A DISCOURSE OF THE SABBATH AND THE LORDS DAY. WHEREIN THE DIFFERENCE BOTH IN THEIR INTSITUTION and their due OBSERVATION is briefly handled.  
BY CHRISTOPHER DOW, B. D.  
LONDON, Printed by M. FLESHER for JOHN CLARK, and are to be sold at his shop under S. Peter's Church in Cornhill. MDC XXXVI.   

To the Reader.  
THe substance of this discourse, being at first, the materials of some letters written for the satisfaction of a private friend, was afterwards drawn together into the form in which it now appears, and found the favour, from some unto whom it was communicated, to be desired to the Press; for which end it hath lain in the Licensers' hand, now above a year expecting the conduct of that Reverend Prelate who upon special occasion then offered, (as it appears) by command, undertook this argument: Which having performed, like himself, with such variety of learning and profoundness of judgement, this Pamphlet of mine may now justly seem as unnecessary to follow, as heretofore it was unable and unworthy to lead the way: yet considering that the brevity of it might make it pass and find acceptance with some; and that, being of a mean strain, it might better meet with common capacities, than larger and more elaborate tractates; I was willing it should see the light, and that in its own garb without any polishing or alteration. And so I commend thee and it to God's blessing.   

PErlegi hunc tractatum Theologicum, cuititulus est [A discourse of the Sabbath, and of the Lords day, etc.] in quo nihil reperio sanae doctrinae, aut bonis moribus contrarium, quominus cum utilitate publicâ imprimi possit, ita tamen, ut si non intra tres menses proximè sequentes typis mandetur, haec licentia sit omnino irrita.  
Ex Aedibus Lambethanis Novemb. 18. 1635. GUIL. BRAY. R. P. D. Arch. Cant. Capel. Domesticus.   

A DISCOURSE OF THE SABBATH AND LORDS DAY.  
THat men may not be deceived with shows, and mistake judaisine for Christianity; or that they, who so mistaking, use to disrelish all things which suit not with the principles of their Catechisms, may not think they have engrossed all Religion and Piety to themselves, and they thereby encouraged to proceed in their hard censures of those that concur not with them: And that the piety and religious care, which is eminent in the Governors of our Church and State, may appear in their true lustre, and outshine those mists, wherewith some seek to obscure them: And that it may appear also that they whose chiefest care, next to their duty to God, is to yield all ready and cheerful obedience to God's Vicegerent, and to those Reverend Fathers which under God, and His Sacred. Majesty have the oversight of this Church, are not hoodwinked in their obedience, or blindly led to yield to their Commands without respect to religion or conscience, as if they had rather obey them then God; I have adventured upon that obloquy, which hath been the lot of such as (though upon never so good grounds) descent from these men in opinion. And this I the rather do in this subject, for as much as in it I have not only the authority of the sacred Scriptures, (which are the rule of things to be believed and done) but, the consent also of the whole Church of Christ; neither the Ancient Fathers nor the Reformed Churches (to omit the Church of Rome, whose Doctrine though in this case not to be condemned, is of little credit with those whom I descent from) ever teaching other Doctrine then that which I shall endeavour the defence of. For whereas in other things which they dislike among us, they have for Patrons the principal Authors of the Reformation abroad, and the Prime Doctors among them, whose learning and piety, much admired by them, may seem to plead for their over-earnest, and heedless embracing of their Principles: In these Sabbatarian Paradoxes, they are singular and left alone, without the Patronage of those whom otherwise they so much admire, and without the example of any Church in Christendom. And I believe further (being led thereunto by their doctrine, delivered in their Writings extant, and by the general and constant relation, of all that have known their practice and compared it with ours) that there is not a State in Christendom who have made better provision for the due observance of the Lords Day, and the decent performance of the sacred Acts of God's Worship, then are to be found in the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Laws of this Realm, nor where such Laws are more duly executed by those in Authority, or more generally observed or practised by all, than they are at this day among us. These considerations have animated me to this work, hoping thereby to settle the minds of such as are contrary minded rather for want of due consideration, than out of wilsulnesse and contempt of Authority.  
He that goes about to vindicate the just liberty of Christians in the use of lawful recreations on the Sunday, shall find himself upon a double disadvantage. 1. In regard of the preconceived opinion among weak people, of their piety and religious zeal which hold the contrary. And 2. in that the strict observance of that day, is by some made a prime character of a good Christian, to distinguish him from a carnal Worldling, and so the Question in hand accounted as an infallible mark to know the state of Religion; which stands or falls according, as it is either way determined. It behoves me therefore to walk with a wary and sure foot, and following the truth to strike an equal course between an over nice strictness, and a profane licence: and so to speak in this cause, as that the soberly religious shall have no just cause to complain; nor the profane be encouraged to go on in licentiousness. Either of which ways as it is easy to offend, so in whether of the two a man offends most, is as uneasy to determine; the one letting loose, the other ensnaring men's consciences; the one shutting up the kingdom of Heaven, and making the way thither more narrow than it is; the other making it broader, and enlarging the mouth of Hell. My aim and endeavour shall be to avoid both.  
Among those things which have occasioned the general prevailing of the Opinion, That the Sunday or Lords Day ought to be observed with such strictness as will admit no works which may be called Ours, that is, (as they call them) works of our particular Callings, and much less Recreations: it is none of the least that now of a long time among us (contrary to the use of the Primitive Church, yea and of our own in the memory of our Fathers) it hath lost its Christian name, and entertained the jewish, being vulgarly known and called by the name of the Sabbath. Whence it comes to pass that men (prove more to respect names than things) never heeding the difference between the old Sabbath and our Sunday, or thinking it to be little or none at all, take those places of Scripture, which so severely prohibit all work upon the Sabbath, as if they did no less belong to us now, then heretofore to the jews: and by this means, those precepts, threatenings, and promises which concerned the observation of the Sabbath, are pressed upon us point blank. Whereas indeed they concern us only indirectly, and cannot without fetching a compass, be alleged at all for our Sunday. Now the Scripture being so express (as it is apprehended) for the strict observance of our Sunday under the name of the Sabbath, no marvel if men have made it a prime Case of Conscience, and that so many scruples are daily raised, and so many traditions broached about the beginning and ending of the Sabbath; about the works of a man's particular Calling, what they are, and how far lawful on that Day: what are the proper duties of the Day, and the like? For the clear resolution therefore of this Question; Whether the use of Recreations may stand with the due observation of the Lords Day, it is convenient that I have some recourse to the Sabbath. Where because I love not Cramben saepiùs coctam apponere, or to stuff my discourse with a tedious explanation of those things which are commonly known; and every where to be found, I will with as much brevity as the cause will suffer, inquire into these 4. particulars.  

1. Whether, and how far forth the fourth Commandment concerning the Sabbath is moral, and perpetual, and so belonging to Christians.  
2. When and by whom the Lords day was instituted.  
3. What works the Iews might do on their Sabbath.  
4. Whether, and what liberty Christians now have on the Sunday more than they had, and how far that liberty is to be extended?   
To begin with the first. The law which God gave unto his people the jews (according to the threefold variety of the object, or things prescribed) is threefold, Moral, Ceremonial, and judicial. The Moral is that which concerns the manners of men, 
What the Moral law is.  and belongs to them as men: and this commands those things which are in themselves acceptable, and wellpleasing to God, and those which he will have all men every where, and at all times to observe, as the perpetual, and unchangeable rule of living, being the express image of the mind of God, according to which, he (who is the Lawgiver) judges it meet and right, that the reasonable creatures should order their lives. The Ceremonial 
What the ceremonial law is.  belongs to men, as joined together in that Society which is called the Church, and this contains those precepts which concern the external worship of God, and were given by him to the jewish Church, in accommodation to the times, in which the Church was under age, and under the promise, and therefore instituted for the signifying, prefiguring, and sealing of the truth of the promises made to them, to be fulfilled in the exhibition of our Saviour: and withal for the preservation of order, and decency in their Ecclesiastical meetings, and performances. The judicial belongs to men as 
What the judicial law is.  joined in a civil Society or Commonwealth, containing the form of civil government, to be used by them, tending to their good, as they were a Society, and to the preservation, and exacting of the eutward worship of God, and the discipline thereof, as it was commanded in the Moral and Ceremonial Laws. So that the Ceremonial Law determined 
Aquin. 1. 2. qu. 101.  the Moral in order to God; the Political or judicial in order to men in a civil society; and both in accommodation to that state of the Church: And these though they have in them something which is juris moralis, and so far forth are contained under the Moral precepts, yet being fitted to serve that state of the Church, which was to be held in expectation of the Messias; when the time came that he was actually exhibited, and so the promise fulfilled, the shadows were then of no longer use, 
Col. 2. 17.  the body being come: and therefore at the time of the death of Christ, they were abrogated de jure, so that they became unnecessary, and unprofitable, and had their power of obligation taken away: And afterward when by the Apostles doctrine Christians came to understand that Christ was the end of the Law, and when the Temple (the seat of their religion, and the place destined to the use of those ceremonies) was destroyed, they were de facto actually and fully taken away: and those things, which before the death of Christ were commanded, and in that interim, between his death and the destruction of the Temple (which was the space allotted for the solemn funerals of the jewish Synagogue) were tolerable, though already dead, became from that time forward deadly and intolerable. So that, only the Moral Law remains now in force, for the practice of Christians; The ceremonial and judicial (excepting in that wherein they are reducible to this) are antiquated, and out of date. Now the precepts of the Moral Law are summarily comprehended in the Decalogue or ten Commandments: which had this prerogative peculiar to them, that they were delivered (not by Moses, but) by God himself, and by him written in tables of stone, and preserved in the Ark; to show their dignity above others, and to note out the perpetuity of observance, which was due unto them. Where, before we apply these things to our present purpose, two things are to be noted. First, 
Aq. 1. 2. q. 100 Moral precepts not all equally belonging to the law of nature.  That howsoever all the precepts of the Moral law belong to the Law of Nature (as being agreeable to reason, which is the rule of Humane actions) and are in that respect of perpetual observance; yet all of them are not of the same rank, nor belong in the same degree and manner to the law of Nature. There are some things which by the instinct 
Aq. ibid.  of nature, and natural light of the understanding, we presently see to be good or bad, and which are so plain, that without any great consideration, they may by the first principles, or common notions implanted in us, be either approved, or rejected, and these are absolutely of the law of nature. Others there are that require more consideration of circumstances, and the use of Discourse to apprehend, and judge of them: and these are so of the law of nature, that notwithstanding they require the help of discipline, by which those which are ignorant, and not able by diligent consideration or discourse, to attain to the knowledge of them, may be instructed by the wise and learned. And lastly, there are some, to the knowledge whereof humane reason stands in need of Divine Instruction. And these two latter sorts, especially the last, though they in some sort belong to the Law of Nature (and were haply at our first Creation, written in the tables of man's heart, in more plain Characters, and more easy to be read then now since the fall, they are) may, in respect of the other, be termed moral (non ratione naturae, sed disciplinae) not in regard of nature dictating, but in regard of Discipline informing nature. Secondly, that the fourth Commandment (as it enjoins the external observation of the seaventh day) is not moral either of these ways. Whence S. Augustine 
a Inter emnia illa 10. praecepta solum ibi quod de Sabbato positum est sigurate observandum praecipitur. Aug. ep 118 cap. 12. Caetera ibi praecepta propriè sicut praecepta sunt sine ulla figura a significatione observamus. Idem Ibid.  saith, That among all those ten Commandments, that only of the Sabbath is figuratively to be observed; whereas (as he after saith) We observe the other Commandments there properly as they are commanded without any figurative signification. And generally the Ancients (as Calvin hath truly observed) called this Precept 
b Inst. l. 2. & 8 §. 28. Vinbratile veteres nuncupare solent. Dinudia tantum exparte rem attingunt. Id. Ibid.  a shadow, which (as he there saith) was truly, but not fully said of them. And therefore they do better, and more fully express the nature of this Commandment, which say it is 
c Sabbati praeceptum est partim Morale, partim Ceremoniale, unde into contine●…er aliquid aternum, et aliquid temporarium. Mart. Thes. in Exod. 2.  partly moral, and partly ceremonial. So Peter Martyr, and generally all Divines both reform and others, use now to speak. Now if any shall therefore think it unworthy a place in the Decalogue, and to be ranked with those precepts which are moral, and of perpetual observance; 
d Aquin. 2. 2. q. 122. art. 4 ad primum & secundum. Vidaeundem 1. 2. q. 100 a. 5. ad secundum.  Aquinas may seem to give them full satisfaction, who saith, 1. that the Precept concerning the Sanctification of the Sabbath, is put among the Precepts of the Decalogue for that which is moral in it. 2. That this Precept as Ceremonial, ought rather to have a place in the Decalogue than any other: The other Ceremonies being signs of some particular effects of God; but this of the Sabbath was a sign of a general benefit, viz. the Creation of the 
Medul. Theol l. 2. c 15 ●. 11.  Universe: So that that which Amesius will have a most certain rule, and received among all the best Divines (as he calls them) That all, and only the Moral precepts were delivered by the voice of God himself, and by Him written in the tables of stone, is not true, unless Saint Augustine, Calvin, Martyr, etc. be in his esteem none of the best Divines. Yet perhaps we may admit that rule so far as to say, That all the Moral Precepts are contained in the Decalogue, and that every Precept there contained is Moral, though all of every Precept be not so, but may have something that is ceremonial annexed to it: which haply God thought good to place among the moral precepts, to intimate the perpetual necessity of having some ceremonies in the Church; though that ceremony be not necessarily perpetual, but (with the rest of that nature) to expire at the death of Christ: which though we admit, yet cannot any justly charge us, that we diminish any of the ten words; or that we expunge one Commandment out of the Decalogue; 
Deut. 4 13.  in as much as we affirm, that only which was ceremonial in this Commandment to be expired and out of date, and that there is in it a morality still remaining, which retains its full power of obligation, and exacts the same obedience, under the same penalty, which it did at its first promulgation or inscription in the heart of Adam. In which respect, the Church hath good cause still to use her accustomed Antiphona at the repeating of this Commandment, as well as at any of the rest, and to pray Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.  
