A37049:975
A37049:975
London: printed for Dorman Newman, 1675
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
6. That the mentioning of the First Day of the week must be looked on, as relating to, and as compared with, the practise of keeping solemn meetings on that day, and this command ⟨p. 270⟩of doing this on the First day of the week must be more strong, and infer somewhat more being compared with other places, then if such things were not recorded other ways of the First day.
7. This command supposeth them to be already acquainted with some special privileges of the First day beyond others, when he commendeth this as a motive to them to be more charitable, to wit, that it was to be done on that day.
7. This command supposeth them to be already acquainted with some special priviledges of the First day beyond others, when he commendeth this as a motive to them to be more charitable, to wit, that it was to be done on that day.
8. That there must be some peculiar thing in this day making it fit, yea more fit for such a purpose, as doing works of Charity on it; rather then on any other: And the Apostles commanding this (and that in many Churches) doth necessarily presuppose a reason why he doth it, drawn from some fitness of this day by another. Now if we will enquire, no reason can be given but that the Seventh day, Sabbath was expired, and that this First day was instituted in it's place, for otherwise any day was alike; yea the Seventh day being the last day of the week, and the day when men usually reckon their weeks success, it would seem more reasonable for this end, that men at the close of the week should lay up by them, as God had blessed them, then to reserve it, to the beginning of another week, were not the First day more especially to be sanctified then the last, and the last to be accounted but an ordinary working day: The fitness then floweth from this, that the first day of the week being the day of their solemn Communion with God, and with one another, and the day of their partaking most liberally of spiritual blessings from him, that therefore they should be most readily warmed in their affections, and be most liberal in their Communications to such as wanted, especially if we consider the Jews to be parties for whom that Collection or Contribution was; It's the Apostles great Argument whereby he pleadeth for Charity to the poor Jews from the Christian Gentiles, Rom. 15.26, 27. That the Gentiles were their Debtors in temporals, because they had received spiritual things from them; now this argument is most fresh and powerful, when believers do on the First day of the week record Gods privileging them with his Ordinances, and giving them his day in place of the Ordinances and day • which the Jews once had, and yet ⟨p. 271⟩deriving these unto them by the Jews, I say this Argument will then be most fresh to incite to that duty in particular.
8. That there must be some peculiar thing in this day making it fit, yea more fit for such a purpose, as doing works of Charity on it; rather then on any other: And the Apostles commanding this (and that in many Churches) doth necessarily presuppose a reason why he doth it, drawn from some fitness of this day by another. Now if we will enquire, no reason can be given but that the Seventh day, Sabbath was expired, and that this First day was instituted in it's place, for otherwise any day was alike; yea the Seventh day being the last day of the week, and the day when men usually reckon their weeks success, it would seem more reasonable for this end, that men at the close of the week should lay up by them, as God had blessed them, then to reserve it, to the beginning of another week, were not the First day more especially to be sanctifyed then the last, and the last to be accounted but an ordinary working day: The fitness then floweth from this, that the first day of the week being the day of their solemn Communion with God, and with one another, and the day of their partaking most liberally of spiritual blessings from him, that therefore they should be most readily warmed in their affections, and be most liberal in their Communications to such as wanted, especially if we consider the Jews to be parties for whom that Collection or Contribution was; It's the Apostles great Argument whereby he pleadeth for Charity to the poor Jews from the Christian Gentiles, Rom. 15.26, 27. That the Gentiles were their Debtors in temporals, because they had received spiritual things from them; now this argument is most fresh and powerful, when believers do on the First day of the week record Gods priviledging them with his Ordinances, and giving them his day in place of the Ordinances and day • which the Jews once had, and yet ⟨p. 271⟩deriving these unto them by the Jews, I say this Argument will then be most fresh to incite to that duty in particular.
