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

Tilenus calls it Ecclesiae consuetudinem, not denying it to be instituted by the Apostles, nay, elsewhere he affirms this, or rather that it was instituted by Christ himself. So little cause had these professors to quarrel with this phrase of the Remonstrants, having weightier matters in hand wherein to oppose them. What if Bullenger call it Ecclesiae consuettudinem; so doth Tilenus de praecept. 4. Thes. 29. yet Thes. 24. he professed it to be not only observed by the Apostles, but that it may seem also to be instituted by Christ himself: Bullenger saith, sponte receperunt, to wit, in opposition to an express Precept, as appears by that which immediately followeth; Non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam, we do not read it any where commanded. Ursine alleged in the next place clearly professeth in the very place quoted by Gomarus, that God it is who hath abrogated the observation of the seventh day, but he adds, that he left it free to the Church to choose other days, which (Church) upon a probable cause, chose the first day, which was the day of Christs resurrection. ⟨p. 77⟩Now what Church was it but Apostolica Ecclesia, as Paraeus upon Ursinus Catechism observes, p. 665. Pro libertate sibi à Christo donatâ pro septima die elegit diem primum propter probabilem causam out of the liberty which Christ hath given them, instead of the seventh day chose the first day of the week, by reason of a probable cause, to wit, because on that day Christ rose, by whose resurrection, ¹the spiritual and eternal rest is inchoated in us, and p. 666. Apostoli ipsi mutarunt Sabbatum septimi diei. The Apostles themselves changed the Sabbath of the seventh day. By the way touch we a little upon this, that, First, this was done in reference to Christs resurrection: so Calvin acknowledgeth in reference whereunto this day had some prerogative above the rest, to wit in the way of fitness, for holy use, because of the work of God on that day. Whence it is evidently concluded, that the Apostles did not think it indifferent, therefore though it were left to their liberty, in as much as no Commandment was given to them thereabout for ought we read, yet by the spirit of God, they were directed to make choice of this day, and that in reference to such a work on that day, as the like on no other.

Tilenus calls it Ecclesiae consuetudinem, not denying it to be instituted by the Apostles, nay, elsewhere hee affirmes this, or rather that it was instituted by Christ himselfe. So little cause had these professors to quarrell with this phrase of the Remonstrants, having weightier matters in hand wherein to oppose them. What if Bullenger call it Ecclesiae consuettudinem; so doth Tilenus de praecept. 4. Thes. 29. yet Thes. 24. he professed it to be not onely observed by the Apostles, but that it may seeme also to be instituted by Christ himselfe: Bullenger saith, sponte receperunt, to wit, in opposition to an expresse Precept, as appeares by that which immediately followeth; Non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam, we doe not reade it any where commanded. Ʋrsine alleged in the next place clearely professeth in the very place quoted by Gomarus, that God it is who hath abrogated the observation of the seventh day, but he addes, that he left it free to the Church to choose other daies, which (Church) upon a probable cause, chose the first day, which was the day of Christs resurrection.