To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
V. The words of that Prayer, [Lord have mercy, &c.] repeated after the fourth Commandment, do evidently import, as they do in each of the other ten.
1. An acknowledgment of three things, viz.
1. That the words of that particular Commandment contain in them a Law, whereunto we are subject.
2. That it is our bounden duty to en∣deavour with our utmost power to keep the said Law.
3. That our naughty hearts have (of themselves) no inclination to keep it,
until God, by the work of his Grace, shall incline them thereunto.
2. A double supplication, viz.
1. For Mercy, in respect of the time past, because we have failed of boun∣den duty heretofore.
2. For Grace, in respect of the time to come, that we may perform our duties better hereafter.
VI. But how far forth the words of the fourth Commandment are to be taken as a Law binding Christians, and by what au∣thority they have that binding power, is the main difficulty.
For the resolution whereof, it may suf∣fice every sober minded Christian, to un∣derstand the Prayer appointed by the Church, in that meaning which the words do immediately import; and without o∣ver-curious inquiry into those things that are more disputable, to believe these few points following, which ought to be ta∣ken as certain and granted amongst Chri∣stians; viz.
1. That no part of the Law delivered by Moses to the Jews, doth bind Chri∣stians under the Gospel, as by virtue of that delivery; no, not the ten Com∣mandments
themselves, but least of all the fourth, which all confess to be (at least) in some part Ceremonial.
2. That the particular determination of the time to the seventh day of the week, was Ceremonial: And so the ob∣ligation of the fourth Commandment in that respect, (although it were Juris divini positivi to the Jew, yet) is cea∣sed together with other legal Ceremo∣nies since the publishing of the Go∣spel, and bindeth not Christian Con∣sciences.
3. That the substance of the fourth Commandment in the general, (viz. that some certain time should be set apart from secular imployments, and to be sanctified to an holy rest, for the better attending upon Gods's pub∣lick and solemn worship) is moral and perpetual, and of Divine right, as a branch of the Law of Nature, whereunto Christians under the Gospel are still bound.
4. That de facto, The Lord's-day, or Sunday, is the time appointed to us for that purpose by such sufficient Authori∣ty, as we stand bound in Conscience
to obey: abs{que} hoc, whether that Autho∣rity be immediately Divine, or but mediately through the power of the Church.
This is sufficient to regulate the Judg∣ment and Conscience of every ordinary Christian; yet is it not unlawful for Scho∣lars (soberly and fairly) to argue and de∣bate a little farther matters which are questionable, for the better finding out of the Truth.
And the points in this Argument that are most in controversie, are these two, viz.
1. Concerning the observation of a weekly Sabbath; whether it be of ne∣cessity to keep one day of every seven? And by what right we ate tied so to do?
2. Concerning the change of the Jewish Sabbath into the Lord's day; and by what Authority it was done.
VII. As touching the observation of a weekly Sabbath, there are these three dif∣ferent 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, established by God's express positive Ordinance in his Word.
3. That it is merely de jure humano & Ec∣clesiastico; introduced by Authority, and established by the custom and consent of the Catholick Church.
Touching which three opinions, I leave it to the judicious to consider.
1. Whether the last of them might not hap to be of evil consequence, by leaving it in the power of the Church, at her plea∣sure to change the old proportion of one in seven, (which hath continued ever since the days of Moses) into any other greater or lesser proportion of time?
2. Whether the two former opinions (though they do indeed avoid that incon∣venience) do not yet stand upon such weak grounds, otherwise that they are by many degrees more improbable than the third.
3. Whether a fourth opinion going in a middle way, might not be proposed with greater probability, and entertained with better safety than 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 only which is primarily, properly, and directly such, according to the tenor of the second opinion; but including withal that which is Secondarily, Consequently, and Analogically such.
VIII. For the better understanding whereof, we are to consider;
1. That those things are de jure divi∣no in the first and strict sense: which ei∣ther,
1. Are enjoyned by the express Ordi∣nance and Commandment of God in his holy Word; or else,
2. May be deduced there-from by ne∣cessary, evident, and demonstrative illa∣tion.
In which sense, there are not many things de jure divino under the New Testa∣ment.
