A37049:986
A37049:986
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.
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 1 Cor. 11.20, 21. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 is opposed to 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, even as this First day, called the Lords day is opposed to our dayes 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 shewing 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 shewn, but I mean this, that it will inferr 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.
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.
The precept is, sanctify it, or keep it holy, sanctifying of it is twice mentioned in this command, 1. In the end, it's said God hallowed or sanctified it, that is by separation, destination and appointment for holy uses, and as a part of worship, so he sanctified the Temple, Altar, &c. not by infusing any holiness in them, but by appointing them for holy uses; Thus only God can sanctify a day, or any other thing, so as to make it a part of worship, and no man or power on earth what somever can do that. 2 In the precept it self we are commanded to sanctify it, that is, by the application of it unto the uses wherefore he hath set it apart; thus we sanctify what he hath sanctified when we use it and employ it according to his appointment. And so we are to consider, the sanctifying of this day in these duties called for from us on it.
The precept is, sanctifie it, or keep it holy, sanctifying of it is twice mentioned in this command, 1. In the end, it's said God hallowed or sanctified it, that is by separation, destination and appointment for holy uses, and as a part of worship, so he sanctified the Temple, Altar, &c. not by infusing any holiness in them, but by appointing them for holy uses; Thus only God can sanctifie a day, or any other thing, so as to make it a part of worship, and no man or power on earth what somever can do that. 2 In the precept it self we are commanded to sanctifie it, that is, by the application of it unto the uses wherefore he hath set it apart; thus we sanctifie what he hath sanctified when we use it and imploy it according to his appointment. And so we are to consider, the sanctifying of this day in these duties called for from us on it.
This sanctification is two ways set down, 1. In its cessation and rest, separating it from other uses, and so keeping it from the common uses, to which other days may and use to be applied: 2. In its special application to and employment in holy uses.
This sanctification is two wayes set down, 1. In its cessation and rest, separating it from other uses, and so keeping it from the common uses, to which other dayes may and use to be applied: 2. In its special application to and imployment in holy uses.
For clearness we shall consider this sanctification, 1. In respect of its rest, what we are to abstain from▪ 2. Comparatively, with that strictness call •ed for from the Jews: 3. Eminently, what is required more as to holiness this day then on other days wherein also the Lords people should be holy? and wherein this go ••• beyond these? 4. Positively, •n what ⟨p. 277⟩duties it should be taken up: 5. Complexly, in respect of what is called for to the right sanctifying of that day before it come on, in the time of it, and after it is past, and that in public and private, and by all relations, Master, Servant, &c. and throughout the whole man, thoughts, words, and deeds, and throughout the whole day: 6. Oppositively, or negatively, what are the breaches of this command, and the aggravations of these sins which break it.
For clearness we shall consider this sanctification, 1. In respect of its rest, what we are to abstain from▪ 2. Comparatively, with that strictness cal •ed for from the Jevvs: 3. Eminently, vvhat is required more as to holiness this day then on other daies vvherein also the Lords people should be holy? and vvherein this go ••• beyond these? 4. Positively, •n vvhat ⟨p. 277⟩duties it should be taken up: 5. Complexly, in respect of vvhat is called for to the right sanctifying of that day before it come on, in the time of it, and after it is past, and that in publick and private, and by all relations, Master, Servant, &c. and throughout the vvhole man, thoughts, vvords, and deeds, and throughout the vvhole day: 6. Oppositively, or negatively, vvhat are the breaches of this command, and the aggravations of these sins vvhich break it.
First then, we consider it in its rest, which is required; and because there are extremes, some giving it too little, as the Jews did before the captivity; some too much, even to being superstitious, as the Jews after the Captivity, and the Scribes and Pharisees particularly in Christs time did; stretching this rest too far. We must therefore consider it more narrowly and particularly for quieting of our Consciences, for the Jews are by the Prophets Ezek. 20. Jer. 17. and by Christ, Matth. 12. reproved for both extremes respectively.
First then, vve consider it in its rest, vvhich is required; and because there are extreams, some giving it too little, as the Jevvs did before the captivity; some too much, even to being superstitious, as the Jevvs after the Captivity, and the Scribes and Pharisees particularly in Christs time did; stretching this rest too farr. We must therefore consider it more narrovvly and particularly for quieting of our Consciences, for the Jews are by the Prophets Ezek. 20. Jer. 17. and by Christ, Matth. 12. reproved for both extremes respectively.
We do then in this matter assert first, That there is a rest required here, which is extensive to a mans words, thoughts, and actions, whereby many things lawful on other days, become unlawful on this day.
