Eight Cases of Conscience, Case 1
The Case of the Sabbath.
To My very Loving Friend Mr. Tho. Sa. at S. B. Nottingh. March 28. 1634.
SIR,
WHen by your former Letter, you desired my present Resolution in two Questions therein proposed concerning the Sabbath: although I might not then satisfie your whole desire (being loath to give in my opinion before I had well weighed it) yet that I might not seem altogether to decline the task imposed on me by you, I engaged my self by promise, within short time, to send you what upon further consideration I should conceive thereof. Which promise, so far as my many distractions and occasions would permit, I endeavoured to perform by perusing the Books you sent me, (in the one whereof, I found written on the spare paper with your hand, a Note moving a third Question, about the Name of the Sabbath also;) and by looking up, and reviewing such scattered Notes as I had touching that Subject. But then I met with difficulties so many and great (whereof the more I considered, the more still I found them to encrease) that I saw it would be a long work, and take up far more time then I could spare, to digest and enlarge what seemed needful to be said in the three Questions in such sort as was requisite, to give any tollerable satisfaction either to my self or others. Wherefore I was eftsoons minded to have excused my self by Letter to you, from farther medling with these Questions, and to have remitted you over for better satisfaction to those men, that have both better leisure to go about such a business, and better abilities to go through with it than I have; for to questions of importance, better nothing be said, than not enough: And the rather was I minded so to do, when I perceived there were rumors spread in these parts, (occasioned, as I verily suppose, by some speeches of your good friend Mr. Tho. A.) as if I were writing a Treatise of the morality of the Sabbath. Which besides that, it might raise an expectation of some great matters which I could in no wise answer; it might also expose that little I should have done to the mis-censures of men wedded to their own opinions, if after I had laid mine open, it should have happened in any thing (as in some things like enough it would) to have disagreed from theirs. Yet, because by your late kind Letter, (wherein, whilst I was slack in making it, you have prevented mine excuse,) I perceive the continuance of your former desire; I have therefore since resolved to do somewhat, though not so much as I first intended, hoping that you will in friendly manner interpret my purpose therein. I have therefore now sent you but a naked summary of my thoughts concerning the three Questions, abstracted from all those Explanations, Reasons, Testimonies of Authors, removals of Objections, and other such Enlargements as might have given further both lustre and strength thereunto.
Howsoever, by what I presently send, you may sufficiently see what my opinion is; which I shall be ready to clear, so far as my understanding will serve, in any particular wherein you shall remain doubtful; and as ready to alter when any man shall instruct me better, if he bring good evidence either of Reason, or of Scripture-Text for what he affirmeth: The Questions are,
1. Which is the fittest Name whereby to call the day of our Christian weekly-rest? whether the Sabbath, the Lord's-day, or Sunday?
2. What is the meaning of that Prayer appointed to be used in our Church; [Lord have Mercy upon us, and encline, &c.] as it is repeated after, and applied to the words of the fourth Commandment?
3. Whether it be lawful to use any bodily recreation upon the Lord's-day? and if so, then what kind of Recreations may be used?
I. Concerning the Name Sabbatum, or Sabbath, I thus conceive;
1. That in Scripture, Antiquity, and all Ecclesiastical Writers, it is constantly appropriated to the day of the Jews Sabbath, or Saturday; and not at all (till of late years) used to signifie our Lord's-day, or Sunday.
2. That to call Sunday, by the name of the Sabbath-day, (rebus sic stantibus) may for sundry respects be allowed in the Christian Church without any great inconveniency: and that therefore men (otherwise sober and moderate) ought not to be censured with too much severity, neither charged with Judaism, if sometimes they so speak.
3. That yet for sundry other respects it were perhaps much more expedient, if the word Sabbath (in that notion) were either not all, or else more sparingly used.
II. Concerning the name Dominica, or the Lord's-day:
1. That it was taken up in memory of our Lord Christ's Resurrection, and the great work of our Redemption accomplished therein.
2. That it hath warrant from the Scripture, (Apoc. 1.10.) and hath been of long continued use in the Christian Church, to signifie the first day of the week, or Sunday.
III. Concerning the name Dies Solis, or Sunday.
1. That it is taken from the courses of the Planets, as the names of the other daies are: the reason whereof is to be learned from Astronomers.
2. That it hath been used generally, and of long time, in most parts of the World.
3. That it is not justly chargeable with Heathenism; and that it proceedeth from much weakness at the least, (if not rather superstition) that some men condemn the use of it, as prophane, heathenish, or unlawful.
IV. Of the fitness of the aforesaid three names compared one with another.
1. That according to the several matter or occasions of speech, each of the three may be fitter in some respect, and more proper to be used than either of the other two; As, viz.
1. The Name Sabbath: when we speak of a time of rest indeterminatè, and in general, without reference to any particular day: and the other two, when we speak determinately of that day which is observed in the Christian Church. Of which two again.
2. That of the Lord's-day is fitter, in the Theological and Ecclesiastical; and,
3. That of Sunday, in the civil, popular, and common use.
2. Yet so as that none of the three be condemned as utterly unlawful, whatsoever the matter or occasion be, but that every man be left to his Christian liberty herein, so long as so long as superior Authority doth not restrain it. Provided ever, that what he doth herein, he do it without vanity or affectation in himself, or without uncharitably judging or despising his Brother that doth otherwise than himself doth.
To the second Question.
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 endeavour with our uttermost 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 encline them thereunto.
2. A double supplication, viz.
1. For mercy, in respect of the time past, because we have failed of our bounden 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 authority they have that binding power, is the main 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 do immediately import, and without over-curious inquiry into those things that are more disputable, to believe these few points following, which ought to be taken as certain and granted amongst Christians; viz.
