Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

WHEREIN THE ORIGINAL OF THE SABBATH FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, THE MORALITY OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, WITH THE CHANGE OF THE SEVENTH DAY, ARE INQUIRED INTO; TOGETHER WITH AN ASSERTION OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S DAY, AND PRACTICAL DIRECTIONS FOR ITS DUE OBSERVATION.

Dia< dusfhmi>av kai< eujfhmi>av.— 2 Corinthians 6:8.

Search the Scriptures, — John 5:39.

TO THE READER. CHRISTIAN READER, THERE are two great concerns of that religion whose name thou bearest, — the profession of its truth, and the practice or exercise of its power. And these are mutually assistant unto each other. Without the profession of faith in its truth, no man can express its power in obedience; and without obedience profession is little worth. Whatever, therefore, doth contribute help and assistance unto us in either of these, according to the mind of God, is to be highly prized and valued. Especially it is so in such a season as this, wherein the former of them is greatly questioned, and the latter greatly neglected, if not despised. But if there be any thing which doth equally confirm and strengthen them both, it is certainly of great necessity in and unto religion, and will be so esteemed by them who place their principal concerns in these things. Now, such is the solemn observation of a sacred weekly day of rest unto God; for amongst all the outward means of conveying to the present generation that religion which was at first taught and delivered unto men by Jesus Christ and his apostles, there hath been none more effectual than the catholic, uninterrupted observation of such a day for the celebration of the religious worship appointed in the gospel. And many material parts of it were unquestionably preserved by the successively-continued agreement of Christians in this practice. So far, then, the profession of our Christian religion in the world at this day doth depend upon it. How much it tends to the exercise and expression of the power of religion cannot but be evident unto all, unless they be such as hate it, — who are not a few. With others it will quickly appear unto a sober and unprejudicated consideration; for no small part hereof doth consist in the constant payment of that homage of spiritual worship which we owe unto God in Jesus Christ. And the duties designed thereunto are the means which he hath appointed for the communication of grace and spiritual strength unto the due performance of the remainder of our obedience. In these things consist the services of this day; and the end of its observation is their duo performance, unto the glory of God and the advantage of our own souls. Whereas, therefore, Christian religion may be considered two ways ; — first, as it is publicly and solemnly professed in the world, whereon the glory of God and the honor of Jesus Christ do greatly depend; and, secondly, as it prevails and rules in the minds and lives of private men, — neither of them can be maintained without a due observance of a stated day of sacred rest. Take this away, neglect and confusion will quickly cast out all regard unto solemn worship. Neither did it ever thrive or flourish in the world from the foundation of it, nor will do so unto its end, without a due religious attendance unto such a day. Any man may easily foresee the disorder and profaneness which would ensue upon the taking away of that whereby our solemn assemblies are guided and preserved. Wherefore, by God’s own appointment, it had its beginning and will have its end with his public worship in this world. And take this off from the basis whereon God hath fixed it, and all human substitutions of any thing in the like kind to the same purposes will quickly discover their own vanity. Nor without the advantage which it affords, as it is the sacred repository of all sanctifying ordinances, will religion long prevail in the minds and lives of private men; for it would be just with God to leave them to their own weaknesses and decays, — which are sufficient to ruin them, — who despise the assistance which he hath provided for them, and which he tenders unto them. Thus, also, we have known it to have fallen out with many in our days, whose apostasies from God have hence taken their rise and occasion. This being the ease of a weekly sacred day of rest unto the Lord, it must needs be our duty to inquire and discern aright, both what warrant we have for the religious observance of such a day, as also what day it is in the hebdomadal revolution that ought so to be observed. About these things there is an inquiry made in the ensuing discourses, and some determinations on that inquiry. My design in them was to discover the fundamental principles of this duty, and what ground conscience had to stand upon in its attendance thereunto; for what is from God in these things is assuredly accepted with him. The discovery hereof I have endeavored to make, and therewithal a safe rule for Christians to walk by in this matter, so that for want thereof they may not lose the things which they have wrought. What I have attained unto of light and truth herein is submitted to the judgment of men learned and judicious. The censures of persons heady, ignorant, and proud, who speak evil of those things which they know not, and in what they naturally know corrupt themselves, I neither fear nor value. If any discourses seem somewhat dark or obscure unto ordinary readers, I desire they would consider that the foundations of the things discoursed of lie deep, and that no expression will render them more familiar and obvious unto all understandings than their nature will allow. Nor must we in any ease quit the strengths of truth because the minds of some cannot easily possess themselves of them. However, I hope nothing will occur but what an attentive reader, though otherwise but of an ordinary capacity, may receive and digest. And they to whom the argument seems hard may find those directions which will make the practice of the duty insisted on easy and beneficial. The especial occasion of my present handling this subject is declared afterwards. I shall only add, that here is no design of contending with any, of opposing or contradicting any, of censuring or reflecting on those whose thoughts and judgments in these things differ from ours, begun or carried on. Even those by whom a holy day of rest under the gospel and its services are laughed to scorn are by me left unto God and themselves. My whole endeavor is to find out what is agreeable unto truth about the observance of such a day unto the Lord; what is the mind and will of God concerning it; on what foundation we may attend unto the services of it, as that God may be glorified in us and by us, and the interest of religion, in purity, holiness, and righteousness, be promoted amongst men. J.O.