And here, because some who love to have this Commandment termed moral (though thereby they intent no more than what hath been already granted) use so to argue, as if they did not acknowledge it at all to be ceremonial; it will not be amiss, before we proceed any further, to answer some of the principal arguments that are brought to this purpose.  
And I will begin with that of our Saviour, Math. 
1.  5. 17. Think not that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. Which words (in their opinion) make strongly for the morality and perpetual obligation of the fourth Commandment: For from hence they argue to this purpose. That which our Saviour did not destroy, but fulfil, is still in force; but he did not destroy the law contained in the Decalogue: Therefore it is still in force.  
For answer hereunto, I say, That in this argument two things are by them supposed.  
First, they suppose, that by the Law in this place, is meant only the law contained in the Decalogue or ten Commandments.  
Secondly, That our Saviour's fulfilling, and not destroying this law, was the ratifying and perpetuating of the observation of it under the Gospel.  
If we grant them both these, we shall condemn the Christian Church for altering the day from the seventh to the eight or first day of the week, which cannot stand with this exposition of our Saviour's speech, who, in the words following, saith expressly, That not one jot or title shall pass from the Law. But both these are beside the meaning and intent of our Saviour, as will easily appear to any that (with indifferency) doth consider his words. For,  
First, the Law which our Saviour here speaks of, is of larger extent and latitude, and comprehends not only the Decalogue or law moral, but the Ceremonial and judicial also: As being indeed put for the Pentateuch or five books of Moses: And so, The Law and the Prophets, as much as, Moses 
Luk. 26. 29 31. Mal●onat. in Mat. 7. 12.  and the Prophets: Which forms of speech, are used as a Periphrasis of the old Testament, of which these two are the main essential parts: The Books of Moses, so containing and describing the Law, that they reserre whatsoever else they contain unto that, receive their denomination from it, as from the principal subject of them. The Prophets, that is, their Books, comprehend all the rest of the old Testament, which the Hebrews divide into the former and latter Prophets, and the Hagiographa: 
Fra●…. Iu●●●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  All which (though they be not Prophecies) being written by divine inspiration, and by holy men as they were moved by the Spirit of God, may justly be termed, The word of Prophecy, and pass 
2. Pet. 1.  under the name of the Prophets.  
That the Law is taken in this sense, is manifest by the use of the same phrase else where: Where, not only the duties commanded in the Decalogue, but Christ and faith in him, is said to be taught and witnessed by the Law: to which purpose the Apostle S. Paul useth the same phrase, Acts 28. 23. Rom. 3. 21. Now, what word in all the Decalogue gives witness to Christ, or persuades the faith, which is required in him? Certainly, (however some have found not only the faith in Christ, but the Sacraments also of the New Testament commanded in the Decalogue yet,) there is no one word there which imports any such thing.  
Yea, the very context evinces thus much: for our Saviour, having thus prefaced his exposition of the Law, keeps not himself within the bounds of the Moral Law; as appears verse 18. And therefore Interpreters generally upon this place, show how our Saviour did not destroy but fulfil the Ceremonial Law also, as well as the Moral, which were altogether needless, if by the Law, that only were understood.  
Now, the Law being (as it must needs be) thus largely taken, any man may easily perceive that the not destroying but fulfilling of it, is not the ratifying and the perpetuating of the observation of it under the Gospel: for who sees not, that upon this ground they might conclude for Circumcision, and the legal Passeover and Sacrifices, with all their typical Rites and Ceremonies, as well as for the Sabbath?  
The truth is; our Saviour as he was to fulfil not only the Moral but the Ceremonial and judicial Law also: so he speaks of all, and did indeed, not destroy but, fulfil them all, though in a different manner.  
1. He fulfilled the whole Law, by his actual and personal obedience to it, and by supplying the defects of it, that it, being unable to justify us in itself, might, by the help of his grace and accession of faith in him, be able to perform that 
Rom. 8. 3, 4  which otherwise it could not.  
2. He fulfilled the Ceremonial Law, and so the judicial too, so far as it was typical; besides his subjection to them, by a real exhibition of that whereof they were shadows. And though by this means, their observation (according to the letter of the Law) ceased, yet did he not hereby destroy, but perfect them; according to that of the Apostle, speaking of Circumcision, which was a legal Ceremony. Do we then (saith he) make voide 
Rom. 3. 31.  the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Law. This place then, expounded according to the truest meaning and intent of our Saviour, makes nothing for the total morality of the fourth Commandment, nor is in the least, contradictory to what I have delivered concerning it.  
Secondly, they argue from the Institution of the Sabbath, which was (say they) in the beginning of the World, in the time of man's innocence, when there was no need of Ceremony; and therefore it was moral and perpetual.  
To this I answer, 1. That it is not universally true, that whatsoever precept was given to Adam in Innocency, was therefore Moral and perpetual; for then the Symbolical Precept of not eating of the forbidden fruit, must be such; which no man, (I suppose) will affirm. 2. If it be true (which Willet hath affirmed, and that by ten reasons which 
Dr. Willet on Gen. 3. 23.  he there allegeth) that Adam fell the same day that he was created, then did he fall before the giving of the Precept for the observation of the Sabbath, and had it not in the state of Innocence. But the truth is, this is a mere conjecture disputable any way, so as a man may better oppose whatsoever is affirmed, then solidly conclude any thing. 3. If it be not false that the Sabbath was then instituted, yet it hath and may, not without good reason be doubted of. That place which is brought for it, Gen. 2. 2. doth not convincingly prove it. And if the reasons, which are alleged for the prolepsis in that place, be, without prejudice, considered, their opinion who so expound it will not seem improbable, as 1. That there is no mention any where made of it, to have been observed by the Patriarches. 2. Where it is first spoken of, Exod. 16. it is spoken of as a new thing not known to have been observed before. 3. In that it is called a sign between God and the Israelites, that he was their sanctifier 
Exo. 31. 13 Deut. 5. 15. Ezck. 20. 12.  and deliverer out of Egypt, which it could not be if it were given to all Nations in Adam. But lastly, granting the whole Argument. I would fain know how that day, that was then instituted and sanctified, could cease, and another be substituted. How could it be Moral and perpetual, and yet determine with the jewish Church? The words which are brought as the Institution, say; God rested the seventh (N. B.) and for that cause, God 
Gen. 2 3.  blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, viz. that seventh day on which he rested. The Text doth not say, God rested the seventh day, and therefore he would have one of the seven to be sanctified; That is but the exposition or gloss, not the Text; the word of man, not of God. But some may haply say, That the particular day was alterable, and upon good ground was altered. This I grant, but say withal, that he which holds the Sabbath to be instituted before the fall, and for that cause Moral and perpetual, cannot so say, but either he must wave his own Principles, or cry up the Jewish Sabbath postliminiò.  
Secondly, they argue from that of our Saviour (Matth. 24. 20.) who foreshowing the destruction of Jerusalem to his Disciples, adviseth them to pray, that their slight be not in the Winter, neither on the Sabbath Day. If (say they) this Precept had been Ceremonial, then had it been all one to fly on the Sabbath day, as on any other day: because all Ceremonies were before that time (which was not till forty years after Christ's Ascension) to be abrogated. But in that Christ doth allow this fear of flying on the Sabbath Day more than on any other day of the week, he shows plainly that the force of the Sabbath was not abrogated by his resurrection, and therefore no Ceremony.  
Thus they argue. To which it were answer 
Dr. Williams p. 297. Dod. p. 130. Elton. p. 90.  sufficient to show that hereby they still rush upon the same rock, and while they labour to establish a needless morality of the Lords Day, they unawares bring in judaism. For the Sabbath day there, cannot with any show of reason be taken (though now a days it is too common so to take it) for the Lord's Day: and if our Saviour did intend by bidding his Disciples pray that their flight might not happen on the Sabbath day, to intimate the necessity of the observation of that Day by Christians: Then did S. Paul cross 
Colos. 2. 16  our Saviour's intent in numbering that among the shadows which vanished at Christ's death; and then hath also the Church of Christ ever since erred in so accounting it, and condemning the observation of it, with an Anathema to those that in 
Concil. Lacdic. can. 29. In Mat. Hom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  this point shall be found to judaize. S. chrysostom is so far from thinking that the Sabbath which our Saviour there speaks of, did belong to Christians, that upon that ground he expounds that speech of our Saviour as spoken not to his Apostles but to the jews. Thou seest (saith he) that he speaks to the jews— for the Apostles were not to keep the Sabbath, etc. But grant that it were spoken to the Disciples; yet can no such thing be thence collected as they would have. For our Saviour had good ground so to advise his Disciples, notwithstanding God at that time required no keeping of the Sabbath. For though the Ceremonies of the Law (and this among the rest) were dead with Christ, yet were they not buried (as I have showed) nor the practice of them deadly 
Act. 21. 20. Non fuerunt tanquam diabolica Gentiunt sacrilegia fugienda, etiam cum ipsa gratia iam coeperat revelari quae umbris talibus fuerat praenunciata, sed permittenda paulum eyes, maximè qui ex illo populo cui data sunt, venerant. Postea vero tanquam cum honere sepulta sunt a Christiauns omnibus irreparabiliter deserenda. Aug. ep 19 And a little before in the same Chapter,— ●um venisset fides que prius ictis obs●●…vatiambus praenun●iata, post mortem & resurrectionem Domini revelata est, amiserunt tanquam vitam officii 〈◊〉. Verum tamen sicut defuncta corpora necessariorum officiis deducenda ●●…ant quodammodo ad sepultueam.— Non autem deserenda continuo vel inimicorum mersibus pro. j●ienda ●●oind● 〈◊〉 quisquis Christianorum quamvis ex Iudaeis similiter ea celebrare voluerit, tanquam sopitos cineres 〈◊〉, non erit pius deductor vel, bajulus corporis, sed impius sepu●tu●ae uiolat●●.  till the Temple was destroyed: till which time, even the Apostles themselves were zealous of the Law, and retentive of their old Ceremonies: to which weakness of theirs, our Saviour there accommodates his speech, willing rather that their own experience in the destruction of the Temple should teach them that harsh lesson of the abolishing of the Legal Ceremonies, then by a praemature urging it, to startle such as were yet weak in faith, or hinder others of that Nation from believing in Him. Besides; be it that Christians did hold themselves freed from the observance of the Sabbath, yet being among those who still made conscience of it, even to superstition, (as did the unconverted Jews) it could not but prove very incommodious to their speedy and far flight (which the greatness and suddenness of the danger required) in as much as thereby they should expose themselves to the fury of those who were no less zealous in compelling others, then superstitious in observing it themselves. In these respects our Saviour might well admonish his Disciples to pray that their flight might not be on the Sabbath day, and yet not teach them to observe the Sabbath after his death, or that while the observation of it lasted, they should think themselves so tied in conscience of it, that they might not on that day fly far to save their lives: and much less to establish the Morality of the Lords Day, which neither He, nor his Apostles, nor the following ages of the Church, (till within these few years) ever designed by the name of the Sabbath, without some difference added to distinguish it from that of the Jews. For though we find it sometimes called our Sabbath, or the Sabbath of Christians, in regard that in the main end of it, it succeeded that, yet generally the Sabbath simply put, and without addition, notes the jewish Sabbath, or the Day on which it was celebrated, which is our Saturday; and the day before that which we keep, which is therefore called by the Evangelists and S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one, or the first day from the 
Matt. 28. 1. Mar. 16. 1. john 20. 1. 1. Cor. 16 2 Revel. 1. 10  Sabbath, and by S. john in the Revelation, the Lords Day: by which name, or that which the same day had among the Gentiles, (viz. the Sunday) it hath ever since been known in the Christian world.  