If any say that it was accidental, that the first day was chosen or named rather then another, because one behoved to be named and it was alike which: But 1. I demand why is it universal? If it were from one Church only it might possibly, have been thought so, but he doth call for this Duty on that day from more Churches: 2. Why doth he not recommend it, but command it as having more then an indifferency in the very day: And 3. Can it be by guess or accident (to speak so) that so many privileges are fallen on that day? And that so many things are recorded of it, and astricted to it by commands, which is not done of, and to, any other days▪ And if one place would not suffice to prove, that the First day and not the Seventh day was preferred by the Apostles, as the chief day of solemn public worship, yet all these things put together must prove a preference in that day, or we must say that the Penmen of Holy Scripture have been very partial, who have marked many things, and recorded them concerning Gods Worship on that day, and have never so much as once for solemn Service named, what was done on the second, third, fourth, fifth days; we must either say, that this is inadvertently done (which were blasphemy considering by what Spirit they wrote) or we must say it's done to put a preference on that day, and to show that it's especially to be taken notice of, as the most solemn day for God's worship by Christians (which is the thing to be confirmed) for, the day that's claimed as the Lords, kept for him, and singularly marked to be privileged beyond other days, must be his day; but this First day is such, Ergo, &c.
If any say that it was accidental, that the first day was chosen or named rather then another, because one behoved to be named and it was alike which: But 1. I demand why is it universal? If it were from one Church only it might possibly, have been thought so, but he doth call for this Duty on that day from more Churches: 2. Why doth he not recommend it, but command it as having more then an indifferency in the very day: And 3. Can it be by guess or accident (to speak so) that so many priviledges are fallen on that day? And that so many things are recorded of it, and astricted to it by commands, which is not done of, and to, any other days And if one place would not suffice to prove, that the First day and not the Seventh day was preferred by the Apostles, as the chief day of solemn publick worship, yet all these things put together must prove a preference in that day, or we must say that the Penmen of Holy Scripture have been very partial, who have marked many things, and recorded them concerning Gods Worship on that day, and have never so much as once for solemn Service named, what was done on the second, third, fourth, fifth dayes; we must either say, that this is inadvertently done (which were blasphemy considering by what Spirit they wrote) or we must say it's done to put a preference on that day, and to shew that it's especially to be taken notice of, as the most solemn day for God's worship by Christians (which is the thing to be confirmed) for, the day that's claimed as the Lords, kept for him, and singularly marked to be priviledged beyond other days, must be his day; but this First day is such, Ergo, &c.
Propos. 5. This change of the day whereby the Seventh is laid aside, and the first substituted in its room, is of divine authority and institution; and not by any mere human or Ecclesiastic Constitution. I conceive there is indeed no mids here betwixt a divine Institution, which hath Gods warrant and authority stamped on it, and for Conscience sake is to be observed as being; obligatory thereof, and that immediately; and human or Ecclesiastic Constitutions, which may reach ⟨p. 272⟩the external m •n, but in the matters of worship cannot bind the Conscience or impose them as necessary: Now that this change is not by the last, but by the first, we prove these ways.
Propos. 5. This change of the day whereby the Seventh is laid aside, and the first substituted in its room, is of divine authority and institution; and not by any meer human or Ecclesiastick Constitution. I conceive there is indeed no mids here betwixt a divine Institution, which hath Gods warrant and authority stamped on it, and for Conscience sake is to be observed as being; obligatory thereof, and that immediately; and human or Ecclesiastick Constitutions, which may reach ⟨p. 272⟩the external m •n, but in the matters of worship cannot bind the Conscience or impose them as necessary: Now that this change is not by the last, but by the first, we prove these ways.
1. Thus, if it be not human or Ecclesiastic, t ••n it must be divine, but it is not human or Ecclesiastic, ergo it's divine: That it is not human will appear 1. If it reach the Conscience, and that immediately, then it's not human but divine, but it doth so. 2. If no man or Church on earth have power to alter Gods day, now, nay, nor simply, or at all, then it's not human or Ecclesiastic, but first, none can change it, as we might clear from great absurdities, that would follow. 2. If any Church have this power let them show it, the Old Church had it not, neither the new, as is cleared in the first question.