1. That no part of the Law delivered by Moses to the Jews, doth bind Christians under the Gospel, as by vertue of that delivery; no, not the ten Commandments thems…lves, 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 obligation of the fourth Commandment in that respect, (although it were Iuris divini positivi to the Jew, yet) is ceased together with other legal Ceremonies since the publishing of the Gospel, and bindeth not Christian Consciences.
3. That the substance of the fourth Commandment in the general, (viz. that some certain time should be set apart from secular imployments, to be sanctified to an holy rest, for the better attending upon God's publick 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 Authority, as we stand bound in Conscience to obey: abs que hoc, whether that Authority be immediately Divine, or but mediately through the power of the Church.
This is sufficient to regulate the judgment and Conscience of every ordinary Christian; yet is it not unlawful for Scholars (soberly and fairly) to argue and debate a little farther matte…s which are questionable, for the better finding out of the Truth.
And the points in this Argument that are most in controversy, are these two, viz.
1. Concerning the observation of a weekly Sabbath; whether it be of necessity to keep one day of every seven? And by what right we are 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 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; established by God's express positive Ordinance in his Word.
3. That it is meerly de jure humano & Ecclesiastico; 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 i… in the power of the Church, at her pleasure to change the old proportion of one in seven, (which hath continued ever since the daies of Moses) into any other greater o… lesser proportion of time?
2. Whether the two former opinions (though they do indeed avoid that inconvenience) 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 divino in the first and strict sense: which either,
1. Are enjoyned by the express Ordinance and Commandment of God in his holy Word; or else,
2. May be deduced there-from by necessary, evident, and demonstrative illation.
In which sense, there are not many things de jure divino under 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 unfeignedly to order their waies according to God's holy Will.
3. That this kind of Ius 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 Institution.
2. An Analogie held for the particular 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 thereof in the Scriptures of the New Testament.
4. The continued practise of the Christian 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 Ius 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 instances, 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 disputed 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 Censures, as Suspension, Excommunication, &c.
4. The Building and Consecrating of Churches for the service of God.
5. The assembling of Synods upon needful occasions, for the maintenance of the Truth, and for the setling of Church Affairs.
6. The forbidding of Marriages to be made within certain degrees of Consanguinity and A…finity.
7. The Baptizing of Infants born of Christian Parents.
8. The maintenance of the Clergy by the Tithes of the people, and sundry other 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 and larger signification.
3. For the right bounding of the Churches power, that she be neither denied her lawful liberty in some things, nor yet assume to her self a greater power than of right belongeth 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 thinketh fit.
2. Things that are de jure divino in that first sense, the Universal Church may not (and much less then may any particular) at all take upon her to alter, but must observe them inviolably, whatsoever 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 limited 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 avoided.
X. As for the other controversed Point, touching the change of 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 commandment given by Christ to his Apostles.
2. Nor yet upon any Apostolical Constitution given by the Apostles unto the Churches in that behalf. 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 Iudea 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 avoiding of Judaism, wherewith false Teachers in those first times were ever and anon attempting to enthral the Christian Church.
4. That the observation of the Lord's-day, having been confirmed by so many Constitutions both Ecclesiastical and Imperial, and having withal continued with such uniform consent throughout 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 in plenitudine potestatis, yet) ought not to attempt the altering of it to any other day of the week.
To the third Question.
XI. In this matter touching Recreations to be used on the Lords-day, much need not be said, there being little difficulty in it, and His Majesties last Declaration in that behalf having put it past Disputation. I say then,
1. For the Thing. That no man can reasonably condemn the moderate use of lawful Recreations upon the Lord's-day, as simply, and de toto genere unlawful.
2. For the Kind. Albeit there can be no certain rules given herein, (as in most indifferent things it cometh to pass) by reason of the infinite variety of …rcumstances, to fit with all particular cases, but that still much must be left to private discretion: yet for some directions in this matter, respect would be had in the choice of our Recreations.
1. To the Publick Laws of the State. Such games or sports as are by Law prohibited, (though in themselves otherwise lawful) being unlawful to them that are under the obedience of the Law.
2. To the condition of the Person. VValking and discoursing with men of liberal Education, is a pleasant recreation; it is no way delightsom to the ruder sort of people, who scarce account any thing a sport which is not loud and boysterous.
3. To the effects of the Recreations themselves. Those being the me…test to be used, which give the best refreshing to the body, and leave the least impression in the mind. In which respect, Shooting, Leaping, Pitching the Bar, Stool-ball, &c. are rather to be chosen than Dicing, Carding, &c.
3. For the Vse. That men would be exhorted to use their Recreations and Pastimes upon the Lord's-day in godly and commendable sort. For which purpose, amongst others, these cautions following would be remembred.
1. That they be used with great moderation (as at all other times, so especially, and much more) upon the Lord's-day.
2. That they be used at seasonable times, not in time of Divine Service, nor at such hours as are appointed by the Master of the house whereunto they belong, for Private Devotions within his own house. His Majesties Declaration limiteth mens liberty this way, till after Even-song be ended.
3. That they be so used, as that they may rather make men the fitter for God's Service the rest of the day, and for the works of their Vocations the rest of the week, than any way hinder or disable them thereunto, by over-wearying the body, or immoderately affecting the mind.
4. That they use them not doubtingly, for whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin. He therefore that is not satisfied in his own judgment, that he may lawfully, and without sin, use bodily recreations on the Lord's-day, ought by all means to forbear the use thereof, lest he should sin against his own Conscience.
5. That they be severer towards themselves than towards other men in the use of their Christian liberty herein, not making their own opinion or practise a rule to their brethren. In this, as in all indifferent things, a wise and charitable man will in godly wisdom deny himself many times the use of that liberty, which in godly charity he dare not deny to his Brother.