But I will leave these, and now return thither whence (for the answering of these objections) I have digressed. And having seen the nature and several degrees of Moral Precepts; and in general, that the fourth Commandment hath in it somewhat not moral, That I may apply these things to our present purpose, and manifest the truth thereof: I will more particularly inquire into the nature of that Commandment, and in it distinctly consider these 4. things. First, A Day, or time set apart for God's service. Secondly, the seventh day, or one in the revolution of seven. Thirdly, the particular seventh there mentioned, namely the seventh from the Creation. Fourthly, the strict 
Some time to be consecrated to God, moral  surcease or rest from ordinary labours on that day.  
For the first of these. It cannot be denied, but that the very Law of Nature itself (to use the words of a Worthy of our Church) requireth no 
Hook p. 378  less the sanctification of times, then of places, persons, and things. For which cause it hath pleased God heretofore as of the rest, so of times likewise, to exact some parts by way of perpetual homage. And that (as Aquinas) it is moral, 
Morale est quantum ad hoc, quod homo deputat aliquod tempus vitae suae ad vacan 〈◊〉 di. vinis, etc. Aqui●i. 22. q. 122.  that man should depute some time of his life for the service of God. For there is in man a kind of natural inclination, that to every thing necessary there be a time assigned: as to our bodily refection, sleep and the like: Whence also to the spiritnal refection of the soul, whereby the soul is refreshed in God, by the dictate of natural reason, a man deputes some time. And so to have some times for holy Offices comes under the Moral Law, and is absolutely of the Law of Nature written in the heart of every man, being involved in that principle which even depraved nature hath ever acknowledged; viz. that God is to be worshipped. And therefore Amesius hath well 
Medul. T●eol. l. 2. c. 15. ●4.  observed that thus far the time of God's worship falls under that precept which exacts the worship itself: and as God when he created the world, is said to have concreated time with it: so when he ordained religious actions, he appointed also to the same, a time for them, as a necessary circumstance, without which they could not be performed. And as the time in which such actions are done, so that some Day, or Days should be destinated and set apart for the more solemn performance of those actions, may seem to be a dictate of the same Law of nature: in as much as the Heathens who had no other guide but the law of Nature, had their solemn Feasts and set Days in all ages consecrated to the worship of their Gods; whereby they manifested (though not the knowledge of the true God, yet) their acknowledgement of that Principle, That God is to be worshipped, and the conveniency of assigning some Day's peculiarly to that end.  
For the second: That one day in the revolution of seven should be thus set a part: this cannot be said to be absolutely of the Law of nature: Nature being ignorant of this, without the instruction of the written Law, in which God hath revealed his pleasure, concerning the Quota pars, or how much of our time he requires to be consecrated to Him: And this will easily appear to any that doth without prejudice consider it. For it is an easy thing to give an estimate of what Principles are natural and written in the hearts of all men; and what are gotten by instruction, discipline, and information: Now men may by the light of Nature from the creature, climb up to the knowledge of the Creator, and from the nature of God conclude his worship, and from the nature of his Worship, conclude a time (as to all other things) to be due to it. But to go further, and to determine what part of our time, we cannot. For it will not follow that because some time is due, therefore the seaventh day, more than the eighth of every month, which was observed by the Grecians in 
Plutarch in v●● Thesci.  honour of Neptune, or any other day, above, or under that number. And for this cause it is (saith Saint chrysostom) that in the giving of this Commandment 
S. Chrysostom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●om. 6. p. 542. Edit. Savill. Deut. 5. 15. & 14. 18.  concerning the Sabbath (which he calls a Precept not made known to us by our conscience) God added a reason, as because ge rested the seventh day from all his work; and again; because thou wast a servant in Egypt, etc. Whereas in those Precepts that are purely moral, as when he saith, Thou shalt do no murder, he only gives the precept, without giving any reason at all. Why so? (saith that Father,) because our conscience had taught us this before; so that God speaks, as to those that knew and understood reason sufficient for the Prohibition. Neither doth Eusebius (though alleged by 
De praeparatione Evangel 13. c. 7.  some to that purpose) any way contradict this, when he saith, That not only the Hebrews, but all almost, both Philosophers and Poets acknowledged the seaventh day to be sacred: For here it is not questioned, whether the Gentiles which wanted the law of God to inform them, did hold the seaventh day as hallowed, but whether they were induced by the instinct of nature so to account it; or that so accounting it, they held themselves bound to consecrate that, more than any other to the worship of God: The Gentiles (as Eusebius at large declares) came to the knowledge of it from the jews, and did in that, as in other things, become their Imitators, and receive it into their manners. Or upon some other ground or superstition they might account the number of seven to be sacred; as because by that number the Planets (which they honoured as their chiefest Deities) were terminated: for which cause (we know) by their names they entitled their days. But what ever were the motive, as it is without all question, that the Gentiles, as well as the jews, held the number of seven in great veneration, accounting 
S. Aug. de civet lib. 11. c. 31. Hieron. in Amo●. 5.  it the number of perfection, and full of mysteries; So it is as unquestionable, that by the light of nature they knew not that that part of our time was to be separated to God's service. And therefore Zanchius speaks more inconsiderately 
Zanch. in quartum Praecep.  than beseems his learning, when he saith, That Nature teacheth all men to consecrate one day of seven to the external worship of God: Which, 
Med. Theo. l. 2. 6. 15. n. 6.  others (and among them Amesius) better considering acknowledge to be only of positive right, and moral, not in regard of nature, but of discipline, as coming under that rank of moral Precepts, which need instruction to help natural reason to know, and judge of them. Now, albeit Calvine 
Instit l. 2. c. 8. D. calvin's opinion of one in seven.  (who in this as in other things, wants not his followers) thinks the seaventh day, not to be so stood on, as that he would tie the Christian world precisely to that: Yet there are many grave and judicious Divines, both Ancient and Modern, that judge the institution of one Day in seven to be so far moral, as that it doth bind the Church perpetually and immutably. Thus among the Ancients 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Eccl. Pol. p. 379.  Saint chrysostom upon those words, And God blessed the seaventh day and hallowed it, Genes. 2. 3. Here, saith he, from the beginning God intimates to us this Doctrine, instructing us to separate and lay aside one day in the compass of every week for spiritual exercises. And among our modern Writers that admired Hooker, saith. That we are bound to account the sanctification of one day in seven, a duty which Gods immutable law doth exact for ever. Thus he, with many others, whose judgements I honour, yet dare not herein wholly subscribe to them neither: For the Law exacting the observation of one day in seven, being only positive (as must needs be granted) cannot contain in itself any perpetual obligation. For all Laws of that nature (though made by God himself) admit mutation (at least) when the matter concerning which, or the condition of the Persons, to whom they were given, is changed: Now the Day, concerning which this Precept was given, together with the State of the Church, to which it was given, being changed, I see no reason, why the proportion of one in seven, should be simply and in itself immutable; Yet thus much, I willingly grant them, that (some time to be set apart for God's worship, being absolutely of the Law of nature) that proportion of time, which God himself made choice of for his own People, is the fittest that can be imagined: and Nature informed by God, cannot but acknowledge His wisdom and goodness in this choice, in that he hath so attempered it, that neither the long space between can make us forget our duty to him, nor the quick return of it hinder our providing for the necessities of nature. And hereupon the Church of Christ, hath taken it as an obligation belonging to them, and that (as it is in our Church 
Hom. of the place and time of Prayer. Part.  Homily) God's will and commandment was to have a solemn time, and standing day in the week, wherein the people should come together, and have in remembrance his wonderful Benefits, and render him thanks for them as appertaineth to loving, kind, and obedient people. Thus far then, this Commandment extends to us Christians, as well as to the Jews, in as much as to consecrate some part of our time to God, is moral, and a seaventh part, though not moral, yet fitly chosen, and appointed by God, and observed by the Church of Christ (not as simply immutable, yet) as most worthy to be retained.  
For the third particular. The particular seventh day there mentioned, that is, the seaventh day from the Creation; This cannot be said to be Moral any way, but is ceremonial and temporary, and expired with the dissolution of the jewish Church. And this is generally confessed by all, whom the heresy of judaism hath not infected: and the mutation of the Day approved by the practice of the Christian world ever since the Apostles times, is a sufficient disclaim to the morality of it.  
For one of these three must needs hence be inferred. Either that that which is moral may be changed; or that the Church of Christ hath now for this sixteen hundred years erred in the change of it; orlastly, that the particular day prescribed to the Jews was Ceremonial, and not perpetual. The first, no man will say that understands the nature of moral precepts, and their dependence upon the Law of nature, which is one and the same with all men every where, and in all ages, and in that regard immutable. And he deserves not the name of a Christian that dares affirm the second. It remains therefore that we pitch upon the third, & confess that herein that Commandment was Ceremonial & not perpetual. But besides the practice of the Church we have the warrant of the Apostle S. Paul. 
Col. 2. 16. 17.  who ranks the Sabbath among the shadows of things to come whereof the body is Christ. Now the body 
Speech against Trash. p. 72  had (they are the words of the late learned Bishop of Winchester) the shadows vanish: that which was to come, when it is come to what end any figure of it? it ceaseth too. So that to hold the shadow of the Sabbath is to continue, is to hold that Christ the body is not yet come. Neither can the force of this 
Elten. p 91 ●●…lliams p. 299. Ames loco supra cu.  place be avoided by saying that the jews had other Sabbaths that were there meant, as the Sabbaths of weeks, and the first and last days of their great feasts which were called Sabbaths. For the Apostle speaks indefinitely of the Sabbath days, & hath not there left any ground to raise any distinction upon, or to show that he aimed only at them more than this. That he speaks there in the plural number will not help this shift, but rather cross it: it helps it not, because we know it is usual in the new Testament to use that number when the Sabbath in question is spoken of: it crosseth it rather in that being in the plural number it may rather seem to comprehend all their Sabbaths whatsoever they were: and so to be far from excluding this. The place than is clear, and alone sufficient to prove the point in hand: To which I will only add; that the reason drawn from the example of God, who rested upon the Sabbath day, namely, when the Creation was finished, endured only till the time of the new Creation in which all things were made new by Christ; at which time it ceased, or at least, a second reason taken from that new Creation coming in place, the former both reason & day (become now old) are passed away, and behold all 
2 Cor. 5. 17.  things are become new. For this work of redemption or new Creation being the greater may deservedly take place of the other. And as the Prophet jeremy 
jer. 16 14. 15.  speaking of the deliverance that God would vouchsafe his people from the Babilonish captivity, saith: Behold the days shall come (saith the Lord) that it shall no more be said; the Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Israel out of Egypt: but the Lord liveth which brought up the children of Israel from the land of the North, etc. So may we say of the day appointed for his worship; that the day wherein he finished the work of Creation shall no more be observed, but the day wherein our Lord jesus Christ by his resurrection from the dead finished the work of our redemption, and begun a new life to be finished in all his members, who (as S. Peter 
1 Pet. 1. 3.  tells us) are by his resurrection begotten unto a lively hope of an eternal Inheritance.  
The fourth and last thing in this Commandment and that which denominated the day is the resting from ordinary labours. And this in regard of the diverse ends it had admits a divers consideration. 1. This rest may be considered as a means without which the duties of God's worship cannot be performed. For seeing the general & public duties of piety and devotion, and our own private businesses cannot both be followed at once, there must be such a cessation from ordinary labours on that day, wherein men are to perform those duties, as that thereby they be not hindered in the performance thereof: in which regardthose works that in themselves, and at other times are not prohibited, are on that day unlawful, so far 
Aq. 2. 2. q. 112. 4.  as they hinder a man from applying himself to divine duties: and therein are contrary to the observance of that precept, which requires the performance of them. And therefore when God commands a day to be dedicated to Him, he doth likewise in the same command such a rest as a means necessary to that end. So that, thus far it is connected with, & participates of the morality of that Precept that enjoins the duties for which it was appointed; & in this consideration we are no less bound at this day, to rest from our labours on the days devoted to God's solemn worship, than were the jews, and (as Venerable Hooker saith) The voluntary scandalous contempt of that rest from 
p. 385.  labour wherewith God is publicly served, we cannot too severely correct and bridle.  
