys also informeth us of the Armenian Christians, that 'coming into the place of the assembly on Sunday, in the afternoon (no doubt they had been there in the morning), he found one sitting in the midst of the congregation, in habit not differing from the rest, reading in a Bible in the Chaldæan tongue; that anon after, came the bishop in a hood or vestment of black, with a staff in his hand; that first he prayed, and then sung certain psalms assisted by two or three. After all of them singing jointly, at interims praying to themselves, the bishop all this while with hands erected, and his face towards the altar; that service being ended, they all kissed his hand, and bestowed their alms, he laying his other hand on their heads, and blessing them,' &c.

And of the Abassines he reciteth out of Brierwood (and he from Damianus a Goes), that they honour the Lord's-day as the Christian Sabbath, and the Saturday as the Jews' Sabbath, because they receive the canons called the apostles, which speak for both.

And king Edgar in England ordained that the Sabbath should begin on Saturday, at three o'clock in the afternoon, and continue till break of day on Monday. These laws for the Sabbath of Alfred, Edgar, &c. were confirmed by Ethelred, and more fully by Canutus.

But of these things I shall say more anon under the proposition following; in the meantime only remembering you, 1. That it is well that we are required after the fourth commandment to pray, " Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law." And we accept his con