1. Thus, if it be not human or Ecclesiastick, t ••n it must be divine, but it is not human or Ecclesiastick, ergo it's divine: That it is not human will appear 1. If it reach the Conscience, and that immediately, then it's not human but divine, but it doth so. 2. If no man or Church on earth have power to alter Gods day, now, nay, nor simply, or at all, then it's not human or Ecclesiastick, but first, none can change it, as we might clear from great absurdities, that would follow. 2. If any Church have this power let them shew it, the Old Church had it not, neither the new, as is cleared in the first question.
2. We proceed to evince this change to be by divine institution these four ways.
1. From reasons flowing from Scripture, or Consequences drawn from it, 1. Thus, where by genuine and native Consequences drawn from Scripture any thing is so imposed, as it cannot without sin be altered or neglected, there is a divine institution; but in the change of the Seventh day-Sabbath to the First such Consequences may be drawn from Scripture, as will (upon supposition of the change) a strict it to the First day, so as that cannot be altered or neglected without sin, Ergo, it's of divine institution: The question can be only of the minor, which is made out from what is said in the third Proposition, thus,
If these very grounds which plead the conveniency of the change simply, do plead the conveniency of that change to the First day, then by clear and unforced Consequence, the first day is chosen and cannot without sin be passed by, altered or neglected, except we say these reasons have no weight; but these very grounds will be found to plead for, and to be applicable to, the First day of the week a lonely: and therefore beside all other days in the new world it m •y be called the day, which God specially made, as it is the day of Christs rest from the work of Redemption, answerable to Gods rest a •ter the Cr •tion, &c. and therefore as being most conducible ⟨p. 273⟩to that end, the First day cannot be without sin past by neglected or altered.
If these very grounds which plead the conveniency of the change simply, do plead the conveniency of that change to the First day, then by clear and unforced Consequence, the first day is chosen and cannot without sin be passed by, altered or neglected, except we say these reasons have no weight; but these very grounds will be found to plead for, and to be applicable to, the First day of the week a lonely: and therefore beside all other days in the new world it m •y be called the day, which God specially made, as it is the day of Christs rest from the work of Redemption, answerable to Gods rest a •ter the Cre •tion, &c. and therefore as being most conducible ⟨p. 273⟩to that end, the First day cannot be without sin past by neglected or altered.
2. Thus, if the very day of Christs rest in the new world be to be rested on, and sanctified as the Sabbath, then the First day is to be rested on and sanctified; but by Analogy from the works of Creation, we may see that the First day of rest after the finishing of the work of Redemption is to be sanctified, Ergo, &c. and Psal. 118. is very considerable to this purpose, wherein there is 1. a Prophecy of Christ. 2. Of a day which God hath singularly made for us to joy in. 3. That day is the day wherein the rejected stone is made the head of the corner, which day is clear from Rom. 1.4. to be the resurrection day; yea suppose that day there doth signify the time of the Gospel, wherein we should joy, yet even that way, the First day is by proportion that day eminently, wherein Christs Victory was manifested, and so the day wherein Christians ought especially to rejoice.
2. Thus, if the very day of Christs rest in the new world be to be rested on, and sanctified as the Sabbath, then the First day is to be rested on and sanctified; but by Analogy from the works of Creation, we may see that the First day of rest after the finishing of the work of Redemption is to be sanctified, Ergo, &c. and Psal. 118. is very considerable to this purpose, wherein there is 1. a Prophecy of Christ. 2. Of a day which God hath singularly made for us to joy in. 3. That day is the day wherein the rejected stone is made the head of the corner, which day is clear from Rom. 1.4. to be the resurrection day; yea suppose that day there doth signifie the time of the Gospel, wherein we should joy, yet even that way, the First day is by proportion that day eminently, wherein Christs Victory was manifested, and so the day wherein Christians ought especially to rejoyce.