Another end of this rest is mentioned. Deut. 5. 14. viz: that there might be a time of rest allowed to servants and labourers for their refreshment. And this no less concerns us, than it did them; for necessity of nature requires some time of remission from labour: and religion teacheth us, to be merciful even to our beasts, and much more to our servants 
Prov. 12. 10.  who are our brethren. But this is not so connected with the observance of the day of God's public worship, but that it may at other times be supplied, yet is then so far requisite, as it makes for the solemn performances of the duties of the day, that all, as well servants, as others, may join together in the service of God: which while they do, they at once enjoy the refreshment of their bodies, and freedom to refresh their souls, with holy and religious exercises.  
But this rest, as it was prescribed to the jews, had yet a further end, in regard of which, it was exacted so strictly, and beyond that which either the solemn service of God, or the necessary refreshment of labouring persons did require. And that was figurative for the signifying of things past, present, and future.  
1. Things past; and so it was a memorial of Gods resting from his work of Creation: and as the day which they observed, so the strict rest upon that day served as a sign of the common benefit of Creation which they thereby acknowledged to be God's work, when they celebrated that day wherein God rested from creating, & sanctified it by an holy and total surcease from their own works. And this end is assigned by God himself, and annexed 
Ex. 20. 11.  to the commandment as a principal reason of the institution of it.  
Secondly; it was a memorial likewise of their deliverance out of Egypt, so expressly said to be Deut. 5. 15. wheres, in the repetition of the Law, this reason, is added instead of the former, & God is therefore said to command them to keep the Sabbath, that they might remember their servitude in Egypt, and their deliverance from thence.  
Again; the Sabbath was a sign also of their present condition, and a note to distinguish them from all other people, they being then the only peculiar people of God, whom he had separated, and sanctified to himself: For a sign of which peculiar sanctification they were commanded to observe the Sabbath, as we read Exod. 31. 13. & Ezech. 20. 12.  
3. Last; the rest of the Sabbath was a Type whereby was prefigured that rest which remained 
Heb. 4. 9 Vid. Aqum. in loc. ver. 4.  for the people of God, to be purchased for them by Christ. Into which rest they which believe do enter, and shall have the full possession thereof in the Kingdom of glory, when, after all their works finished, they shall rest from their labours. And 
Rev. 14. 13  this rest the Apostle designing by the name of a Sabbatisme, intimates the prefiguring of it by that Sabbath which the people of God under the Law were to observe. So that, as the place of this Celestial, and eternal rest, was shadowed out by the promised Land, so the rest itself for the nature, & condition of it was no less presignified by their usual Sabbaths. Now in relation to these good things which were thus vailed under the outward observation of this rest, it was very requisite that the rest whereby they were represented, should be, as strict as might be; for the more exact the figure 
Figurae debet esse exactae, alioqui non bene significant. Bellarm. t. 2. l. 3. c. 10  is, the better it signifies; and the more strictly the rest was observed, the more lively was the representation of those things, which it aimed at. To this if we add the condition of those, to whom it was enjoined, we shall have the complete reason, why it was with that strictness commanded and exacted, & the violation of it with such severity punished.  
For first, the jews though the people of God, & heir & Lord of all, yet being, as the Apostle saith, 
Gal. 4. 1.  a child, differed not from a servant, and as servants were to be held in bondage under the strict yoke of outward observances, & of this among the rest, till the fullness of time came, when God sent forth 
V. 45.  his Son made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.  
Secondly, the jews by reason of their long abode in a place of continual servile toil, could not suddenly be weaned and drawn unto contrary offices, without some impression of terror; whence the severity with which this duty, was enjoined, and the violation thereof punished, was to them most necessary. And beside, we know, that there is nothing more needful, then to punish with extremity the first transgressors of those Laws that require a more exact observation for many ages to come. These considerations then being peculiar unto them, that strict rest which was thereupon exacted, being but accidentally annexed to the principal sanctification of the Sabbath, cannot belong unto us by virtue of that command by which it was enjoined them. And this is confessed even by those that stand most for the observation of the Sabbath: who grant that the strictness of the rest on the Sabbath was Ceremonial, and did belong to the jews only and is abrogated by the death of Christ. 
Elton.  So Elton. And Amesius. It may be granted, that there 
P. 98.  was somewhat a more strict observation of the Sabbath 
Potest qui dem concedi actionem aliquam observatienem Sabbati illis temporibus suisse imperatam, paeelagoglae & scivitutis tempori accommodatam, quae omnibus seculis non obtinet. Med. Theol. l. 2. c. 15. n. 23. V. Perkins cases. l. 2. c. 16. § 1.  commanded in those times, as fitted to the pedagogy and time of servitade, which obteynes not in all ages. So he, and generally the most of those which propugne the Doctrine of the Sabbath.  
To give a brief and full resolution to the first question propounded. viz. whether, and how far forth the fourth Commandment concerning the Sabbath is moral, and perpetual, and so belonging to us Christians  
To the former part, I say the fourth Commandment is partly moral, and partly Ceremonial. To the latter I say. First, it is moral, and perpetual that some time be dedicated to the solemn, public worship and service of God. Secondly, that one day in the revolution of seven, be consecrated to this end, is not moral; yet very convenient and fitly observed, and retained by the Church of Christ. Thirdly; that the particular seaventh day, which the jews observed, is neither moral, nor sit to be observed, being altogether abrogated and out of date, ever since the death of Christ. Last; the resting from ordinary labours, as it is connected with the duties of God's worship, and a means without which, they cannot be performed, is no less necessary on the days consecrated to that end now, then heretofore; but as it concerned the jewish Sabbath, it is together with the Sabbath abrogated. So that Christians are not bound either to rest on that day, which the jews did, or to rest on their own Sabbaths or days consecrated to God's service, with the same strictness, which was enjoined the jews on theirs. Thus much shall serve to have spoken of the first general question.  
Having explained the nature of the fourth Commandment touching the jewish Sabbath: I come now to speak of the Lords Day; in which, that which was Moral in that Commandment, is and ever hath been observed by Christians. The institution of which, when and by whom it was, being the second general part of our inquiry.  
And here all Divines are not of one opinion. Some ground this no less than the jewish Sabbath 
See Doctor Williams of the Church. P. 301.  upon the fourth Commandment, which (say they) includes both the Sabbath of the jews, and of the Christians: Because the Lord doth not say, Remember that thou keep holy the seventh Day, but Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath Day; that is, the Day of rest: which, before the coming of Christ, was the seventh from the Creation; but afterward, the first day of the week, or Lords Day.  
But these men while they over greedily seek after a divine foundation for the Lords Day, do not consider that they stretch the Precept beyond the intent of the Lawgiver. For though it be granted that the Lord doth not say, Remember to keep holy the seventh day, but the day of ceasing indeterminately, yet seeing in the following explication, which God added, it is determined unto that particular seventh, which was the seventh from the Creation, to which it expressly is referred, as to the special reason of the Institution: the Sabbath there cannot without forcing, and manifest absurdity, be said to be as the Genus to the jewish, and Christian Sabbath, and to include both. For is it not manifestly absurd, and unbeseeming a rational man, and much more the wisdom of the Supreme Lawgiver, to say; God in six days made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh, and for that cause sanctified the seventh Day; Ergo, He will have men in imitation of him to rest sometime (viz. before the coming of Christ) on that day whereon he rested, and sometime (viz. after Christ's coming) to rest on the day in which he began to work. Neither can this absurdity be salved (as some have endeavoured to 
Cleaver Declar. of Christian Sabbath. pag. 99  do) by saying, there is always more meant in the Precepts and prohibitions, then in words are expressed: for those things which are so meant without particular expression, must either be necessarily connected with, or some way subordinat to that which is expressed, that so it may be included in it. Sure I am, it ought no way to be excluded, as (we see) this is by Gods own exposition of himself, and the reason which he allegeth, which can no way agree both to the Jewish Sabbath, and the Lords Day.  
Again, others urge the Institution of the Lords 
Esion p. 90. Dod p. 127.  Day, as founded upon God's sanctification of the seventh Day at the Creation, which being before all Ceremonies, must (say they) needs bind Christians, as well as the Jews. But this labours of the same weakness, and absurdity, which the other did. For what day did God sanctify there? Surely not the first day of the Week, but the seventh from the Creation, which they must with the Jews cry up again, if they will have their argument hold good. But besides this, the weakness of this foundation appears in that (as hath been showed) they cannot prove that God instituted the Sabbath, and commanded it to be observed from that time forward; but only that Moses there, relating the story of the Creation, intimates the reason of Gods after Commanding his people to rest upon that Day. And lastly, granting that to be the Institution (which cannot be proved) and that not the seaventh day from the Creation (as the words expressly say) but a seaventh, or one in seven, were thereby intended to be perpetual, & to belong to us Christians: If all this be granted, here will yet be but a partial foundation, and no complete institution of that particular day which we observe: for, all this notwithstanding, why might not the second, third, fourth, or any other have been observed, and yet that institution of one in seven no way violated?  
Others therefore (no doubt espying the weakness of it) 
Amesius Medul. Theol l. 2 c. 15 n 27.  forsake this hold, and seek for authority to prove it, to be of Divine Institution, out of the New Testament. And among these Amesius will have it to be done by Christ himself: laying this for a ground work, that He alone could change the day of the Sabbath, that was Lord of it, that is, Christ. So that according to him, Christ was the Author of this change, and that either mediately by his Apostles, whom he assisted by his Spirit in the Institution of it, no less than he did in the doctrine which they taught: or else, (as he holds to be most probable) immediately, and in his own person; and the probability of this he labours to prove by diverse Arguments; wherein he doth (as one hath well observed in the like case) as if one should demand a Legacy, by force and virtue of some written Testament wherein there being no such thing specified, he pleads, that there it must needs be, and bringeth arguments from the love and good will, which always the Testator bore him; imagining that these or the like proofs will evince a Testament, to have that in it which other men by reading, can no where find. Certainly it is a bold and a strange course, for men to adventure to argue, that God must needs have done the thing, which they imagine was to be done: whereas in matters that concern the actions of God, the most dutiful, and safe way on our part, is to search what God hath done, and with meekeresse to admire that, rather, then to dispute what he, in congruity of reason, aught to do. He might therefore have spared all the reasons he brings, and in stead thereof, to have alleged one place out of the New Testament, which doth command the change of the Day, especially seeing he denies it, (and that for many reasons by him there urged) to be an unwritten Tradition: which seeing he doth not, nor indeed can do, what doth he else by all his arguments, but endeavour to lay an aspersion of imperfection upon the Scriptures, and of neglect in Christ himself of that office, which as the great Prophet of his Church belonged to him? As if unless he had been as careful to appoint the observation of this day, as Moses was to appoint the old Sabbath, he could not (absit verbo blasphemia) be as faithful in the house of God, as Moses was. But far be such blasphemous thoughts from us, far be it from us to measure the faithfulness of our blessed Saviour by our fancies: or to judge him unfaithful, because he did omit that which our shallow conceits judge necessary and fit for him to do. We know that the high Priest of our profession, Christ jesus, was 
Heb 3. 2.  faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. And this faithfulness of his was by him sufficiently demonstrated, in that he fully declared the will of his Father to the world, in all things to be believed and done, and showed how, and what worship Christians must give unto God, though the circumstances of that worship as Time and Place (in as much as concerned the particular designing of either) he left to be determined by the Church, whom he promised to be with to the end of the world. And as he cannot be said to be less faithful in the house of God, than Moses or Solomon (who provided the one a Tabernacle, the other a Temple) because he did not appoint set places for God's worship; so neither can he be justly taxed for not appointing the set times for the same; these two circumstances of time and place, being of equal necessity and use, and joined together by God himself, Leu. 19 30. Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my Sanctuary. I am the Lord. Neither is the difference of Places more taken away now under the Gospel, then of Times. But as the true worshippers of God are not tied to worship either in jerusalem, or any 
joh. 4.  other peculiar place, but may worship him in spirit and truth in all places, lifting up pure hands: so 
I Tim. 2. 8.  neither are they tied to any special time or day, but may pray continually, and at all times. And 
I Thes. 5. 17.  therefore they who are so indifferent for the place, that they can be content to account a Wood, a Parlour, or a Barn, place good enough for Christians to meet in for the performance of God's public worship, have no reason to complain for want of a set day, or time, for the same purpose. The truth 
Difference of times and places how taken away under the Gospel.  is, that that peculiar blessing which God once bestowed upon the Sabbath of the Temple, & thereby differenced them from all others, is enlarged to all times & places; and any day and place may, by the Church, be dedicated and set apart for God's worship; and being so dedicated, & set apart, they inherit that holiness which was once peculiar unto the, in relation to the duties then & there performed to God, who in regard of the abundance of grace vouchsafed now in the time of the Gospel, may be said to be more present at such times, and in such places, than heretofore in those of his own assigning. But it was not necessary that Christ himself, or his Apostles from him, should by express precept particularly design, either of these: if any think such 
Ames. loco supracit. n 30.  precept to be necessary, let them show the place of Scripture, where such precept is to be found, or else confess the Scripture to be deficient in things necessary, and so forsake their colours of reformation, and pass over into the Camp of the Romanists. If they be ashamed of this, let them learn and confess: That, however it be necessary that some time be dedicated to God's service, yet the determination to this or that particular day, is not necessary to be defined by Scripture: which they may perhaps the more easily be brought to see, if they consider, that in this it is no otherwise, than it is with other things of equal necessity with this in the general (as the Sacraments, Fasting, and Prayer itself) which yet for the particular, when, and how often they are to be used, is not any where in Scripture defined, nor necessary so to be.  