January 11, 1671.

EXERCITATION 1.

DIFFERENCES CONCERNING A DAY OF SACRED REST — PRINCIPLES DIRECTING TO THE OBSERVANCE OF IT — THE NAME OF THE DAY CONSIDERED. ‘]Ara ajpokeipetai sabbatusmov tw~| law~| tou~ Qeou~ . — <580409>Hebrews 4:9. 1. Trouble and confusion from men’s inventions; 2. Instanced in doctrines and practices of a sabbatical rest. 3. Reason of their present consideration. 4. Extent of the controversies about such a rest. 5. A particular enumeration of them. 6. Special instances of particular differences, upon an agreement in more general principles. 7. Evil consequences of these controversies in Christian practice. 8. Principles and rules proposed, for the right investigation of the truth in this matter. 9. Names of a sacred day of rest, y[iybiV]hæ µwOy, JH ebdo>mh, Jiera< ebdo>mh, Genesis 2:3, Hebrews 4:4. 10. ˆwOtB;væ tB;v]mi tB;v]mi tB;væ tB;Væhæ µwOy, Genesis 2:2; Exodus 16:23, 35:2; Lamentations 1:7 — Saturn called ytbç and yatbç by the Jews, and why — The word doubled — ˆwOtB;væ tBævæ — Reason of it. 11. Translation of this word into the Greek and Latin languages — Mi>a sabba>twn. 12. All Judaical feasts called sabbata by the heathen — Suetonius, Horace, Juvenal, cited to this purpose. 13. JHme>ra hJli>ou, Sunday — Used by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius — Blamed by Austin, Jerome, and Philastrius. 14. Use of the names of the days of the week derived from the heathen of old — Custom of the Roman church. 15. First day of the week — Lord’s day — Lord’s-day Sabbath. 1. SOLOMON tells us that in his disquisition after the nature and state of things in the world, this alone he had found out, that is, absolutely and unto his satisfaction, namely, that “God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions,” Ecclesiastes 7:29. And the truth hereof we also find by woful experience, not only in sundry particular instances, but in the whole course of men in this world, and in all their concerns with respect unto God and themselves. There is not any thing wherein and whereabout they have not found out many inventions, to the disturbance and perverting of that state of peace and quietness wherein all things were made of God. Yea, with the fruits and effects of this perverse apostasy, and relinquishment of that universally harmonious state of things wherein we were created, not only is the whole world as it lies in evil filled, and as it were overwhelmed, but we have the relics of it to conflict withal, in that reparation of our condition which in this life, by grace, we are made partakers of. In all our ways, actions, and duties, some of these inventions are ready to immix themselves, unto our own disturbance, and the perverting of the right ways of God. 2. An evident instance we have hereof in the business of a day of sacred rest, and the worship of God therein required. God originally, out of his infinite goodness, when suitably thereunto, by his own eternal wisdom and power, he had made all things good, gave unto men a day of rest , as to express unto them his own rest, satisfaction, and complacency in the works of his hands, so to be a day of rest and composure to themselves, and a means of their entrance into and enjoyment of that rest with himself, here and for ever, which he had ordained for them. Hence it became unto them a principle and pledge, a cause and means, of quietness and rest, and that in and with God himself. So might it be still unto the sons of men, but that they are in all things continually finding out new inventions, or immixing themselves in various questions and accounts; for so saith the wise man, µyBiræ twOnboV]ji Wvq]bi hM;je , — “Themselves have sought out many computations.”