We do then in this matter assert first, That there is a rest required here, which is extensive to a mans words, thoughts, and actions, whereby many things lawful on other dayes, become unlawful on this day.
Yet 2. we assert, That by this rest all sort of actions are not condemned, but only such as are inconsistent with the end and scope of this command; as by other Scriptures, and the practice of Christ and the Saints is clear: we conceive therefore these to be permitted.
1. All duties of Piety, as was sacrificing under the Old Testament, or preaching, hearing or going about the Sacraments under the New Testament: In which sense, Matth. 12. our Lord saith, the Priests profaned the Sabbath and were blameless, not that formally they profaned the Sabbath, or did indeed break that command, but materially they wrought in killing beasts, &c. which had been unlawful, had it not been in the exercises of piety.
1. All duties of Piety, as was sacrificing under the Old Testament, or preaching, hearing or going about the Sacraments under the New Testament: In which sense, Matth. 12. our Lord saith, the Priests prophaned the Sabbath and were blameless, not that formally they prophaned the Sabbath, or did indeed break that command, but materially they wrought in killing beasts, &c. which had been unlawful, had it not been in the exercises of piety.
2. All things that have a tendency, as necessary helps and means to the performance of the former works of piety, are lawful, as going to the Congregation to hear the Law, calling the Assembly for worship by Trumpets, or Bells, or by a Voice, Journeying, going or riding to Church, &c. because ⟨p. 278⟩the duties of the Sabbath cannot well be done without some of these, nor at all without others of them.
2. All things that have a tendencie, as necessary helps and means to the performance of the former works of piety, are lawful, as going to the Congregation to hear the Law, calling the Assembly for worship by Trumpets, or Bells, or by a Voice, Journeying, going or riding to Church, &c. because ⟨p. 278⟩the duties of the Sabbath cannot well be done without some of these, nor at all without others of them.
If it should be asked here, What that, which is called a Sabbaths day Journey, Acts 1.12. was among the Jews? and whence it came, and what way may it be stinted or limited among Christians? Answ. It was to them 2000 Cubits, which according to the different measuring of that distance of ground consisting of these 2000 Cubits by a lesser or longer Cubi •, is reckoned to be more or less by learned Men; but all agree (says Goodwin in his Moses and Aaron) in this, that these 2000 Cubits was a Sabbath days Journey.
If it should be asked here, What that, which is called a Sabbaths day Journey, Acts 1.12. was among the Jews? and whence it came, and what way may it be stinted or limited among Christians? Answ. It was to them 2000 Cubits, which according to the different measuring of that distance of ground consisting of these 2000 Cubits by a lesser or longer Cubi •, is reckoned to be more or less by learned Men; but all agree (saies Goodwin in his Moses and Aaron) in this, that these 2000 Cubits was a Sabbath daies Journey.
It arose to be reckoned so from these grounds; 1. From their expounding Exod. 16.29. Let none go out of his place; thus, Let none go without the bounds of the City, which with its Suburbs was 2000 Cubits, or a mile about. 2. That the Tabernacle of the Congregation was so far from the Tents of these who pitched about it in the Wilderness, Numb. 2. as they supposed; and that the Priests kept that distance from the people in entering with the Ark into Jordan, Jos. 3.4. whence they gathered that a man might still go to the Ark or place of worship, as it was then in these cases at a distance from them, and no further on the Sabbath day.
But we say whatever superstitiously or on custom they took up (for that is but their Tradition) we cannot stint a Sabbath days journey to so many miles, fewer or more, but it must be as the man is in providence cast to reside further from, or nearer to the place where the Ordinances are dispensed; for one may go many miles and not profane the Sabbath, if he cannot have the public Ordinances nearer, whereas another may break the Sabbath by going but to his Neighbours door, yea by walking in his own house, or to his door, if either it be done idly, or with respect to another civil or worldly end, which agreeth not to that day; it is not here remoteness or nearness, but what swayeth us, and what is our end, that we are to try by.
But we say whatever superstitiously or on custome they took up (for that is but their Tradition) we cannot stint a Sabbath daies journey to so many miles, fewer or more, but it must be as the man is in providence cast to reside further from, or nearer to the place where the Ordinances are dispensed; for one may go many miles and not prophane the Sabbath, if he cannot have the publick Ordinances nearer, whereas another may break the Sabbath by going but to his Neighbours door, yea by walking in his own house, or to his door, if either it be done idly, or with respect to another civil or worldly end, which agreeth not to that day; it is not here remoteness or nearness, but what sweyeth us, and what is our end, that we are to try by.