But some who will have the Lords day so called, 
Dod p. 133.  because Christ himself instituted it, say, That, the Apostles, by the authority of that Spirit, that always assisted them in their ministerial office, did alter the day, and themselves kept, and ordained it to be kept in all Churches, as may appear 1. Cor. 16. 1. Where he saith, Every first day of the week, when ye meet together, etc. But certainly, it is most evident, even to a vulgar consideration, that no such thing doth appear out of that place. For, what doth Saint Paul say there? That he would have Christians meet every first day of the week, to serve God? No surely, there is not a word of meeting in the text, but what is foisted in, to deceive the credulous Reader. That which S. Paul saith, is, That on that day he would have every one lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him. This implies neither the meeting together of the Church on that day, nor the performance of any religious duty; but only a repositing or laying up, and that not in a common bank, but every man (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) by himself. 
* See Saint chrysostom upon that place, who saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. and a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Again, grant that S. Paul (as he did not) had enjoined Christians to meet on that day: and at their meeting to make a Collection for the poor; yet could not this serve for a sufficient institution of that Day to succeed the Jews Sabbath: unless such collections did involve in them all the service of God, on that day to be done, or were so connected with them, that they could not be separated: which no man, I suppose, will affirm. To leave these therefore, who out of an overweening conceit of the day, are willing to catch at any shadow that may seem to countenance it, and gain to it the reputation of Divine institution; Let us pitch upon that which is certain, which though it rise not so high, as an immediately-divine authority, yet is sufficient to ground our practice upon, and to exact the due observation of the Day.  
First, than it is most certain, that our Blessed Saviour did honour this day with his most glorious 
a Mat. 28. 1 Mar. 16. 1. joh. 20. 1.  resurrection, and by his often 
b joh. 20. 19 26.  apparitions upon it to his Disciples: and thereby (as it were) pointed out this day to his Disciples, as worthy to be made choice of to be celebrated in honour of him: who on that day began his glorious exaltation, after his triumph over Principalities and 
Col. 2. 14. 15.  powers, upon his Cross whom he there spoilt, having nailed to it, and thereby canceled, the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us; that is, the obligation to observe the Jewish rites and ceremonies, and among these their Sabbath: 
Ver. 18.  which from that time forward, the Apostle would 
Ad Januar. epist. 119. c. 13. Dies Dominica Christians resurrectione Domini declaratus est, et ex illo habere caepit festivitatein suam. Demonstrare & consecrare dignatus est. Ibid. c 9 Domini resuscitatio promisit nobis aeternum diem & consecravit nobis Dominicum diem. Id. de verbis Apostoli. Serm. 15.  have no man to judge Christians in: who as they were freed from it by the death of Christ, so by his resurrection they had ground sufficient ministered to direct them to the observation of a new Festival. Whence S. Augustine saith, The Lord's Day was declared— to Christians by the resurrection of our Lord, and from that time began to be celebrated. So that for aught that appears, our Saviour did not command the first day of the week to be observed. He did (to use the words of the same Father) Vouchsafe to demonstrate, and consecreate it; or (as he elsewhere speaks) The raising again of our Lord, promised us an everlasting Day, and consecrated for us the Lords Day.  
Secondly, it is no less certain that the Apostles (upon this ground no doubt) did observe this Day, and had thereon their holy assemblies, as Acts 20. 7. And that for the same cause the Apostle designed it for the storing up of their alms, that the memory of the benefits which on that day they obtained, might make them more readily contribute to the necessities of their brethren, as S. chrysostom hath observed upon 1. Cor. 16. 1. And lastly, that in the time of the Apostles it obtained the name of the Lords Day, as appears Revel 1. 10.  
Thirdly, that the ages of the Church immediately after the Apostles (whether by constitution, or only in imitation of them, is not known, nor much material) did observe this Day, as the Christians Festival; styling it the Lords Day, and conveyed the same practice by continual succession even to this day: as the late learned Bishop of Winchester 
Speech against Traske. p. 74.  shows, avowing it on his credit, That there is not an Ecclesiastical Writer in whom it is not to be found.  
We find thus much then without contradiction. That it hath been the practice of the Christian Church, to observe the Sunday or Lords 
* Pet. Mart. Thes. in Exod. 20. Non erravit Christiana Ecclesia, cum loco Sabbati flatuit observandum Diem dominicum, cujus iasacris sitteris men tio habetur, quamvis de ejus observatione praeceptum non ●x●●●.  Day, and that ever since, yea in the very Apostles times: a practice warranted by the example of the Apostles, and the honour vouchsafed to that day by our Blessed Saviour himself. Whence we may conclude with a late learned Divine, That the Christian Church did not err, when in stead of the Sabbath it appointed the Lords Day to be observed; of which, there is mention made in the Scripture, though there be no Precept for the observation of it. In which words of his, I will observe three things. First, that he saith, [the Church] not the Apostles, or Apostolical men: (for though that be most probable, and hath for it the authority of S. Augustine, and for that it hath been 
Serm. de Temp. 251. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conci●●●t institutum, sed ●emper retentum est, non nisi autoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.— Id. de Bap. contra Don. l. 9 c. 24. & l. 5. c. 23.  ever observed by the Church, it may justly be ascribed to them, yet) because if they did it, they did it not as therein reporting the immediate 
a Field of the Church P. 377.  Precept of Christ, nor by any power that was properly Apostolical, but by virtue of their Pastoral power and office, which was common to them with their Successors, it may be termed an Ordinance of the Church, and it little concerns us to know whether it were delivered by the Apostles themselves, or their next after-commers.  
Secondly. The 
b Observantiae Diei Dominicae in nouâ lege, succedit observantia Sabbati, non ex ui praeceptiet legis, sed ex constitutione Ecclesiae, & consuetudine populi Christiani. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 122. ●. 4.  Church appointed this Day, but whether at the first by express constitution it were commanded, or by custom only observed, it appears not. Aquinas attributes it to both: and how ever, thus much is out of question, that this Custom or Constitution was afterward by many 
c Concil. Nican can. 20. La●d. Con. 19 Auresion. 3. Can. 21. Matise. Can. 2.  Canons of the Church, and Constitutions of Christian 
d Eusch. de vitâ Constan. jl. ●. ●. 18.  Emperors ratified and approved, and many things ordained tending to the right & due observance of it.  
Thirdly, That the Christian Church did not herein err, as having sufficient to warrant it out of Scripture, though there be no Precept for it. Yea, and if the Scripture did yield no example of this practice, or other ground for it in particular, yet had not the Church erred in ordaining it. For things pertaining to order & decency in the Church (such as is among others, the particular determination of the set times of God's worship) being undetermined in the word of God, are in the power of the Church to be ordered; so as they be done according to the general Laws of nature, and without contradiction to any positive Law in Scripture. Neither is it derogatory to the word 
S. August. Epist. 86 ad ●●●…lan.  of God, or any whit detracting from the perfection of it, to affirm that (though it sufficiently and abundantly contain in it all things necessary to salvation, yet) it hath left a number of other things, free to be ordered at the discretion of the Church. And as to take from the Scripture, the sufficient determination of things necessary to salvation, were an injury, and an impairing of that honour which God challengeth to his word; and the Church of God hath ever deservedly yielded to it; so it were no less injury to the Church of Christ, to abridge it of the power of determining of this and such like things, which being not of absolute necessity, are yet convenient and profitable. For this prerogative & power, the Church of God hath ever obtained and enjoyed, (even 
See Hooker p. 92. p. 95. & p. 121.  when it was most obliged to hold to the letter of the Law, prescribing the Ceremonies belonging to the service of God) that it might without imputation of adding to, or altering the law of God, from time to time appoint sundry rites and observances, not any where prescribed in the Law. Such were the appointment of the hours, for the daily sacrifices; the building of Synagogues throughout the land, to hear the word of God, and to pray in, when they came not up to jerusaleme the Feast of the Dedication which was solemnised even by our Saviour, and yet never spoken of in the 
joh. 10. 22.  Law: and many more which the Church, without any particular command, only following the light of reason, in her discretion judged meet. And certainly, the Church of Christ hath not now less power, or privilege then the Jewish Church then had, to which it is no way inferior, but far superior in regard of the measure of grace, and the presence of the spirit of Christ, by which it is assisted, as in other things, so in ordaining Laws for the edification of the Church.  
Now lest any should think it a matter of indifferency to obey, or disobey the Orders of the Church, which are thus constituted without the express command of God in Scripture, and that the transgressions of such Constitutions are no sins; I will close this point with that which worthy Hooker (from whom I have borrowed the 
Eccl. Poll. 3. § 9 p. 107.  greatest part of this last discourse) hath judiciously and fully delivered to this purpose. Unto Laws thus made (saith he) and received by a whole Church, they which live within the bosom of that Church, must not think it a matter indifferent either to yield, or not to yield obedience. Is it a small offence to despise the Church of God? My son keep thy Father's commandment, 
1 Cor. 11. 22. Pro. 6. 20.  (saith Solomon) and forget not thy mother's instruction, bind them both always about thine heart! It doth not stand with the duty which we owe to our Heavenly Father, that to the Ordinance of our Mother the Church, we should show ourselves disobedient. Let us not say we keep the commandments of the one, when we break the Law of the other: for unless we observe both, we obey neither— Yea that which is more, the Laws thus made God himself doth in such sort authorise, that to despise them, is to despise in them Him. Thus he with much more to the same purpose. Which I therefore thought good to add, that no man might think that while I ascribe it to its true Original, I go about to impair the authority of it, or to withdraw any thing from the due observance of it. And thus I have done with this second Question, viz. When and by whom the Sunday or Lords Day was instituted.  
These things thus discussed and cleared, it may now seem superfluous to inquire into the liberty that we Christians have, how far it may justly be extended in regard of ordinary labours upon the Sunday. For if it be granted that the strict rest on the Sabbath was Ceremonial, and abrogated with the Day; and that the Day which we keep is not by virtue of the fourth Commandment, but by the custom or Constitution of the Church: It will not be hard for any to conclude, that Christians are not bound to rest on that day from all works, further than the duties of the day, and they who enjoined it require. Yet for more full satisfaction, I will add somewhat more particularly, concerning those two Questions that remain: To inquire then first, What works the Jews might do or their Sabbath.  