And hence it is that whereas there are two general concernments of such a day, — the doctrine and the practice of it, or the duties to be performed unto God thereon, — they are both of them solicited by such various questions, through the many inventions which men have found out, as have rendered this day of rest a matter of endless strife, disquietment, and contention. And whereas all doctrines of truth do tend unto practice, as their immediate use and end, the whole Scripture being ajlh>qeia h[ kat j eujse>zeian , Tit. 1:1, “the truth which is after godliness,” the contentions which have been raised about the doctrine of the holy day of rest have greatly influenced the minds of men, and weakened them in that practice of godliness which all men confess to be necessary in the observation of such a day of rest unto the Lord, if such a day of rest there be, on what foundation soever it is to be observed. For Christians in general, under one notion or other, do agree that a day of rest should be observed, in and for the celebration of the worship of God. But whereas many controversies have been raised about the grounds of this observance, and the nature of the obligation thereunto, advantage hath been taken thereby to introduce a great neglect of the duties themselves for whose sakes the day is to be observed, whilst one questions the reasons and grounds of another for its observation, and finds his own by others despised. And this hath been no small nor ineffectual means of promoting that general profaneness and apostasy from strict and holy walking before God which at this day are everywhere so justly complained of. 3. It is far from my thoughts and hopes that I should be able to contribute much unto the composing of these differences and controversies, as agitated amongst men of all sorts. The known pertinacy of inveterate opinions, the many prejudices that the minds of most in this matter are already possessed withal, and the particular engagements that not a few are under to defend the pretensions and persuasions which they have published and contended for, will not allow any great expectation of a change in the minds of many from what I have to offer. Besides, there are almost innumerable critical discourses on this subject in the hands of many, to whom perhaps the report of our endeavors will not arrive. But yet these and the like considerations, of the darkness, prejudices, and interests of many, ought not to discourage any man from the discharge of that duty which he owes to the truths of God, nor cause him to cry with the sluggard, “There is a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets.”

