The Christian Sabbath defended against a crying evil in these times of the antisabitarians…

For he puts upon the Doctor, as if he had showed the alteration of the day to be only an humane and Ecclesiastical institution, by the general consent of all sorts of Papists, Jesuits,¹ Canonists and School-men of some great Lutherans by name, whereas it is plain, that he mentioneth more Papists maintaining the Lords Day to be of Divine institution, then opposing it. And amongst them that maintain it, one, to wit, Sylvester, professeth it to be opinionem comm•n•m, not one avouched as affirming the contrary. And as for the great Lutherans this Author speaketh of, loving to speak with a full mouth, they are but one, and that Brentius, who is said to affirm it to be a civill ordinance, and not a commandment of the Gospel; a very strange phrase (in my opinion) to call it a civill ordinance; the ordinance being in force many hundred years before the Church of God had any civill government of their own, and being in the Apostles days how could it be less than Apostolical? undoubtedly not so much civill ⟨p. 94⟩as Ecclesiastical. We grant willingly we have no express precept for it, yet Austin is bold to say (as we have heard) that Apostoli sanxerunt, yet Gomarus allegeth no passage out of Brentius to this purpose. But Melanchthon ever (as I take it) accounted of better authority than Brentius, professeth, as Walaeus reports him, that consentaneum est Apostolos hanc ipsam ob causam mutasse diem, in plain terms ascribing the change of the day to the Apostles: As for the Remonstrants, what authority have they deserved to have with us, who are so near a kin to the Socinians, who utterly profess against all observation of the Lords Day. But the four professors of Leiden, have passed over this of theirs without note or opposition. And was not Walaeus one of the four? yet what his opinion is himself hath manifested to the world; yea, and his colleague, Thysius also, yet no cause had they to oppose in this, when the other professed it to be a laudable and good custom, according to the pattern of the Primitive Church; and can the Primitive Church exclude the Apostles, and not rather include them? And is it probable, that the Primitive Church prescribed it to the Apostles, and not rather the Apostles to the Church?

For he puts upon the Doctor, as if hee had shewed the alteration of the day to be onely an humane and Ecclesiasticall institution, by the generall consent of all sorts of Papists, Jesuits,