This will easily be dispatched, in as much as herein the Scripture is very plain, and little or no difference of opinion among Divines: Yet will it not be altogether needless, in regard that the liberty we now have under the Gospel, when it is compared with theirs under the Law, will the better appear.  
Now these works are fitly reduced under three 
See D Willet on Exod. 20.  heads. The first of which are Works of necessity, such as could not well be deferred or prevented. Of which sort are reckoned diverse, which how ever Pharisaical superstition had prevailed with the people to scruple at, yet were never, in the intention of the Lawgiver, prohibited them, as may appear by the doctrine & practice of our Saviour; who was both ways the best expositor of the Law, and who both ways came, not to destroy, but to fulfil it. And among those thus allowed by 
Math. 5. 17 Math. 12 1 Luk. 13. 15 Luk. 14 5.  our Saviour we find, the providing of food in the case of hunger; the watering (and by the like reason the foddering) of cattle, the saving them from imminent danger. Whence by analogy and congruity of reason, we may conclude the lawfulness of many more things of the like nature: as that of Mattathias and his company, resolving 
1 Macc. 2. 41.  to fight upon the Sabbath to save their lives. So the quenching of an house on fire, the saving of corn, and other necessary substance from perishing, and the like. To which we may add works communis honestatis, as the decent attiring of ourselves, and all other works which necessity of nature hath imposed upon men, and thereby allowed as fit to be done.  
The second sort of works permitted them; 
Luk. 13. 11 john 5. 8.  were works of mercy and charity: as to visit the sick, heal the diseased, and the like: which we find approved by our Saviour's often practice; and together with those beforementioned, justified by that axiom of his: The Sabbath was made 
Mar. 2. 27.  for man, and not man for the Sabbath: that is, (according to Erasmus' Gloss) it is fit that the observation 
Aequum est ut Sabbati observatio cedat hominum utilitati, et non homo Sabbati causam percat ●●●…m Parap●. in locum. Hosea. 6. 6. Acts 13. 27  of the Sabbath should give place to man's benefit, and not that man should perish for the Sabbath: as also by that of the Prophet by him cited: God will have mercy and not Sacrifice: that is, rather have the miseries of men relceved, than the letter of the Law observed.  
The third and last sort of works, were works of piety, belonging to the service of God, as to read the Law, to teach the people, to circumcise children, to offer Sacrifice, with their attendants, as to make fires for them, to slay and prepare the beasts: for these works though servile in themselves, being directed to the service of God were sacred, and no way violating the Sabbaths rest. So our Saviour 
Math. 12. 5.  testifies that notwithstanding these works, done by the Priests in the Temple, yet the Priests were blameless, and not transgressors of the Law: And the Jews had it among their traditions, that 
Hinc definitio est Jadaicarum traditionum: In templo nunesse Sabbatum. F●. Lu. ca●●●…oc.  in the Temple there was no Sabbath. Intimating that the Sabbaths rest must give place to those things which were to be done by the Priest in the Temple for the service of God. Having seen what might be done on the Sabbath; let us now see, whether, and what liberty Christians now have on the Sunday, and how far that liberty is to be extended, which is the last part of our Inquirie.  
And here though some few (transported with 
True Church. P 300.  a heedless zeal of maintaining the dignity of this day) have not struck to affirm that the jews had as much liberty as we have, & that we are as much restrained, as they were: Yet the most, even of the strictest, and most precise exactors of the Sundays rest, do grant a liberty which Christians now have, more than the jews had. But what liberty this is, wherein it consists, & how far to be extended, is not on all hands agreed upon.  
Some there are who when they come to define this liberty, they pin it up within so narrow a room, that it proves either none at all or to no purpose. Amesius saith; There is nothing can be brought out of 
Med. Theel. l. 2. c. 15. n. 24.  Scripture concerning the strist observation of the Sabath, which was commanded to the jews, which doth not in the same manner belong to all Christians, except the 
Praeter accensionem ignis, et cibi communis apparatum.  kindling of fires, and the dressing of ordinary diet. And these, he thinks it probable too, that the jews might ordinarily do on their Sabbath, though upon special occasions, they were forbidden them: so that he seems to retract that liberty which before he granted them. But others do 
Elton. p. 101. Perkins cases. c. 6.  freely grant these, and some few like them, as making of beds, carrying of burdens (to wit, on special, and urgent occasions) and these they allow by this name of works of Christian liberty. Egregiam vero libertatem! A great liberty (no doubt) and worthy that precious blood by which it was purchased!  
But two things may here be demanded. First, how it will appear that Christians have this liberty? And here (for aught I can see) we must be contented to take their own authority: for Scripture they allege none to purpose. Those two places which are cited by Elton on this occasion speak no such thing; & beside, that which is there 
Mat. 12. 1. 2. 3. Mark. 2. 27  said (whatever it be) proves no peculiar liberty belonging to Christians, which the jews had not. For in them our Saviour justifies his Disciples from transgressing the Sabbath which was then in force, but doth not show what might be done afterward, when by his death the Sabbath should be abrogated. If they allege that our Saviour bade the sick man on the Sabbath to take up his bed, (which may seem to have some reference to making of beds, or carrying of burdens) It may be answered, that our Saviour doth not there show what might ordinarily be done; but by his authority gives a special dispensation to the sick man to take up his bed etc. without which dispensation, the man could not have been excused from breaking the Sabbath. So that here is no certainty (according 
See Fran Lucas Brugen●. upon the place.  to their principles) for any thing to be done, which the Jews might not do, but that men must (for all their pretended liberty) either judaize, or else adventure for this small liberty with a doubting conscience.  
Secondly, It may also be demanded. How we shall know that only this liberty is allowed Christians? This also we must take upon▪ their credit. For reason or Scripture they allege none at all. And if they, without either reason or Scripture shall take upon them to give laws to the Church of God, and prescribe bounds to Christian liberty; I see no cause, why we may not upon solid grounds of Scripture and reason, assert that liberty which of right belongs to us, as purchased by the all precious blood of our dear, and Blessed Saviour.  
And this will appear if we consider what rest or cessation from labours is on this day required: First then, for that it is a day of God's public, and solemn worship to be performed by the whole Church, which cannot (as hath been showed) be performed, unless there be a vacation from ordinary and common worked, a vacation therefore and resting from these, as they are impediments to God's service, is on that day required, as necessary. Yet not so necessary, no not in the times of public assemblies, but that the works which necessity imposeth upon men, and rarer occasions in men's particular affairs, subject to manifest detriment 
Ho●ker. p. 385.  unless they be presently followed, may, with very good conscience draw men aside sometime from the ordinary rule; considering the favourable dispensation, which our Saviour grounds upon this Axiom. The Sabbbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Which rule, if it held for the jews on their Sabbath, is certainly no less in force at this day for Christians. In the use of which notwithstanding, some cautions must be observed, As first that men pretend not necessity or charity, when it is covetousness or a careless neglect or contempt of God's public worship; upon which ground no doubt, it was that the Emperor Leo repealed that liberty which by Constantine was granted 
Concil. Matisc. 2. can. 1.  to Husbandmen: and the Counsel of Matiscon forbids men to frame a necessary to themselves of yoking their Oxen; therein allowing both a just dispensation in necessity, & forbidding the unjust pretence of necessity where none is.  
Secondly, men must take heed that they do not by their negligence, or improvidence and forgetfulness draw a necessity upon themselves: in which regard the word (Remember) which God prefixed to the fourth Commandment is yet in force, to exact our care and mindfulness so to provide before hand, that the duties to which this day is consecrated, be not by our default omitted, or hindered.  
Thirdly, that being necessarily hindered or forced to omit the solemn & public duties of the Day, we do (as much as may be) by private devotions & meditations make supply of that defect.  
Again, such is the reverence that is due to the solemn & public duties of devotion, that they require not only a surcease from other works & thoughts for the time of their performance, but also a decent preparation beforehand; that we look to our feet, when we enter into the house of God, & put off our shoes before we stand upon holy ground: 
Eccl. 5. 1. Exod. 3. 5.  that so our thoughts and affections, which are naturally bend upon the world, and not easily withdrawn from it, may be raised to a disposition befitting so sacred an employment. In which respect it is convenient, if not necessary, that till the public service of God be ended, men entangle not themselves with unnecessary businesses, or give themselves to sport or recreations, whereby their minds should be hindered from the right preparing of themselves, or due performance of those holydutyes.  
Lastly it is good and commendable to spend the rest of that day in holy meditations, private prayer, reading and calling to mind what we have read, or heard; These works, as they are at all times profitable and beseeming Christians; so on that day they are most seasonable and suitable to those public actions of Devotion which are the proper work of the Day. Thus S. Augustine 
Serm. de. Temp. 251.  exhorteth his Auditors on this day to sequester themselves from worldly businesses, that they may be employed in these works; and the Council of Matiscon, 
Concil. Matisc. 2. can. 1. Can. 23.  yea and our own Church Canons prescribe the spending of this day (and other holy-days devoted to God's service) in these and the like religious employments. And therefore they who thus spend the Lords day (if it be done without superstition or judging other men's liberty) cannot therefore justly be condemned.  
Now by this it is easy to judge of our liberty. First then, here is a liberty in case of necessity, though thereby the solemn duties of God's worship be hindered. Secondly, a liberty in things not absolutely necessary, so as thereby the service of God, & the due preparation thereto be not hindered: under which the use of honest and seemly recreations, after the public duties of the Day are finished, may be comprehended. For though it cannot be denied that a man may commendably spend the whole day in works of piety and devotion, yet that cannot prescribe to all Christians, or infringe their liberty. For it is one thing to exhort to a thing as commendable, another to urge it as necessary; one thing to say, this or that is a good work, and is well done at this or that time, another, to enjoin it by way of Precept, so as at such time it may not be omitted, nor other work permitted. And the reason is, because Gods affirmative Precepts, though they warrant, and commend the works that they enjoin, and make them good and commendable, whensoever they are performed; yet they bind not precisely to any determinate time for their performance: For example we are commanded to pray and that continually, so that he that is most frequent 
1. Thes. 5.  in prayer, observes this Precept best, and deserves the praise of a devout and religious man: & yet he that prays not at this or at that time, when haply, another doth, cannot therefore be said to sin, and much less be counted irreligious or profane. David prayed & gave thanks unto God at midnight, 
Psal. 119. 62.  & so did S. Paul and Silas, and surely those Godly Souls were blessedly employed: but shall we 
Acts 16. 25.  therefore condemn him who doth not the like? S. Paul also being to depart from Troas, continued his Sermon till midnight on the Sunday, and no 
Acts 20. 7.  doubt, but he did well; yet no man will therefore prescribe the like length to every Sunday Sermon. The case is the same in this business we have in hand: for we do not presently affix these duties to the day, which we say may be commendably on that day performed; nor on the other side, do we disallow the spending of the whole Sunday in holy and religious actions; because we dare not rigidly tie all men so to do, or lay it upon them by way of Precept, as if God had expressly commanded that time to be no otherwise spent. There is a good and a safe use of that distinction of Precepts and Counsels; (though the Romanists abuse it to the patronising of their imaginary works of super erogation) and things in themselves good without relation to any determinate time, we may wish, exhort, and counsel men to perform at any time, when we cannot by Precept impose them upon all. We know our Saviour commended some things to his Disciples with a Let him that is able to 
Mat. 19 12  receive it, receive it advising and exciting all to that, which nowing the infirmity of many, he would not exact by his authority as necessary to be performed by all. And in this case we may do well to imitate him considering that it is no where enjoined in Scripture, and that such is the condition of many, that they are not capable of such an injunction, as namely those who by reason of their mean education or natural parts are not fitted for long meditation requisite for the spending of the vacant time of the Day, and to whom in regard of their hard labour in the week days, it is a mercy to permit some bodily recreation on this day; which certainly cannot be displeasing to him who hath said, I will have mercy & not Sacrifice. 
Mat. 12. 7.  And if they, who use to judge the use of all recreation on this day sinful, had known what that meaneth, they would not have condemned the guiltless.  
If any think that God hath so commanded: let him produce the place of Scripture, and I will quickly recant. The places which are usually alleged for that purpose, and wherewith men are so frighted and thundered against out of the Pulpit, being intended for the jews, and that in regard of that special positive Precept, given for the strict rest upon their Sabbath, cannot with any 
Esay 58. 13 Exod. 20. 10.  show of reason, be extended to Christians, when both Day and Precept, are out of date.  
