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

Thirdly, that which is alleged in the third place, that both ancient and late writers do maintain that we celebrate the Lords Day, not as any part of Divine worship, nor as absolutely necessary. For the first of these we willingly grant; for as much as we conceive the observation of the 7th. by the Jews was no otherwise a part of Divine worship, then as it was a ceremony and shadow, the body whereof was Christ prefigured thereby: and it is well known that no Christians observe it in any such Notion. But the observation thereof we hold to be absolutely necessary, and so doth Doctor Walaeus in holding it to be invariable, and that it cannot be altered without the greatest scandal. And Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath, and Wells professeth it to be not, liberae observationis, but necessariae. And if it were free, then not to use this freedom at all doth manifestly give way to superstition in taking that for a thing necessary which is not, though not as touching the substance of Gods worship and service, yet as touching a circumstance thereof, such as is the circumstance of time. As for express precept, if he means a precept expressly written, no man (I trow) ever stood for that, but if he means a precept given by Christs express charge to his Apostles, no man that I have met with, saith more hereupon, then Doctor Walaeus seems to affirm himself; in saying that they were entrusted by the Holy Ghost as extraordinary Ministers, that they should bee faithfull ad tradenda praecepta, to give precepts of faith and manners, and of the good government of the Church, and right order, and particularly in this that might be known to all what day in the week was to be set apart for Gods service; both by virtue and analogy ⟨p. 116⟩of the fourth Commandment, and to prevent dissension, and confusion among the Churches; Neither do we acknowledge any other celebrity of the day then this; and therefore do no more affront Hierome then Doctor Walaeus himself. As for festival days in Socrates, and Nicephorus, I see no cause why as touching that they speak thereof, the Lords Day should be comprehended under them: and as for apostolical precept, concerning this Doctor Walaeus is as express as any.

Thirdly, that which is alleadged in the third place, that both ancient and late writers doe maintaine that wee celebrate the Lords Day, not as any part of Divine worship, nor as absolutely necessary. For the first of these wee willingly grant; for as much as wee conceave the observation of the 7th. by the Jewes was no otherwise a part of Divine worship, then as it was a ceremony and shadow, the body whereof was Christ prefigured thereby: and it is well knowne that no Christians observe it in any such Notion. But the observation thereof wee hold to bee absolutely necessary, and so doth Doctor Walaeus in holding it to bee invariable, and that it cannot bee altered without the greatest scandall. And Doctor Lake Bishop of Bath, and Wells professeth it to bee not, liberae observationis, but necessariae. And if it were free, then not to use this freedome at all doth manifestly give way to superstition in taking that for a thing necessary which is not, though not as touching the substance of Gods worship and service, yet as touching a circumstance thereof, such as is the circumstance of time. As for expresse precept, if hee meanes a precept expressely written, no man (I trow) ever stood for that, but if hee meanes a precept given by Christs expresse charge to his Apostles, no man that I have met with, saith more hereupon, then Doctor Walaeus seemes to affirme himselfe; in saying that they were entrusted by the Holy Ghost as extraordinary Ministers, that they should bee faithfull ad tradenda praecepta, to give praecepts of faith and manners, and of the good government of the Church, and right order, and particularly in this that might be known to all what day in the weeke was to be set apart for Gods service; both by vertue and analogy