The second way we may reason for the change to be by divine Institution, is from this command: If (supposing still a change) by the morality of this command, the Seventh can be changed into no day but the first day of the week, then is the change into the first day, of divine institution (for so that must necessarily be, which is by virtue of a command) but by this command no other day can be admitted; for each week is divided in six working days, and these together to us, and one of rest and that to God; now by changing it to the First God getteth one and we six and that together; but if the day were the second, third, fourth, &c. it would not be so; for the six working days would be interrupted, which is contrary to that morality of the Command, whereby our days are distinguished from his, that ours, for one week being fully by, we may with the greater freedom give God his.
The second way we may reason for the change to be by divine Institution, is from this command: If (supposing still a change) by the morality of this command, the Seventh can be changed into no day but the first day of the week, then is the change into the first day, of divine institution (for so that must necessarily be, which is by vertue of a command) but by this command no other day can be admitted; for each week is divided in six working days, and these together to us, and one of rest and that to God; now by changing it to the First God getteth one and we six and that together; but if the day were the second, third, fourth, &c. it would not be so; for the six working days would be interrupted, which is contrary to that morality of the Command, whereby our days are distinguished from his, that ours, for one week being fully by, we may with the greater freedom give God his.
The third way we take to prove the change of the day to be by divine Institution is this • If by the practise of the Apostles, who were guided and inspired by the Spirit in things belonging to their Office infallible, this day was observed as different from other days; then there is a divine institution of, and warrant for, this day; but by the practise of the Apos •les this day is celebrated as different from, and preferred ⟨p. 274⟩to, other days, or as divine, therefore it's of divine Institution; If the divine practise and example of the Apostles in things moral and common to all, do not either suppose a divine antecedent institution, or infer a subsequent, then their practise and example, which in these things is infallible and unerring, will have no more force then the example of others, which were absurd, their examples being especially pressed on us; and if in any thing their example be divine, it must be in this so particularly and so well circumstantiated; and where their meeting is not recorded to have been on any other second, third, &c. day, certainly their practise must be not only more then nothing, but very significant; and indeed in positive worship, the Lord hath been pleased to be more sparing (to say so) and to leave us more to gather from Examples then in negatives, as in the positive part of swearing, admitting of Church members, in government, baptism and admission to the Supper, yet none can say that there is no Scripture-institution in these, where there may be such grounds or examples.
4. The divine Institution of the chang may be argued from the title thus, if that which is called the Lords, be his by divine institution and separation from other things not so called; then this first day must be his by divine institution and separation from other days, but all that is called the Lords, is his after this manner, Ergo, Let the minor be confirmed these three ways, 1. By looking to what is called the Lords generally in the Old Testament, as his house, his Altar, his Priests, his Tithes, &c. are they not still his, because by him separate for distinct uses in his worship: 2. By looking more particularly, how the Seventh day was called his day, or the Sabbath his, is not this the reason, because it was appointed by him for his worship beside other days? And can can any reason agree better to this? 3. By looking how any thing is called the Lords in the New Testament, there is no other or better phrase or designation to try by, then that 1 Cor. 11.20, 21. [Greek or Hebrew] is opposed to [Greek or Hebrew], even as this First day, called the Lords day is opposed to our days or common days, and that is called the Lords Supper, because instituted by him, for such and such spiritual ends and uses: And ⟨p. 275⟩therefore there can be no better ground gotten for showing why this is called the Lords day beside others, th •n by comparing it with other Scriptures, and if in other things that phrase import a divine institution, why not in this? I do not mean that this is an institution, or that it will prove that there must be a clear and express institution shown, but I mean this, that it will infer there is one, and that it is divine, seeing God is to choose and not we. We might here again produce the four Witnesses already attested for the morality of this fourth Command, to wit, 1. the general practise of primitive Christians, 2. their general opinion and judgment, 3. mens consciences, 4. the dispensations of God; which will also all clearly depone in this, about the change of the day.