But haply some may yet further contend, that though the Day be changed, yet the equity of it still remains, and that they may argue thence (à pari, or (as some think) à minori) as from the less to the greater. That if the jews upon their Sabbath which was instituted in memory of the Creation, and of their deliverance out of Egypt, aught to do no work, nor so much as to speak their own words, and that for the whole day: then by the like reason, nay much rather ought Christians so to do on their Sabbath, or Sunday which is consecrated to the memory of a far more glorious work, the work of our Redemption, accomplished in the resurrection of our Saviour. Here, in this kind of reasoning there is some truth, but (as it is too common) it is over-strayned, and so is but a mere colour to countenance that, for which it is brought, and not any solid foundation whereon to build it. The truth is, Christians have as much (if not more) cause to celebrate the Redemption of mankind by a solemn weekly Commemoration, as ever the jews had to celebrate the Creation of the world, or their deliverance out of Egypt: and this may serve as a good ground to justify the Institution of the Lords Day, and the Churches practise in observing it: But this truth is overstrained being applied to the manner of Celebration, which was peculiar to the Jews, and accommodated to the then-State of the Church, which was (as hath been showed) to be held under the yoke of a strict outward rest, in expectation, and for the prefiguring of that eternal rest, which now Christ hath actually purchased; and therefore injuriously laid upon Christians, who are freed from that yoke, under which they groaned: And they may as well upon the same ground conclude against making of fires, and dressing of meat upon the Sunday, and make the gathering of a few sticks upon that Day to deserve no less 
Num. 15. Aut simus Christiani, & Dominicum colamus, aut simus judaei, & Sabbatum observemus. S. Aug. ep. 86  now, than he suffered for doing the like upon the Sabbath. So that we may say to those who thus argue (as he in Saint Augustine, upon far better ground than he did) Either let us be Christians and keep the Lords Day, or let us be jews, and observe the Sabbath.  
But is it not reason that God should have one whole day in seven, given unto him now, as well as heretofore? Yes certainly; but yet with such difference, as suits with the different condition of the Church that now is, from that which then was, that being guided by the spirit of fear, this of love, that in a state of bondage, under the unsupportable 
2. Tim. 1. 7●  burden of legal Ceremonies, this in a state of liberty, and under Christ's easy yoke: In a word, they jews, and we Christians: and this being considered, we may be said to give God a Day, no less now, than they then, though in that Day we do not so strictly observe the outward ceremonial rest, as they were bound to do  
Secondly, I say, that our Church is so far from abridging God of one day in seven, that it gives more, as having appointed and consecrated diverse Holy days to the same solemn and public worship of God, which is enjoined to be performed upon the Lord's Day. For these (though they may admit some difference in regard of their accidental dignity, in as much as those benefits commemorated in them are greater or lesser yet) in regard of their essentials they are equal, as being all of them dedicated to the honour of the same God, in memory of some great and special benefits vouchsafed to the Church, and therefore do go pari passu in our Canons, and in our ancient 
Can. 13. Act for Uniformity of Common prayer, etc.  Statutes, which require the same observance of both under the same penalty. And therefore those who stand so much for a whole Day of seven to be consecrated to God, if the worship of God were all they affected, might see that there is a compensation made for the defect which they so much complain of in our observation on the Lord's Day; and they themselves might do well to take advantage, by a religious observation of these days, to make up their failings on the Lord's Day: But this they are so far from, that they account the observation of these days a breach of the fourth Commandment, and think it a sin 
Ames. med. Theol. lib. 2 cap. 15.  to make more Holy days than one in seven. In which regard, it cannot be judged altogether impertinent, if I here take occasion to vindicate the practice of our Church, from their unjust censures.  
And in the first place, I may return their own Argument upon them, and say; Is it not reason that God should, now under the Gospel, have more set days to commemorate his benefits then one in seven, as well as under the Law? Under the Law, we know, they had, beside their weekly Sabbaths, the Passeover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles; and not only those which had God's express command for their Institution, but the Feast of Purim, and of the Dedication, which (as I have before showed) were ordained by the Church, without any express command of God, and observed by our Saviour himself, whose example alone (if any thing) is sufficient to exempt us from scrupling at the like now in the time of the Gospel.  
Secondly, if they will not run clean counter to their own principles, and deny the morality of the fourth Commandment altogether, they must acknowledge thus much (at least) to be moral: That there ought to be a certain part of our time given to God, and some days set apart for his public worship: Now these (being left undetermined in the word of God) if it be not in the power of the Church to determine them, I wonder how that precept should be observed: And if the Churchupon this ground, have reason and power to appoint any one Day, why not more? seeing her power is not limited or restrained within any other bounds but those generals, of decency and order: which I presume no man will say are transgressed in the ordination of those 
1. Cor. 14. 40.  Holy days which are observed among us.  
Thirdly, to this that such times are in the general commanded by God; we may add two things more, which being well considered will abundantly discharge the observation of such days from superstition: and those are,  
First, that the duties therein required are no other than such, as according to the word of God, aught to be performed by all Christians: For what else is required on those days but the solemn prayers and praises of God in the Church, joined with the hearing of his Word, and a special commemoration of his benefits, which as on those days were received? And which of all these is not required in the word of God? And if it be lawful, yea commanded, that we should perform those duties at all times and upon all occasions, they cannot at any time whensoever they 
1. Thes. 5. 17, 18.  are performed, justly be termed superstitious, or (which must follow by consequence) unlawful.  
2. The other thing to be considered is, That the grounds and occasions of the Church's determination of these duties unto those special days which we observe, are such as deserve no less. As being real, great, and general benefits vouchsafed by God unto his Church.  
First, they are true and real, not imaginary fictions founded upon the feigned actions, or fall martyrdoms of titular Saints, such as are many in the Romish Church.  
Secondly, they are great, not ordinary or common benefits, and therefore require a more than ordinary acknowledgement.  
Thirdly, they are general; the good whereof redounds, not to a few, but to the whole body of the Church; and so, if our acknowledgement be answerable, it must be public and solemn, performed jointly by all those that are partakers of the benefits.  
Now, if we shall run through the whole Calendar, take an impartial view of all our Holy days, we shall not find so much as one among them all, of which thus much may not truly be affirmed.  
For they may almost be ranked under two heads. First, such memorable steps in the story of our blessed Saviour, as by which the great work of our redemption advanced unto its happy accomplishment. Secondly, the memorials of that goodness and glory which he afterwards manifested to the world by his holy Apostles, Evangelists and Martyrs, whom he honoured so much as to make them founders of that Kingdom which cost him his dearest blood, & to count them worthy to suffer death for his sake. Concerning the former, I suppose there is none but will say in the words of the Psalmist (as our vulgar translation reads them) The merciful and gracious Lord hath so done his marvellous works, that they ought to be had in remembrance. 
Psal. 111. 4  And what better means can be devised then the appointing of set solemn days for 
Eissc. Dco) benesiciorum ejus solemmtatilus sestis et diebus ●…a. tuus dicamus sacramusque memoriam ne volumine temporum ingrata subreparobli●io Aug. de Civ. l. 10. c. 4.  their commemoration, I cannot see: And this was the Churches aim in appointing these days: So S. Austin, We (saith he) dedicate and consecrate to God the memory of his benefits in solemn feasts and set days, lest in the revolution of times ingrateful forgetfulness should creep upon us.  
The like may be said of the latter: For if our Saviour appeared so glorious in them, and by them conveyed so great and general blessings to his Church, what reason can be alleged why the Church may not retain an annual honourable memorial of them to the glory of him whose instruments they were? The Psalmist tells us that the righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance. 
Psa. 112. 6.  And the Wiseman, That the memory of the just shall be blessed. And therefore, to have some days in 
Prov. 10. 8.  which the memories of those, who were in their generations most famous for righteousness, may, with blessing, be perpetuated, is but their due and agreeable to his will who hath granted them that honour: so that we may justly solemnize the days wherein those barning and shining lights first appeared to the world; or the days of their departure hence, which were the days of their happy inauguration into the Kingdom of glory, when they, both left to the Church militant the glorious example of their Christian fortitude, and became an occasion of new joy to the Church triumphant, by the accession of new Citizens to that heavenly society. Either of which, afford matter sufficient of solemn joy and rejoicing to the Church, and consequently of praise and thanksgiving unto God.  
Lastly, to convince them yet farther out of 
4.  their own principles: They allow the Church power, in the times of great calamities, either feared or felt, to appoint solemn days of fasting 
Dies illi habendi videntur quasipro Sabbatis extraordinaruns Ames. med. theol. l. 2. c. 15. Read M. Mason of Christian humiliation. p. 66. Edit. 2.  and humiliation; and those days they will have held as Sabbaths extraordinary, and that therein men are bound to abstain from their bodily labours, according to the same streitnesse that they are bound to observe the Sabbath; I would gladly then know some reason why the Church should want power to ordain the like days for the celebration of special benefits, to be observed (not as Sabbaths which are now antiquated and no precedents for us Christians, but) with such a cessation from labours, as is necessary for the performance of the public worship of God, and fit to accompany such solemnities of public joy and rejoicing, to which Rest is more naturally requisite, then to the times of sorrow and humiliation.  
But it is not the having of such days that some 
Possunt autem dies qual scunque pie converti in occasiones cultum Dei promovendi Ames. ●b. Elton p. 117.  scruple at, or the duties required in them, for they much desire to have some days besides the Lord's day to meet together for the hearing of the Word, and for the words sake can be contented to endure the Liturgy of the Church. But the things which they dislike are; first the obligation that we put upon men for the observance of them; for they would have the appointment and observation of them to be held a thing indifferent and no duty binding conscience. Secondly, they dislike the names that we give them, in that we style them the days of such or such a Saint, which to them 
Idem ibid.  seems to favour of Idolatry; neither would they have them called holy days, or accounted more holy than others; forasmuch as such difference of days belonged to the jews, and is now under the Gospel taken away.  
To these I answer, first, for the obligation of the Church's commands, and that it is not a thing indifferent to obey or disobey them, I have already spoken so much as may satisfy those that are not 
pag. 45.  studious of contention, I only add now upon this occasion; that it seems to me very ridiculous, to grant the Church a power of ordaining such times, and yet to require that the observation of them so ordained be held a thing indifferent. For if their ordinance lay no tie upon men, but leave things notwithstanding still indifferent, their power surely, is to no purpose and nothing worth.  
Touching the names that we give them. I say, first that the festivals of the Saints are dedicated, not to them by whose names they are called, but to God. To him, and not them, our prayers are directed; to him our praises, though for them, and with reference to those blessings, which by them are vouchsafed unto us; We honour him as the author of all that good which either they, or we, by them, are partakers of: We honour them only as his instruments, and as those who having been imitators of our blessed Saviour, are worthy patterns of our imitation. To this purpose we find the Church of Smyrna answering the like calumny raised against them by the jews, upon occasion of their affection which they expressed toward 
— Ignorantes not nec Christe unquam relinquere qui pro totius servandorum mundi salute passus est nec alium quenquam colere posse. Nam hunc quindem tanquam filum Dei adoramus; Martyrs vero tanquam discipulos & imitatores Domini digne propter insuperabilem inregē ipsorum & praeceptorem benevolentiam disigimus, quorun & nos consortes & discipulos fieri optamus. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 4. c. 15. Rom. 14. Gal 4. 5. Col. 2.  that glorious Martyr Polycarpus. These men (say they) are ignorant that we cannot ever leave Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world nor can we worship any other. For him we adore as the Son of God; as for the Martyrs, we worthily love them as disciples and imitators of him their Lord, for their insuperable affection toward their King and Master, whose partners also we desire to be, and to become their disciples. And thus much they might easily answer themselves out of our Church Liturgy, where there is no one word in any office appointed for any Saint's day, that gives the least ground or colour to this scruple.  