Should they do so, no truth should evermore be taught or contended for; for the declaration of them all is attended with the same difficulties, and liable to the same kind of opposition. Wherefore, an inquiry into this matter being unavoidably cast upon me, from the work wherein I am engaged, in the exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, I could not on any such accounts waive the pursuit of it; for this discourse, though upon the desires of many now published by itself, is but a part of our remaining Exercitations on that Epistle. Nor am I without all hopes but that what shall be declared and proved on this subject may be blessed to an usefulness unto them who would willingly learn, or be established in the truth. An attempt also will be made herein for the conviction of others, who have been seduced into paths inconsistent with the communion of saints, the peace of the churches of Christ, or opinions hurtful to the practice of godliness; and left unto the blessing of Him who, when he hath supplied seed to the sower, doth himself also give the increase. And these considerations have prevailed with me to cast my mite into this sanctuary, and to endeavor the right stating and confirmation of that doctrine whereon so important a part of our duty towards God doth depend, as is generally confessed, and will be found by experience, that there doth on this concerning a day of sacred rest. 4. The controversies about the Sabbath (as we call it at present for distinction’s sake, and to determine a subject of our discourse), which have been publicly agitated, are universal; as unto all its concerns. Neither name nor thing is by all agreed on. For whereas most Christians acknowledge (we may say all, for those by whom it is denied are of no weight, nor scarce of any number) that a day on one account or other, in a hebdomadal revolution of time, is to be set apart for the public worship of God, yet how that day is to be called is not agreed amongst them. Neither is it granted that it hath any name affixed unto it, by any such means that should cause it justly to be preferred unto any other, that men should arbitrarily consent to call it by. The names which have been, and amongst some .are still, in use for its denotation and distinction, are, the seventh day, the Sabbath, the Lord’s day , the first day of the week, Sunday. So was the day now commonly observed called o£ old by the Grecians and Romans, before the introduction of religion into its observation; and this name some still retain, as a thing indifferent; others suppose it were better left unto utter disuse. 5. Those about the thing itself are various, and respect all the concerns of the day inquired after. Nothing that relates unto it, no part of its respect to the worship of God, is admitted by all uncontended about. For it is debated amongst all sorts of persons, — (1.) Whether any part of time be naturally and morally to be separated and set apart to the solemn worship of God; or, which is the same, whether it be natural and moral duty to separate any part of time, in any revolution of it, unto divine service, — I mean, so as it should be stated and fixed in a periodical revolution. Otherwise, to say that God is solemnly to be worshipped, and yet that no time is required thereunto, is an open contradiction. (2.) Whether such a time supposed be absolutely and originally moral, or made so by positive command, suited unto general principles and intimations of nature. And under this consideration also a part of time is called moral metonymically from the duty of its observance. (3.) Whether, on supposition of some part of time so designed, the space or quantity of it have its determination or limitation morally, or merely by law positive or arbitrary; for the observation of some part of time may be moral, and the “quota pars” arbitrary. (4.) Whether every law positive of the old testament was absolutely ceremonial, or whether there may not be a law moral-positive , as given to and obligatory on all mankind, though not absolutely written in the heart of man by nature; that is, whether there be no morality in any law but what is a part of the law of creation. (5.) Whether the institution of the seventh-day Sabbath was from the beginning of the world, and before the fall of man, or whether it was first appointed when the Israelites came into the wilderness. This in itself is only a matter of fact, yet such as whereon the determination of the point of right, as