4. The divine Institution of the chang may be argued from the title thus, if that which is called the Lords, be his by divine institution and separation from other things not so called; then this first day must be his by divine institution and separation from other days, but all that is called the Lords, is his after this manner, Ergo, Let the minor be confirmed these three ways, 1. By looking to what is called the Lords generally in the Old Testament, as his house, his Altar, his Priests, his Tithes, &c. are they not still his, because by him separate for distinct uses in his worship: 2. By looking more particularly, how the Seventh day was called his day, or the Sabbath his, is not this the reason, because it was appointed by him for his worship beside other days? And can can any reason agree better to this? 3. By looking how any thing is called the Lords in the New Testament, there is no other or better phrase or designation to try by, then that
Propos. 6. Although we know not the peremptory and precise time when this day was instituted, and the very first day sanctified, nor whether it was immediately by Christ, or mediately from him by the Apostles instituted, which is of no great concernment to the main of its institution; yet we think it most probable that our Lord did from the very day of his Resurrection either himself institute it, while as Acts i. v. 3. he taught them what concerned the Kingdom of God; or did inspire his Apostles to observe it from that time forth; Because, 1. If it was not then instituted, the Church had for some time wanted a Sabbath, the Seventh-day-Sabbath being expired by the Resurrection. 2. The reason moving the change and preferring the First day before others as in a nearer capacity of sanctification for that end, was from that time forth. 3. The Apostles practise of meeting; and Christs keeping with them, hath been from the first change, even on the first two first days of the week, John 20.19, 26. 4. All the practises and other grounds whereby the change is evidenced, suppose still the institution to precede; which maketh i • appear to be very ancient.
Propos. 6. Although we know not the peremptory and precise time when this day was instituted, and the very first day sanctified, nor whether it was immediately by Christ, or mediately from him by the Apostles instituted, which is of no great concernment to the main of its institution; yet we think it most probable that our Lord did from the very day of his Resurrection either himself institute it, while as Acts i. v. 3. he taught them what concerned the Kingdom of God; or did inspire his Apostles to observe it from that time forth; Because, 1. If it was not then instituted, the Church had for some time wanted a Sabbath, the Seventh-day-Sabbath being expired by the Resurrection. 2. The reason moving the change and preferring the First day before others as in a nearer capacity of sanctification for that end, was from that time forth. 3. The Apostles practise of meeting; and Christs keeping with them, hath been from the first change, even on the first two first dayes of the week, John 20.19, 26. 4. All the practises and other grounds whereby the change is evidenced, suppose still the institution to precede; which maketh i appear to be very ancient.
And so we resume and close these six propositions, 1. The day may be changed from the last to the first: 2. It's meet it should be so, and there is good reason for it: 3. It can only be to the First: 4. It's so changed actually: 5. It's change is not by Human, but by Divine institution: 6. Its institution ⟨p. 276⟩seemeth to be from the rise of the Gospel Church, and the very day of Christs Resurrection. Hence we infer 1. Good warrant, even Gods warrant for employing the Seventh day to our selves, seeing God seeketh but one day in Seven, and now has chosen and claimeth the First. 2. Gods warrant for sanctifying the First-day-Sabbath or the Lords day as his institution. 3. That the Lords day is to be sanctified by us Christians, and that by virtue of this command, as the Seventh day was by the Jews on its grounds.
And so we resume and close these six propositions, 1. The day may be changed from the last to the first: 2. It's meet it should be so, and there is good reason for it: 3. It can only be to the First: 4. It's so changed actually: 5. It's change is not by Human, but by Divine institution: 6. Its institution ⟨p. 276⟩seemeth to be from the rise of the Gospel Church, and the very day of Christs Resurrection. Hence vve infer 1. Good vvarrant, even Gods vvarrant for imploying the Seventh day to our selves, seeing God seeketh but one day in Seven, and novv has chosen and claimeth the First. 2. Gods vvarrant for sanctifying the First-day-Sabbath or the Lords day as his institution. 3. That the Lords day is to be sanctified by us Christians, and that by vertue of this command, as the Seventh day vvas by the Jevvs on its grounds.
We come now to speak of the sanctification of this day, which is the main thing, and for which all the rest is intended, we shall first consider the precept, and then 2. the reasons whereby it is enforced.
We come novv to speak of the sanctification of this day, vvhich is the main thing, and for vvhich all the rest is intended, vve shall first consider the precept, and then 2. the reasons vvhereby it is inforced.