nothing be said, than not enough. And the rather was I minded so to do, when I perceived there were rumours 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 Letters, 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,

I. Which is the fittest Name whereby to call the day of our Christian weekly rest? whether the Sabbath, the Lord's Day, or Sunday?

II. What is the meaning of that Prayer appointed to be used in our Church, Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline,' &c, as it is repeated after and applied to the words of the Fourth Commandment?

III. 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?†

* The Sovereign Antidote against Sabbatarian Errours,' &c. begins here, omitting the word 'therefore.'

The first and third of these Questions are the first and fifth of those propounded in the Abstract

To the first Question.

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 signify 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 at 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. i. 10,‡ and hath been of long continued use in the Christian Church, to signify 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 days 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 profane, heathenish, or unlawful.

IV. Of the fitness of the aforesaid three Names compared one with another.

First, 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 indeterminate, 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. Secondly. 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 superior Authority doth not restrain it. Provided ever, that what he doth herein, he do it without vanity or affectation in himself, or without uncharitable 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,

First, 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 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.

Secondly, 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 soberminded 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.

i. That no part of the Law delivered by Moses to the
Jews doth bind Christians under the Gospel, as by
virtue of that delivery: no, not the Ten Command-
ments themselves, but least of all the Fourth, which all
confess to be, at least, in some part Ceremonial.
ii. 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 Juris Divini positivi to the Jew, yet
is ceased, together with other Legal Ceremonies, since
the publishing of the Gospel, and bindeth not Christian
Consciences.

iii. That the substance of the Fourth Commandment in
the general, viz. that some certain time should be set
apart from secular employments, to be sanctified to an
holy rest, for the better attending upon God's public
and solemn Worship, is moral and perpetual, and of
Divine right, as a branch of the Law of Nature, where-
unto Christians under the Gospel are still bound.
iv. 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:
absque 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 it is not unlawful for Scholars soberly and fairly to argue and debate a little further matters

6

* cujusque e plebe Christiani.' Cambridge Version.

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.

i. 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.
ii. 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.

i. That it is de Jure naturali, as a branch properly of the Law of Nature.

ii. That it is properly and directly de Jure Divino positivo, established by God's express positive Ordinance in His Word.

iii. That it is merely de Jure humano et Ecclesiastico; introduced by Authority, and established by the custom and consent of the Catholic 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 pleasure, 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 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