To the first Question.

I. Concerning the Name Sabbathum, or Sabbath, I thus conceive:

• 1. That in Scripture, Antiquitie, and all Ecclesiasticall writers, it is constant­ly appropriated to the Day of the Iews Sabbath, or Saturday, and not at all (till of late yeares) used to signifie our Lords-day, or Sunday.
• 2. That to call Sunday, by the name of the Sabbath-day (rebus sic stantibus) may for some respects be allowed in the Christian Church, without any great in­convenience: and that therefore Men (otherwise sober and moderate) ought not to be censured with too much seve­rity, nor charged with Iudaisme, if some­times they so use it.
• [Page 6]3. That yet for sundry other [...]s, it were perhaps much more expedient, if the word Sabbath (in that notion) were either not at all, or more sparingly used.

II. Concerning the Name, Dominica, or the Lords-day:

• 1. That it was taken up in memory of our Lord Christs Resurrection, and the great worke of our Redemption accom­plisht therein.
• 2. That it hath warrant from the Scripture: (Apoc. 1.10.) and hath beene of long continued use in the Christian Church, to signifie the first Day of the weeke, or Sunday.

III. Concerning the Name, Dies Solis, or Sunday:

• 1. That it is taken from the course of the Planets, as the Names of the other Dayes are: the reason whereof is to be learned from Astronomers.
• [Page 7]2. That it hath beene long and ge­nerally used in most parts of the world.
• 3. That it is not justly chargeable with Heathenisme: and that it proceed­eth from much weaknesse (at the least) if not rather superstition, that some men condemne the use of it, as prophane, heathenish, or unlawfull.

IIII. Of the fitnesse of the aforesaid three Names compar'd one with the other.

That according to the generall matter or occasion of speech, each of the three may be fitter in some respects, and more proper to be used then either of the o­ther two, viz. the Name Sabbath, when we speake of a time of Rest, indetermi­nate, and in generall, without reference to any particular Day. And the other two, when we speake determinately of that Day which is observ'd in the Chri­stian Church.

Of which two againe:

• 1. That, of the Lords-day, is fister in Theologicall and Ecclesiasticall use.
• 2. That of Sunday, in the Civill, Po­pular, and common use: yet so; as None of these three be condemned as ut­terly unlawfull, whatsoever the matter or occasion be; but that every man be left to his Christian liberty herein, so long as superiour authority restrains it not. Provided ever, that what he doth herein, he do without vanity or affe­ctation in himselfe, or uncharitable judg­ing or despising his brother, that doth otherwise then himselfe.

To the second Question.

The words of that Prayer (Lord have mercy, &c.) repeated after the fourth Commandement, evidently import (as in each of the other ten.)

I. An acknowledgement of three things: viz.

• 1. That the words of that particular Commandment containe a law where­to we are subject.
• 2. That it is our bounden dutie to endeavour with our utmost power to keepe the said law.
• 3. That our naughty hearts have of themselves no inclination to keepe it, till God by the worke of his grace encline them thereto.

II. A double supplication: viz.

• 1 For Mercy in respect of the time [Page 10]past, because we have faild of our boun­den duty heretofore.
• 2 For Grace, in respect of the time to come, that we may performe our duties better hereafter.

But how farre forth, the words of the fourth Commandement are to be taken as a Law binding Christians, and by what authority they have that binding power, is the maine difficulty.

For the resolution whereof, it may suffice every sober-minded Christian to understand the Prayer appointed by the Church, in that meaning which the words immediately import; and without over curious enquiry into those things which are more disputable, to beleeve these few points following, which ought to be taken as certaine, and grant­ed, amongst Christians: viz.

• 1 That no part of the Law, deliver­ed by Moses to the Iews, doth binde Chri­stians under the Gospell, as by vertue of [Page 11]that Delivery, no not the 10. Comman­dements themselves: but least of all, the Fourth, which all confesse to be (at least) in some part, ceremoniall.
• 2 That the particular determination of the time, to the seventh day of the weeke, was ceremoniall; and so the obl [...] ­gation of the fourth Commandement in that respect (though it were Juris Di­vini positivi to the Iew) is ceased, toge­ther with other legall Ceremonies since the publishing of the Gospell, and binds not Christian consciences.
• 3 That the substance of the fourth Commandement in the generall, (viz. that some certaine time should be set a­part from secular employments, to be sanctifide to an holy rest for the better attending on Gods publick and solemne worship) is Morall and perpetuall; and of Divine Right, as a branch of the law of Nature, whereto Christians under the Gospel are still bound.
• [Page 12]4 That, de facto, the Lords-day or Sunday is the time appointed to us, for that purpose, by such sufficient Autho­rity, as we stand bound in conscience to obey: Absque hoc, whether that Autho­rity be immediately Divine, or mediate­ly, through the power of the Church.