to the universal obligation unto the observation of such a day, doth much depend; and therefore hath the investigation and true stating of it been much labored in and after by learned men. (6.) Upon a supposition of the institution of the Sabbath from the beginning, whether the additions made and observances annexed unto it at the giving of the law on mount Sinai, with the ends whereunto it was then designed, and the uses whereunto it was employed, gave unto the seventh day a new state, distinct from what it had before , although naturally the same day was continued as before; for if they did so, that new state of the day seems only to be taken away under the new testament. If not, the day itself seems to be abolished; for that some change is made therein from what was fixed under the Judaical economy cannot modestly be denied. (7.) Whether in the fourth commandment there be a foundation of a distinction between a seventh day in general, or one day in seven , and that seventh day which was the same numerically and precisely from the foundation of the world. For whereas an obligation unto the strict observation of that day precisely is, as we shall prove, plainly taken away in the gospel, if the distinction intimated be not allowed there can be nothing remaining obligatory unto us in that command, whilst it is supposed that that day is at all required therein. (8.) Hence it is especially inquired, whether a seventh day, or one day in seven, or in the hebdomadal cycle, be to be observed holy unto the Lord, on the account of the fourth commandment. (9.) Whether, under the new testament, all religious observation of days be so taken away as that there is no divine obligation remaining for the observance of any one day at all, but that as all days are alike in themselves, so are they equally free to be disposed of and used by us, as occasion shall require; for if the observation of one day in seven be not founded in the law of nature, expressed in the original positive command concerning it, and if it be not seated morally in the fourth commandment, it is certain that the necessary observance of it is now taken away. (10.) On the other extreme, whether the seventh day from the creation of the world, or the last day of the week, be to be observed precisely under the new testament, by virtue of the fourth commandment, and no other.

The assertion hereof supposeth that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, hath neither changed nor reformed any thing in or about the religious observation of a holy day of rest unto the Lord; whence it follows that such an observation can be no part or act of evangelical worship properly so called, but only a moral duty of the law. (11.) Whether on the supposition of a non-obligation in the law unto the observance of the seventh day precisely, and of a new day to be observed weekly under the new testament, as the Sabbath of the Lord, on what ground it is so to be observed. (12.) Whether of the fourth commandment 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 undetermined; 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 inquired on what ground , or by what authority, there is an alteration made from the day observed under the old testament unto that nosy 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 institutions of his own, yet might obedience unto it in a solemn manner 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 a new day, or by a directive example sufficient to design a particular day, no institution of a new day being needful: for if we shall suppose 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 introduced by the primitive church, then whether the continuance of the observation of one day in seven be necessary or no; for what was appointed 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 necessary or no, or whether it may not be lawfully changed to some other day. And sundry other the like inquiries are made about the original, 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 labor and a joint attendance unto the most solemn duties of religion are required of us, it is not agreed whether the day itself, 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 mh~lon e]ridov 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-dace 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-meats of doctrines and opinions which tend unto practice are regulated 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 beginning and ending.