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 rea∣sons of Congruity probably deduced from the Word of God, as a thing most conve∣nient to be observed by all such as desire unfeignedly to order their ways according to God's holy Will.
3. That this kind of Jus divinum may be
reasonably discerned by the concurrence of all, or the chiefest of these four things following, viz.
1. A foundation of Equity for the thing in general, either in the Law of Nature, or by vertue of Divine Institu∣tion.
2. An Analogie held for the parti∣cular determination, with such Laws and directions as were given to the Jewish people in the Old Testament, so far as the reason of Equity holdeth alike.
3. Some probable insinuations there∣of in the Scriptures of the New Testa∣ment.
4. The continued practice of the Chri∣stian Church, so far as the condition of the times in the several Ages thereof would permit. For, Lex currit cum praxi.
4. That all these do in some measure concur for the observation of a weekly Sabbath; as upon the examination of the several particulars will easily appear.
IX. This distinction of Jus divinum is to be observed the rather. because it may be of very good use, (if rightly understood and applied.)
1. For cutting off the most material in∣stances,
which are usually brought by the Romish Party for the maintenance of their unwritten Traditions.
2. For the clearing of some, and the silencing of other some Controversies in the Church, which are disputaed pro and con with much heat; as, viz. concerning,
1. The Government of the Church by Bishops.
2. The Distinction of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
3. The Exercise of Ecclesiastical Cen∣sures, as Suspension, Excommunication, &c.
4. The Building and Consecrating of Churches for the service of God.
5. The assembling of Synods upon need∣ful occasions, for the maintenance of the Truth, and for the settling of Church Affairs.
6. The forbidding of Marriages to be made within certain degrees of Consan∣guinity and Affinity.
7. The Baptizing of Infants born of Christian Parents.
8. The maintenance of the Clergy by the Tithes of the people, and sundry o∣ther things: none of all which (to my
understanding) seem to be de jure divino in that first and proper sense; but yet all (or most) of them to be de jure divino in this latter end larger signification.
3. For the right bounding of the Churches power, that she be neither denied her law∣ful liberty in some things, nor yet assume to her self a greater power than of right be∣longeth unto her in other some. For,
1. In things that are meerly de jure humano; every particular Church hath power in her self from time to time, to order, and alter them at her pleasure, and may exercise that power when she think∣eth fit.
2. Things that are de jure divino in that first sense, the Universal Church may not (and much less then may any parti∣cular) at all take upon her to alter, but must observe them inviolably, whatsoe∣ever necessities or distresses she be put unto.
3. Things that are de jure divino in this latter sense; every particular Church (but much more the Universal) hath a power to alter in a case of necessity: But the exercise of that power is so li∣mited to extraordinary cases, that it may
not be safe for her at all to exercise it; unless it be for the avoiding of mighty inconveniences, not otherwise to be a∣voided.
X. As for the other controversed Point, touching the change the day, from the last day of the week, or Saturday, (which was the Jews Sabbath) to the first day of the week, or Sunday, which is our Lord's-day: My opinion is, that the observation of the Lord's-day among Christians instead of the Jewish Sabbath,
1. Is not grounded upon any comamnd∣ment given by Christ to his Apostles.
2. Nor yet upon any Apostolical Consti∣tution given by the Apostles unto the Churches in that behalf. But.
3. That it was taken up by the succeed∣ing Church; partly in imitation of some of the Apostles, who used (especially in the Churches of the Gentiles; for in the Churches of Judea the old Sabbath was still observed) to Celebrate their Holy Assemblies upon the first day of the week, in the honour of Christ and his Resurrection; and partly for the avoid∣ing of Judaism, wherewith falser Teachers in those first times were eve and a∣non
attempting to enthral the Christian Church.
4. That the observation of the Lord's-day, having been confirmed by so many Constitutions both Eccleasiastical and Im∣perial, and having withall continued with such uniform consent throughout the Chri∣stian World, for so many Ages ever since the Apostles times; the Church (not to dispute what she may or may not do in ple∣nitudine potestatis, yet) ought not to attempt the altering of it to any other day of the week.