270 DIFFERENCES CONCERNING [EXERC. I.
under the new testament, as the Sabbath of the Lord, on what ground it is so to be observed. (12.) Whether of the fourth com- mandment as unto one day in seven, or only as unto some part or portion of time, or whether without any respect unto that command, as purely ceremonial: for granting, as most do, the necessity of the observation of such a day, yet some say that it hath no respect at all to the fourth decalogical precept, which was totally and absolutely abolished with the residue of Mosaical institutions; others, that there is yet remaining in it an obligation unto the sacred separation of some portion of our time unto the solemn service of God, but unde- termined; and some, that it yet precisely requires the sanctification of one day in seven. (13.) If a day be so to be observed, it is in- quired on what ground, or by what authority, there is an alteration made from the day observed under the old testament unto that now in use,—that is, from the last to the first day of the week; whether was this translation of the solemn worship of God made by Christ and his apostles, or by the primitive church; for the same day might have been still continued, though the duty of its observation might have been fixed on a new reason and foundation. For although our Lord Jesus Christ totally abolished the old solemn worship required by the “ law of commandments contained in ordinances,” and by his own authority introduced a new law of worship, according unto in- stitutions of his own, yet might obedience unto it in a solemn man- ner have been fixed unto the former day. (14) If this was done by the authority of Christ and his apostles, or be supposed so to be, then it is inquired whether it was done by the express institution of anew day, or by a directive example sufficient to design a particular day, no institution of a new day being needful: for if we shall sup- pose that there -is no obligation unto the observance of one day in seven indispensably abiding on us from the morality of the fourth commandment, we must have an express institution of a new day, or the authority of it is not divine; but on the supposition that that is so, no such institution is necessary, or can be properly made, as to the whole nature of it. (15.) If this alteration of the day were intro- duced by the primitive church, then whether the continuance of the observation of one day in seven be necessary or no; for what was ap- pointed thereby seems to be no further obligatory unto the churches of succeeding ages than their concernment lies in the occasions and reasons of their determinations. (16.) If the continuance of one day in seven for the solemn worship of God be esteemed necessary in the present state of the church, then, whether the continuance of that now in general use, namely, the first day in the week, be neces- sary or no, or whether it may not be lawfully changed to some other day, And sundry other the like inquiries are made about the ori-
'
4
SECT. 6, 7.] A DAY OF SACRED REST. 271
ginal, institution, nature, use, and continuance, of a day of sacred
“rest unto the Lord.
6. Moreover, amongst those who do grant that it is necessary, and that indispensably so, as to the present church-state, which is under
_an obligation, from whencesoever it arise, neither to alter nor omit
the observation of a day weekly for the public worship of God, wherein a cessation from labour and a joint attendance unto the most solemn duties of religion are required of us, it is not agreed whether the day ttself, or the separation of it to its proper use and end, be any part in itself of divine worship, or be so merely relatively, with respect unto the duties to be performed therein. And as to those duties themselves, they are not only variously represented, but great contention hath been about them and the manner of their performance, as likewise concerning the causes and occasions which may dispense with our attendance unto them. Indeed, herein lies secretly the ~7jdov zp:do¢ and principal cause of all the strife that hath been and is in the world about this matter. Men may teach the doctrine of a sabbatical rest on what principles they please, de- duce it from what original they think good, if they plead not for an exactness of duty in its observance, if they bind not a religious, careful attendance on the worship of God, in,public and private, on the consciences of other men, if they require not a watchfulness against all diversions and avocations from the duties of the day, they may do it without much fear of opposition; for all the concern- ments of doctrines and opinions which tend unto practice are re- gulated thereby, and embraced or rejected as the practice pleaseth or displeaseth that they lead unto.
Lastly, On a precise supposition that the observation of such a day is necessary upon divine precept or institution, yet there is a controversy remaining about fixing its proper bounds as to its be- ginning and ending. For some would have this day of rest mea- sured by the first constitution and limitation of time unto a day from the creation, namely, from the evening of the day preceding unto its own, as the evening and morning were said to be 198 O%, “ one day,” Gen. i. 5. Others admit only of that proportion of time which is ordinarily assigned to our labour on the six days of the week; that is, from its own morning to its own evening, with the interposition of such diversions as our labour on other days doth admit and re-