For some would have this day of rest measured 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 dj;a, µwOy , “one day,” Genesis 1:5. Others admit only of that proportion of time which is ordinarily assigned to our labor 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 labor on other days doth admit and require. 7. And thus is it come to pass, that although God made man upright, and gave him the Sabbath, or day of rest, as a token of that condition, and pledge of a future eternal rest with himself, yet, through his finding out many inventions, that very day is become amongst us an occasion and means of much disquietment and many contentions. And that which is the worst consequent in things of this nature, that belong unto religion and the worship of God, these differences, and the way of their agitation, whilst the several parties litigant have sought to weaken and invalidate their adversaries’ principles, have apparently influenced the minds of all sorts of men unto a neglect in the practice of those duties which they severally acknowledged to be incumbent on them, upon those principles and reasons for the observation of such a day which themselves allow. For whilst some have hotly disputed that there is now no especial day of rest to be observed unto the Lord, by virtue of any divine precept or institution, and others have granted that if it be to be observed only by virtue of ecclesiastical constitution, men may have various pretences for dispensations from the duties of it, the whole due observation of it is much lost among Christians.

Neither is it a small evil amongst us, that the disputes of some against the divine warranty of one day in seven to be separated unto sacred uses, and the pretense of others to an equal regard unto all days from their Christian liberty, together with an open, visible neglect in the most of any conscientious care in the observance of it, have cast not a few unwary and unadvised persons to take up with the Judaical Sabbath, both as to its institution and manner of its observation. Now, whereas the solemn worship of God is the spring, rule, and measure of all our obedience unto him, it may justly be thought that the neglect thereof, so brought about as hath been declared, hath been a great, if not a principal, occasion of that sad degeneracy from the power, purity, and glory of Christian religion, which all men may see, and many do complain of at this day in the world.

The truth is, most of the different apprehensions recounted have been entertained and contended for by persons learned and godly, all equally pretending to a love unto truth, and care for the preservation and promotion of holiness and godliness amongst men. And it were to be wished that this were the only instance whereby we might evince that the best of men in this world do “know but in part, and prophesy but in part.” But they are too many to be recounted, although most men act in themselves and towards others as if they were themselves liable to no mistakes, and that it is an inexpiable crime in others to be in any thing mistaken. But as this should make us jealous over ourselves and our own apprehensions in this matter, so ought the consideration of it to affect us with tenderness and forbearance towards those who dissent from us, and whom we therefore judge to err and be mistaken.

But that which principally we are to learn from this consideration is, with what care and diligence we ought to inquire into the certain rule of truth in this matter. For whatever we do determine, we shall be sure to find men learned and godly otherwise minded. And yet in our determinations are the consciences of the disciples of Christ greatly concerned, which ought not by us to be causelessly burdened, nor yet countenanced in the neglect of any duty that God doth require. Slight and perfunctory disquisitions will be of little use in this matter; nor are men to think that their opinions are firm and established when they have obtained a seeming countenance unto them from two or three doubtful texts of Scripture. The principles and foundations of truth in this matter lie deep, and require a diligent investigation. And this is the design wherein we are now engaged. Whether we shall contribute any thing to the declaration or vindication of the truth depends wholly on the assistance which God is pleased to give or withhold. Our part it is to use what diligence we are able; neither ought we to avoid any thing more than the assuming or ascribing of any thing unto ourselves. It is enough for us if in any thing, or by any means, God will use us, not as “lords over the faith of men, but as helpers of their joy.”

Now, for the particular controversies before mentioned, I shall not insist upon them all, for that were endless, but shall reduce them unto those general heads under which they may be comprehended, and by the right stating whereof they will be determined. Nor shall I enter into any especial contest, unless it be occasionally only, with any particular persons who of old or of late have critically handled this subject. Some of them have, I confess, given great provocations thereunto, especially of the Belgic divines, whose late writings are full of reflections on the learned writers of this nation. Our only design is protima~|n th~n ajlh>qeian . And herein I shall lay down the general regulating principles of the doctrine of the Scriptures in this matter, confirming them with such arguments as occur to my mind, and vindicating them from such exceptions as they either seem liable unto or have met withal; all with respect unto the declaration given of the doctrine and practice of the Sabbath in the different ages of the church by our apostle, chap. iv, of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8. The principles that I shall proceed upon, or the rules that I shall proceed by, are,— (1.) Express testimonies of Scripture, which are not wanting in this cause.

