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

What could be devised to infer greater morality by the very light of nature than this, which should be so forcible to move all to concur herein, and that with the first. But if they received it, some from others, how improbable it is, that the Apostles should receive it from the Churches, and not rather the Churches from the Apostles? Then consider, we no where read of any difference here-abouts among the Apostles, counting Paul amongst rhem, who received from the Lord after his ascension into heaven what he delivered unto others. How then came it to pass, that they all so throughly, and at the first, agreed herein? If, as having received it from the Lord, then the case is clear, that it is of most Divine institution: But if only as drawn hereunto by the consideration of Christs resurrection on that day, being guided by the Spirit of God infallibly to order as other things, so the time of Divine service, to prevent the danger of division and confusion upon just ground; even ⟨p. 109⟩this is enough to manifest the strength of evidence which the Lords resurrection carrieth with it, as to convince them, so to appoint, and to convince others of the reasonableness thereof, seeing all Churches did so universally and so early yield thereunto, and since that time so constantly persevered therein. The resurrection therefore of Christ, is nothing inferior to the Lords rest on the seventh to draw us to the sanctifying thereof: And the Apostles ordering it in this manner especially as his extraordinary Ministers, is answerable to the Lords Commandment for the sanctifying of the seventh, especially that very commandment by just analogy having force also in this: And albeit Walaeus saith no more, pag. 174. of those three places, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. Ap c. 1.10 than that the whole Church reformed hath constantly gathered therehence Diei Dominicae usum, the use of the Lords Day: yet both pag. 183. he doth manifestly imply the Apostles to have instituted it, where he saith, that quae ab ipsis Apostolis instituta non sunt, such things as have not been ordained by the Apostles, were never in that manner observed in all Christian Churches throughout the world, as the observation of the Lords Day. And before, pag. 172.

What could be devised to inferre greater morality by the very light of nature than this, which should be so forcible to move all to concurre herein, and that with the first. But if they received it, some from others, how improbable it is, that the Apostles should receive it from the Churches, and not rather the Churches from the Apostles? Then consider, we no where reade of any difference here-abouts among the Apostles, counting Paul amongst rhem, who received from the Lord after his ascension into heaven what he delivered unto others. How then came it to passe, that they all so throughly, and at the first, agreed herein? If, as having received it from the Lord, then the case is cleare, that it is of most Divine institution: But if onely as drawne hereunto by the consideration of Christs resurrection on that day, being guided by the Spirit of God infallibly to order as other things, so the time of Divine service, to prevent the danger of division and confusion upon just ground; even