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

I say not, that the Apostles imprinted any holiness upon the first day of the week, it was Christs resurrection that honoured that day, which I say the Apostles were to respect, not arbitrarily, but necessarily, you may perceive the reason in my Thesis; you cannot observe from the beginning of the world any other inducement to the institution of feasts but Gods work done on the day. Now, neither Austin nor Cyril speak of any institution made by Christ. Eusebius, I confess, doth intimate such an institution, and Gregory the great, and so doth Athanasius seem to express as much, and Sedulius after him; but I am apt to conceive that they meant no other thing hereby, than that the consideration of Christs resurrection by the suggestion of Christs Spirit, should move the Apostles to ordain and establish the celebration of this day unto the Christian world. Junius, in my judgement, seems to have no other meaning, when he professeth the cause of the change of the day to be the resurrection of Christ, and the benefit of instauration of the Church in Christ; it is true, he saith afterwards that the Lords Day succeeded the seventh, (Christi observatione atque instituto, by Christ observation and ordinance; but I understand thereby no other ordinance than ⟨p. 111⟩is bespoken by Christs resurrection on the day and observation of the day. For anon he tells us, that the Lords Day was observed, Christi facto, exemplo, instituque Apostolorum, & veteris Ecclesiae observation constantissimâ; by Christs fact, example, and by the ordinance of the Apostles; unless instituto there, be to be referred to that which goes before, and ought to be distinguished from Apostolorum which comes after by a comma, though it be not. But let this be the opinion of Junius and Piscator, which, perhaps, we may meet with some more evidence for than hitherto: Neither do I see any necessity of expressing concerning every thing they taught, that they received it of the Lord; Neither do I think fit to conclude, that whatsoever they ordered, they ordered by Gods Commandment. But consider, there is a great difference between things ordered by them; some were concerning particulars, others for the Church universal. Some ordered by them for a certain time, other things to continue to the worlds end. The ordinance of the Lords Day concerned the whole Church;

I say not, that the Apostles imprinted any holinesse upon the first day of the weeke, it was Christs resurrection that honoured that day, which I say the Apostles were to respect, not arbitrarily, but necessarily, you may perceive the reason in my Thesis; you cannot observe from the beginning of the world any other inducement to the institution of feasts but Gods worke done on the day. Now, neither Austin nor Cyril speake of any institution made by Christ. Eusebius, I confesse, doth intimate such an institution, and Gregory the great, and so doth Athanasius seeme to expresse as much, and Sedulius after him; but I am apt to conceive that they meant no other thing hereby, than that the consideration of Christs resurrection by the suggestion of Christs Spirit, should move the Apostles to ordaine and establish the celebration of this day unto the Christian world. Junius, in my judgement, seemes to have no other meaning, when he professeth the cause of the change of the day to be the resurrection of Christ, and the benefit of instauration of the Church in Christ; it is true, he saith afterwards that the Lords Day succeeded the seventh, (Christi observatione atque instituto, by Christ observation and ordinance; but I understand thereby no other ordinance than