The other imputation of judaism which they tax us with, because we style our Christian festivals, holy days, hath as weak a foundation as the former. For I willingly grant them what they allege for the countenancing of this objection, That now under the Gospel the difference of times and days is no less taken away then of meats; That is, as we have now no meats that are unclean either in themselves, or by reason of any positive precept given to the jews, but that they may be eaten with thanksgiving; so neither is there any day or time which in itself, or by reason of any such judaical precept, is now to be accounted more holy than others; all this is evident from the places which they allege for this purpose: Whereupon we conclude, that none of the jewish Festivals (not the Sabbath itself) ought to be observed by Christians, nor (which is more) any Christian Festival to be observed, after the jewish manner, or with their rites and Ceremonies. And this may justly tax them who stand either for the jewish Sabbath, or which turn the Lords day into a Sabbath, exacting the same strictness of observance in regard of the outward Ceremonial Rest. But it can no way prejudice the Church, in consecrating days to the service of God, or in accounting them (though in themselves, and setting aside the Ordinance of the Church, they are all alike 
See p. 31.  yet) in relation to the duties to be performed in them, more holy than others. And this they must grant, unless they will affirm one of these three things.  
First, That the works of God now under the 
1  Gospel are not so great, so glorious, and consequently, so worthy of set times for their solemn remembrance, as heretofore under the Law.  
Or that the Christian Church hath now less power 
2  in appointing days for the solemn worship of God, in relation to those glorious works of his, than the jewish Synagogue once had.  
Or lastly, That the worship which we Christians now perform to God is not so holy, as that 
3  in the time of the jewish Synagogue, and so less able to sanctify the days in which they are performed.  
But every one of these being most absurd; I conclude, that to consecrate certain days, besides the Lord's day, to the solemn worship of God, in memory of his special blessings vouchsafed to the Church on such days, and to account such days, so consecrated, more holy than others, is lawful and free from all superstition and Judaisme. And however, that they who would fain affix so extraordinary holiness to the Lords day, should of all men have abstained from this last imputation, till they had better proved the immediately divine institution of the Lords day.  
But I have too long digressed; yet not without cause, in as much as they, who seem so zealous for the giving to God his due time, refuse notwithstanding to give him that, which the regular piety of the Ancient and our own Mother Church hath ever, upon so sound reason, consecrated to him. I return now to answer another objection which they frame against the extending of our Christian liberty, to the use of recreations on the Lord's day.  
The liberty of Christians (say they) ought to be spiritual, and not in carnal and common things; and therefore cannot be extended to patronise recreations, or ordinary labours on the Sunday, but that they are as unlawful on that day as ever they were on the Sabbath.  
To this I answer, that Christian liberty, as it respects the things from which we are freed, is not merely spiritual, but extends itself, to carnal and common things also; for thereby we are freed not only from the guilt, and condemnation of sin, and the reigning power of it, which are things spivituall; but also from the servitude of the Ceremonial Law, which among other respects which it had, was as a Schoolmaster, or Tutor, whereby the Church in her nonage or infancy, was to be kept under the Elements of the world, (as the Apostle 
Gal. 4. 3.  calls them) that is, tied to the observation of days, and months, and years and meats and drinks; which being in themselves indifferent, were yet forbidden the Church of those times, that their bondage under these might nourish in them the hope and expectation of the promised Messias, in whom they were to have deliverance, and so lead, or rather drive them to believe in Him. Now when the fullness of time was come, and that Christ was exhibited, the Church being then no longer 
Gal. 4. 4.  under age, is not subject to those observances, but for any tie of that Law of Moses now upon it, enjoys the free use and exercise of these things as indifferent. As then there were many things, which, in themselves, and to us, now are indifferent, prohibited to the Jews; so as they might not eat of all meats, though otherwise wholesome, they might not wear all kind of garments, though useful and profitable, etc. So there were some works in themselves not sinful, nor at other times unlawful, prohibited to be done at some special times, in regard of the peculiar observance then due to those times, which now, when those times cease to be observed, can by no means be accounted sinful, or unlawful. Granting therefore that ordinary labours, and all bodily recreations were on the Sabbath unlawful, yet being in themselves not sinful, and so under the Gospel indifferent, they cannot be so upon our Sunday.  
I answer further, that I know no reason why honest recreations, moderate feasting, and such like expressions of rejoicing, may not fitly be counted a part of the external observance and sanctification of this day; in as much as it is solemnised in memory of the resurrection of our Blessed Saviour, and so our redemption fully wrought, to which we may (with S. Augustine) apply that of the Psalmist, This is the Day which the Lord hath made, we will rejoice, and be glad in it. And as on the day of his Passion, and other days appointed for solemn humiliation, we express the sorrow of our hearts by our mourning and neglected attire, by Fasting, and abridging ourselves of those delights, which use to refresh our natures; at which times The voice of the Viol, and of the Harp, the voice of the Bridegroom, and the voice of the Bride are unseasonable; so on the day of his resurrection to express our joy, and rejoicing by our arraying ourselves in our best attire, by Feasting, and other acts of cheerfulness, is most agreeable to the solemnity of that Day, Of which we may say in the words of Nehemiah and Ezra, This Day is holy unto the Lord your God, mourn not nor weep— but— eat of the 
Nehem. 8. 9 10.  fat, and drink of the sweet, and send portions to them for whom nothing is prepared, for this Day is holy unto the Lord. And however some men will have every fasting day a Sabbath, and every Lord's Day a fasting day (not allowing either the dressing, or liberal use of God's creatures, and therefore judging it inconvenient to celebrate marriages on that day) yet the Church of God in better times condemned 
Die Dominico jejunare nesas ducimus, Tertull. de Cor. Mil. c. 3 council. Gangr. Can. 18. Cartiag. 4. Can. 64. justellus in cod. Ca●onum. not. in Can. 70.  Fasting on the Lord's Day as unlawful, and most incongruous and disagreeable to the use of that Day, which was ordained as a Festival, and day of mirth and rejoicing: For which end also the Church in her most ancient times, had on that Day their Agapae or Love-feasts, as for the refreshing of the poor, and for the nourishing of mutual love and amity, so also for the unanimous expression of joy in all sober mirth, and in the free (though temperate) use of God's creatures. Upon which ground (doubtless) we may conclude the lawfulness of the use of such recreations, feastings, and other testifications of rejoicing upon the Lord's Day, as are in themselves honest, and are so used as they prove no hindrances to the service of God, which is the proper work of the Day.  
Besides, even the jews themselves (though out of superstition, they did for the most part overdo this Precept of the Sabbath, abstaining from those things, which they might have done, without any violation of God's commandment, yet) accounted their Sabbath a Feast, not a Fast; a day of rejoicing, and not of sorrow, or humiliation; and judged it not unlawful to make Feasts upon that Day, as is evident by that Feast made upon the Sabbath, by a chief Pharisee (one of their strictest Sabbatarians) whereat our Saviour himself (who 
Luk. 14. 1.  was no Sabbath-breaker) vouchsafed his presence among many others that were invited. And Paulus 
Addit. 4. in Exod. 20.  Burgensis (himself a jew) reports, that the jews held themselves bound to eat three meals that day, which on other days they used not. And Syranus (another of the same Nation) saith, That the Hebrew Doctors held that the word Remember was prefixed to this Commandment, that if they had any precious garment, or any other thing of price, They should remember to keep it till the Sabbath, to give it at first a sabbath-days wearing. I am not of their mind, but think that word prefixed for higher, and more important reasons: yet I verily believe that their conceit did speak their usual custom of apparelling themselves in their most costly and best garments, as best befitting the joy of that high Festival, which (as one hath well observed) hath this singular privilege to be a day 
Ainsworth in Gen. 2. 3.  of rest and holiness; of delight, and Feasting unto the world; and therefore (saith he) This day is not described by evening and morning, as were the other six which consisted of light and darkness: but 
Esay 60 20 Rev. 21. 25  this is all day, or light, figuring out our perpetual joys. And, no question, but, that Day which was the memorial of Gods resting from his work, when he rejoiced in the works of his hands, (so the Chaldee Paraphrast expounds Gods resting on the seaventh 
Psa. 104. 31 Gen. 2. 2.  day) and of the deliverance from the Egyptian Bondage was celebrated with mirth, and rejoyoing: so that I can hardly be induced to think, that on their Sabbath day, they were bound to abstain from all kind of recreations, but that they did, or, at least, might use such expressions of joy & mirth, as at their other Festivals were usual among them; as feasting, singing, dancing, and the like: which, I conceive, were no way forbidden in the commandment, which only seems to aim at works of toil or such as are servile, or undertaken for profit or gain, or at least that might hinder them in the service of God: and not to exclude all recreations, which (though they may, haply, in a large sense be termed works, yet) being such as do refresh, not weary nature, and being so used, as that the worship of God might notwithstanding be duly and solemnly performed, cannot be said to cross the intent of the Law, which was the decent and solemn service of God, and the testification of their freedom from Egyptian servitude.  
But let this pass as a private conceit, yet sure I am, that Tostatus (whom Doctor Willet approves) 
Tostatus Qu. 12. in Exod. Exo. 16. 29  saith, They were not bound to attend all the day upon God's service. And the same Doctor Willet expounding these words: Abide ye every man in his place; Let no man go out of his place on the seaventh day, saith, They were not to go forth, that is, with intent to gather Manna, which lay round about the Host, or to do any other business: they were not forbidden all kind of walking, and going out for their solace and recreation. Certainly then Christians cannot justly be blamed, if on the Lord's day God be solemnly and decently served at fit times, and no other work entertained to the hindrance of this, though every moment of that Day be not spent in performance of the acts of God's worship, nor the vacant space observed with a superstitious rest, which shall exclude all other works, and all, even lawful recreations, which to exact at the hands of Christians, what is it but to surpass the Jews in superstition about the Sabbath, and having only changed the day, in dishonour and contempt of the Jews, to require notwithstanding the same Ceremoniality of observance? which what fruits it hath had, or can have, I cannot see, save the engendering of endless scruples, and inextricable doubts, and the needless wounding of the consciences of many well-meaning people, when they have no sure guide to direct their practice, and when that which is required is beyond the ability of mortals to perform. For I will appeal to the consciences of these rigid Taskmasters, whether ever they, or any other did yet, or could possibly keep the Lord's day, in that strict manner as they urge it? But, haply this little moves them, who being taught that it is impossible to keep God's Commandments, will therefore the rather be induced to think, it is commanded, because they are unable to keep it. Yet sure our Saviour would never have styled his yoke easy, 
Mat. 11. 30.  and his burden light, had this strict observance of the Lords Day been a part of it, and Gods Commandments, so as he now under the Gospel requires them to be done, and with the assistance of his grace, wherewith he seconds them (whatever men rashly say of them) are not grievous, 
1 joh. 5. 3..  much less impossible to be done.  
To set down briefly and plainly, that which in more words hath been hitherto driven at: and it is but this. There are three things considerable in the Sunday, or Lords day. 1. A Day. 2. That Day. 3. The manner of celebrating it. The first is God's immediate precept. The other two not so, but mediate and by the power he hath given to his Church. First God commanded some time wherein men setting aside all worldly business and thoughts, should apply themselves to the duties of his solemn and public Worship, and this is the substance, or that which is Moral, in the fourth Commandment. Secondly, the Custom or Constitution of the Church, warranted by the Apostles practise, and the honour vouchsafed unto it by our Saviour himself, determined that time or day to the Sunday, or first day of the week; & secondly, prescribed how and when, for the decent time and manner of performing those duties.  
By these our liberty is limited, which must not be (without necessity) extended to the violation of either of them: Hence then, 1. He sins that doth not separate some time for God, etc. as violating the immediate precept of GOD in the fourth Commandment. 2. He sins no less, that for this end observes not the Sunday, and that in that decent manner, which the nature of the duties, and the authority of the Church hath enjoined; and this he doth in two respects. First, because he violates Gods mediate Command, who hath authorized the Church in his right, and by his power to ordain such things; so that, to neglect the Church, in this case is, to neglect God. Secondly, because the immediate Precept of God is wrapped up in the Precept of the Church: by which, that which by him was left indefinite, is defined, and determined.  
But that liberty either for ordinary labours, or honest recreations, which may stand with the observation of these Precepts, no man can justly account sinful, unless he can produce (not the fancies of some Zelotes, or the opinion of this or that man, though accounted never so good or learned, but) some other Precept given by God, or those whom God hath commanded us to obey: For it is an undoubted Maxim, which the Apostle delivers; Where no Law is, there is no transgression. 
Rom. 4 15.  The prohibition of the Law only is that, whereby things are exempted from our power and liberty, which otherwise (except in case of scandal) remains entire.  
And this alone is sufficient to terminate this Dispute, upon which we will join issue with those that are contrary minded, being not more confident that they can show no binding Precept for the restraining of our Christian liberty in this case, then willing to retract what hath been said, if they shall prove themselves able to do it.  
FINIS.