Where this light doth not go before us, our best course is to sit still; and where the word of God doth not speak in the things of God, it is our wisdom to be silent. Nothing, I confess, is more nauseous to me than magisterial dictates in sacred things, without an evident deduction and confirmation of assertions from Scripture testimonies. Some men write as if they were inspired, or dreamed that they had obtained to themselves Pythagorean reverence. Their writings are full of strong, authoritative assertions, arguing the good opinion they have of themselves, which I wish did not include an equal contempt of others. But any thing may be easily affirmed, and as easily rejected. (2.) The analogy of faith in the interpretation, exposition, and application, of such testimonies as are pleadable in this cause. “Hic labor, hoc opus.”

Herein the writer’s diligence and the reader’s judgment are principally to be exercised. I have of late been much surprised with the plea of some for the use of reason in religion and sacred things; not at all that such a plea is insisted on, but that it is by them built expressly on a supposition that it is by others, whom they reflect upon, denied; whereas some probably intended in those reflections have pleaded for it against the Papists (to speak within the bounds of sobriety) with as much reason and no less effectually than any amongst themselves. I cannot but suppose their mistake to arise from what they have heard, but not well considered, that some do teach about the darkness of the mind of man by nature with respect unto spiritual things, with his disability, by the utmost use of his rational faculties, as corrupted or unrenewed, spiritually and savingly to apprehend the things of God, without the especial assistance of the Holy Ghost. Now, as no truth is more plainly or evidently confirmed in the Scripture than this, so to suppose that those by whom it is believed and asserted do therefore deny the use of reason in religion, is a most fond imagination. No doubt but whatever we do or have to do towards God, or in the things of God, we do it all as rational creatures; that is, in and by the use of our reason. And not to make use of it in its utmost improvement, in all that we have to do in religion or the worship of God, is to reject it, as to the principal end for which it is bestowed upon us. In particular, in the pursuit of the rule now laid down is the utmost exercise of our reason required of us. To understand aright the sense and importance of the words in Scripture testimonies, the nature of the propositions and assertions contained in them, the lawful deduction of inferences from them, to judge and determine aright of what is proposed or deduced by just consequence from direct propositions, to compare what in one place seems to be affirmed with what in others seems to be asserted to the same purpose or denied, with other instances innumerable of the exercise of our minds about the interpretation of Scripture, are all of them acts of our reason, and as such are managed by us. But I must not here further divert unto the consideration of these things. Only I fear that some men write books about them because, they read none. This I know, that they miserably mistake what is in controversy, and set up to themselves men of straw as their adversaries, and then cast stones at them. (3.) The dictates of general and uncorrupted reason, suitable unto and explained by Scripture light, is another principle that we shall in our progress have a due regard unto; for whereas it is confessed that the separation of some portion of time to the worship of God is a part of the law of our creation, the light of nature doth and must still, on that supposition, continue to give testimony unto our duty therein. And although this light is exceedingly weakened and impaired by sin in the things of the greatest importance, and as to many things truly belonging unto it in our original constitution so overwhelmed with prejudices and contrary usages that of itself it owns them not at oil, yet let it be excited, quickened, rectified, by Scripture light, it will return to perform its office of testifying unto that duty, a sense whereof and a direction whereunto were concreated with it. We shall therefore inquire what intimations the light of nature hath continued to give concerning a day of sacred rest to be observed unto God; and what uncontrollable testimonies we have of those intimations, in the knowledge, confessions, and expressions of them, in and by those who had no other way to come to an acquaintance with them. And where there is a common or prevailing suffrage given amongst mankind unto any truth, and that, to free us from entanglements about it, declared to be such in the Scripture, it must be acknowledged to proceed from that light of nature which is common unto all, though the actings of it be stifled in many. (4.) The custom and practice of the church of God in all ages is to be inquired into. I intend not merely the church of Christ under the gospel, but the whole church from the beginning of the world, in the various dispensations of the will and grace of God unto it, before the giving of the law, under the yoke of it, and since the promulgation of the gospel. And great weight may’ certainly be laid upon its harmonious consent in any practice relating to the worship of God. Nay, what may be so confirmed will thence appear not to be an institution peculiar to any especial mode of worship, that may belong unto one season and not unto another, but to have an everlasting obligation in it, on all that worship God, as such never to be altered or dispensed withal. And if every particular church be the pillar and ground of truth, whose testimony thereunto is much to be esteemed, how much more is the universal church of all ages so to be accounted! And it is a brutish apprehension, to suppose that God would permit a persuasion to befall the church in all ages, with respect unto his worship, which was not from himself, and the expression of its practice accepted with him. This, therefore, is diligently to be inquired into, as far as we may have certain light into things involved in so much darkness, as are all things of so great antiquity. (5.) A due consideration of the spirit and liberty of the gospel, with the nature of its worship, the reasons of it, and the manner of its performance, is to be had in this matter. No particular instance of worship is to be introduced or admitted contrary to the nature, genius, and reason of the whole. If, therefore, such a sabbatical rest, or such an observation of it, be urged, as is inconsistent with the principles and reasons of evangelical worship, as is built upon motives not taken from the gospel, and in the manner of its observance interferes with the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, it discovers itself not to belong unto the present state of the worshippers of God in Christ. Nor is any thing to commend itself unto us under the mere notion of strictness or preciseness, or the appearance of more than ordinary severity in religion. It is only walking according unto rule that will please God, justify us unto others, and give us peace in ourselves. Other seeming duties that may be recommended, because they have lo>gou sofi>av ejn ejqeloqrhskei>a| , kai< tapeinofrosu>nh| kai< ajfeidi>a| sw>matov , “a pretense of wisdom in doing even more than is required of us, through humility and mortification,” are of no price with God, nor useful unto men. And commonly those who are most ready to overdo in one thing are prone also to underdo in others. And this rule we shall find plainly rejecting the rigid observation of the seventh day as a Sabbath out of the verge of gospel order and worship. (6.) The tendency of principles, doctrines, and practices, to the promotion or hinderance of piety, godliness, and universal holy obedience unto God, is to be inquired into. This is the end of all religious worship, and of all the institutions thereof. And a due observation of the regular tendency of things unto this end will give a great discovery of their nature and acceptance with God. Let things be urged under never so specious pretences, if they be found by experience not to promote gospel holiness in the hearts and lives of men, they discover themselves not to be of God.