This is sufficient to regulate the judge­ment and conscience of every ordinary Christian: yet, it is not unlawfull for Scholars soberly and fairely to argue and debate (a little further) matters which are questionable, for the better finding out of the truth. And

The points are two: viz.

• 1 Concerning the observation of a weekly Sabbath, whether it be of neces­sitie, to keepe one day of every seven: and by what right we are tyed so to do.
• 2 Concerning the change of the Iewish Sabbath into the Lords-day, and by what Authority it was done.

[Page 13] I. Touching the observation of a weekly Sabbath, there are these three different opinions: viz.

• 1. That it is de jure Naturali, as a branch properly of the Law of Nature.
• 2 That it is properly and directly de jure Divino positivo, establisht by Gods expresse positive ordinance in his word.
• 3 That it is meerly de jure Humano & Ecclesiastico, introduced by Authoritie, and establisht by the custome and con­sent of the Catholicke Church.

Touching which three opinions, I leave it to the judicious to consider,

• 1 Whether the last of them might not happe to be of evill consequence, by lea­ving it in the power of every particular Church, at her pleasure to change the old proportion of one in seven (which hath continued ever since Moses) into any other greater or lesse proportion of time.
• [Page 14]2 Whether the two former opinions (though they indeed avoid that incon­venience) do not yet stand on such weak grounds otherwise, that they are by ma­ny degrees more improbable then the third.
• 3 Whether a fourth opinion going in the middle way might not be proposde with greater probability, and entertain'd with better safety then any of the for­mer three: viz. That the keeping holy of one day in seven, is of Divine Posi­tive Right; taking jus Divinum in a large signification, not for that which is pri­marily, properly, and directly such, ac­cording to the tenour of the second opi­nion: but including withall, that which is secundarily, consequently, and analo­gically such.

For the better understanding where­of, we are to consider,

• 1 That those things are de jure Divi­no in the first and strict sense, which ei­ther [Page 15]are enjoynd by the expresse ordi­nance and command of God in his holy word: or may be deduced therefrom, by necessarie, evident, and demonstrative Illation. In which sense, there are not very many things de Iure Divino, in the New Testament.
• 2 That for a thing to be de jure Di­vino in the latter and larger sense, it suffi­ceth, that it may be by humane discourse upon Reasons of congruity, probably deduced from the Word of God, as a thing most convenient to be observed by all such as desire unfainedly to order their wayes according to Gods holy will.
• 3 This kinde of jus Divinum may be reasonably discern'd by the concur­rence of all or the chiefest of these foure things following: viz.
  • 1 A foundation of equity for the thing, in generall, either in the Law of Nature, or by vertue of Divine Institu­tion.
  • [Page 16]2 An Analogy held for the particular determination, with such laws and dire­ctions as were given to the Iewish peo­ple in the old Testament, so farre as the Reason of equity holds alike.
  • 3 Some probable insinuations there­of in the Scripture of the new Testa­ment.
  • 4 The continued practise of the Chri­stian Church, so farre as the condition of the times in the seuerall Ages thereof would permit: for, Lex currit cum praxi.
• Fourthly, that all these do in some measure concurre for the observation of a weekly Sabbath: as upon examina­tion of the severall particulars, will easily appeare.

This distinction of Ius Divinum is to be observed the rather, because it may be of very good use (if rightly understood and applyed.)

• 1 For cutting off, the most materiall instances usually brought by the Ro­mish [Page 17]party for maintenance of their unwritten traditions.

• Secondly, for the clearing of some, and silencing of other some controver­sies in the Church disputed Pro & Con with much heat, viz.

  • 1 The government of the Church by Bishops.
  • 2 The distinction of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.
  • 3 The exercise of Ecclesiasticall cen­sures, as suspension, excommunication, &c.
  • 4 The building and consecrating of Churches for Divine service.
  • 5 The assembly of Synods upon needfull occasions, for maintenance of the truth, and setling of Church-af­faires.
  • 6 Prohibition of Marriages to be made within certaine degrees of consan­guinity and affinity.
  • 7 Baptizing of Infants born of Chri­stian [Page 18]Parents.
  • 8

    Maintenance of the Clergie by Tythes. And sundry other things.

    Some of which (have beene doubted of) in that prime and proper sense, but yet all or most of them in my under­standing seeme at least to be de Iure Di­vino, in the latter and larger sence and signification.

• Thirdly, For the right bounding of the Churches power, that she be neither denyed her lawfull liberty in some things, nor yet assume to her selfe a grea­ter power then of right belongs to her, in other some: For,
  • 1 In things that are meerly de Iure Humano, every particular Church hath power in her selfe from time to time to order and alter them at her pleasure, and may exercise that Power, when shee thinks fit.
  • 2 Things that are de iure Divino in that first sense, the universall Church [Page 19]may not (much lesse any Particular) at all take upon her to alter: but must ob­serve them inviolably, whatever neces­sities or distresses she be put to.
  • 3 Things that are de iure Divino in the latter sense, every particular Church (but much more the universall) hath power to alter in case of necessitie: but the exercise of that power is so limited to extraordinary cases, that it may not be safe for her at all to exercise it, unlesse it be for the avoiding of mighty inconve­niences not otherwise to be avoided.

II. As for the other controversed Point, touching the change of the Day from the last of the weeke or Saturday (which was the Iews Sabbath) to the first of the Weeke, or Sunday, which is our Lords­day: my opinion is, that the observation of the Lords day among Christians, in­stead of the Iewish Sabbath;

• [Page 20]1 Is not grounded on any Command given by Christ to his Apostles.
• 2 Nor yet upon any Apostolicke In­stitution given by the Apostles to the Churches in that behalfe: but;
• 3 That it was taken up by the succee­ding Church, partly in imitation of some of the Apostles who used, especially, in the Churches of the Gentiles; (for in the Churches of the Iews the old Sab­bath was still observed) to celebrate their holy Assemblies the first Day of the weeke in honour of Christ and his Resurrection: and partly for avoiding of Iudaisme, wherewith false teachers in those first times were ever and anon attempting to enthrall the Christian Church.
• 4 That the observation of the Lords­day having beene confirmed by so many Constitutions, Ecclesiasticall, and Impe­riall; and having, withall, continued with such uniforme consent through [Page 21]the whole Christian world for so many Ages ever since the Apostles times, the Church (not to dispute what she may or may not do ex plenitudine potestatis) ought not to attempt the altering of it, to any other Day of the weeke.

To the third Question: Touching Recreations.

IN this matter much need not to be said, there being little difficultie in it; and his Majesties last Declara­tion in that behalfe, having put it past Disputation: I say then;

• First, for the thing. No man can rea­sonably condemne the moderate use of lawfull Recreations on the Lords-day, as simply & de toto genere unlaw­full.
• Secondly, for the kinde: Albeit there can be no certaine Rules given herein [Page 24](as in most indifferent things it comes to passe) by reason of the infinite varie­tie of circumstances, to fit with all par­ticular cases; but that still, much must be left to private Discretion: yet, for some Directions in this Point, respect would be had (in the choice of our Recrea­tions.)
  • 1 To the publicke Lawes of the State: Such Games or sports as are by Law prohibited, though in themselves otherwise lawfull, being unlawfull to them that are under obedience of the Law.
  • 2 To the condition of the Person. Walking and Discoursing which to men of liberall education, is a pleasant Re­creation, is no way delightsome to the ruder sort of people, who scarce account any thing a sport which is not loud and boisterous.
  • 3 To the effects of the Recreations themselves: Those, being the meetest [Page 25]to be used, which give the best Refresh­ing to the Bodie, and leave the least im­pression in the Minde. In this respect, Shooting, Leaping, pitching the Barre, Stoole-ball, &c. are rather to be chosen then Dicing, and Carding.
• Thirdly, for the Vse. That men would be exhorted to use their Recrea­tions and Pastimes on the Lords-day in godly and commendable sort: For which purpose, amongst others, these Cautions would be remembred.
  • 1 That they be used with great mo­deration, as at all other times, so espe­cially, and much more on the Lords-Day.
  • 2 That they be used at seasonable times, not in time of Divine Ser­vice.
  • 3 That they be so used, as they may rather make men fitter for Gods Ser­vice the rest of the Day, and for the [Page 26]Works of their Vocation the rest of the weeke, then any way hinder or disable them therto by over-wearying the Bo­die, or immoderately affecting the Minde.
  • 4 That they use them not doubt­ingly: for whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sinne. Hee therefore that is not satis­fied in his owne judgement, that he may lawfully, and without sinne, use bodily Recreations on the Lords-day, ought by all meanes to forbeare the Vse thereof, lest he sinne against his owne conscience.
  • 5 That they bee severer towards themselves then towards others, in the use of their Christian libertie herein: not making their owne opinion or pra­ctise, a Rule to their Brethren. In this, as in all other indifferent things, a wise and charitable Man will in godly wise­dome denie himselfe many times the [Page 27]Vse of that Libertie, which in godly Charitie hee dare not denie to his Bro­ther.