Much more when principles and practices conformable unto them shall be evidenced to obstruct and hinder it, to introduce profaneness, and countenance licentiousness of life, to prejudice the due reverence of God and his worship, do they manifest themselves to be of the tares sowed by the evil one. And by this rule we may try the opinion which denies all divine institution unto a day of holy rest under the new testament.

These are the principal rules which, in this disquisition after a sabbatical rest, we shall attend unto. And they are such as will not fail to direct us aright in our course, if through negligence or prejudice we miss not of a due regard unto them. These the reader is desired to have respect unto in his perusal of the ensuing discourses; and if what is proposed or concluded be not found suitable unto them, let it be rejected: for I can assure him that no self-assuming, no contempt of others, no prejudicing adherence to any way or party, no pretense of certainty above evidence produced, have had any influence into those inquiries after the truth in this matter, which, suname whereby this day may be called; for that also among some hath been controverted. Under the old testament it had a double appellation; the one taken from the natural order of the day, then separated with respect unto other days; the other from its nature and use. On the first account it was called y[iybiV]hæ µwOy , “the seventh day:” Genesis 2:3, y[iybiV]hæ µwOyAtya, µyhiloa’ Ër,b;y]wæ ; — “ And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.”

So also Exodus 20:11. Upon its first institution, and on the reintroduction of its observation, it is so called. But it is a mere description of the day from its relation to the six precedent days of the creation that is herein intended; absolutely it is not so called anywhere. Yet hence by the Hellenists it was termed hJ ebdomh , “the sacred seventh day.” So is mention made of it by Philo, Josephus, and others. And our apostle maketh use of this name as that which was commonly in use to denote the Sabbath of the Jews: Chap. 4:4, Ei]rhke garav is not added, because eJbdo>mh was used technically to denote that day. And he educes the reason of this denomination from Genesis 2:2. Being, as was said, the day that ensued immediately after the six distinct days wherein the world was created, and putting a period unto a measure of time by a numeration of days, always to return in its cycle, it was called “the seventh day.” And from that course of time completed in seven days, thence recurring to its beginning, is the name of eJbdoma>v , “hebdomas,” “a week,” which the Hebrews call only [æWbv; , “a seven.” And the same word sometimes signifieth the seventh day, or one day in seven. ]Agein thda is “septimum diem celebrare,” “to celebrate the” (or “a”) “seventh day.” And the Latins used the word in the same manner for seven days, or one day in seven. But this appellation, as we shall see, the apostle casts out of consideration and use, as to the day to be observed under the new testament: for that which was first so is passed away, and another instituted in the room thereof; which although it be also eJbdonatural order, that name is now of no use, but antiquated. 10. From its occasion, sanctification, and use, it was called tB;væ , and tB;Væhæ µwOy , “the Sabbath,” and “the Sabbath-day.” The occasion of this name is expressed, Genesis 2:3, “God blessed the seventh day, tbæv; wOb yKi ,” — “because he rested” (“shabath”) “that day.” It is called rest, the rest because on that day God rested. And in the decalogue, it is tB;Væhæ µwOy tae , “the day of the Sabbath,” or of God’s rest and ours. And absolutely tB;væ , “the Sabbath,” Isaiah 56:2; where also God, from his institution of it, calls it “my Sabbath,” verse 4.

This being a thing so plain and evident, it were mere loss of time to insist upon the feigned etymologies of this name, afar it came to be taken notice of in the world; I shall only name them. Apion the Alexandrian would have it derived from the Egyptian word “sabbo,” as Josephus informs us, cont.

Ap. lib. ii.; and what the signification of that word is the reader may see in the same place. Plutarch derives it from “sabboi” a word that was used to be howled in the furious services of Bacchus; for his priests and devotees used in their bacchanals to cry out, “Evoi, Sabboi,” Sympos. lib. vii. cap. xiv; which things are ridiculous. Lactantius, with sundry others of the ancients, fell into no less, though a 1ess offensive mistake. “Hic,” saith he, “est dies Sabbati, qui lingua Hebræorum à numero nomen accepit; unde septenarius numerus legitimus et plenus est,” Insitut. lib. vii. cap. xiv.

Procopius Gazæus on the Pentateuch hath a singular conceit. Speaking of the tenth of the month Tizri, termed sabbaton sabbat, he calls it, Sullh>yin tou~ prodro>mou , dio< kai< sa>bbata sabba>twn eJorth< , kaq j h[n e]mellen oJ th~v ajfe>Sewv kai< th~v metanoi>av kairoyewv tou~ prodro>mou ; o[qen ejstian tou~ Sabba>tou ; o[ti sabacqa< kalei~tai hJ a]fesiv? ajfia~si de< J au+thw| , o[ti eJbdo .

He would have it to be the day of the conception of John Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, when the remission and repentance that he preached began; and thence conjectures the etymology of the Sabbath to be from “sabachta” (that is, the Syriac atqbç ), which signifies “remission,” that day being remitted holy unto the Lord, being the seventh day, which is Sabaa, that is [bæv, ; the vanity of which conjectures is apparent to all. The reason and rise of this appellation are manifest.

Hence this was the proper and usual name of this day under the old testament, being expressive of its occasion, nature, and end. The word hath also other forms; as ˆwOtB;væ , Exodus 16:23, 35:2, “sabbaton;” and tb;v]mi , Lamentations 1:7, “mishbat;” the signification of the word being still retained. Neither yet is this word peculiarly sacred as to what it denotes, but is used to express things common or profane, even any cessation, resting, or giving over. The first time it occurs, Genesis 2:2, it is rendered in Targum by jn , a common word signifying to rest. See Isaiah 14:4, 24:8, and many other places. It is also applied to signify a week, because every week, or seven days, had a Sabbath or day of rest necessarily included in it: Leviticus 23:15, “Ye shall count to yourselves tmoymiT] twOtB;væ [bæv, “seven complete sabbaths;” that is, weeks, each having a Sabbath in it for its close: for the reckoning was to expire on the end of the seventh Sabbath, verse 16. And this place being expounded by Onkelos, in his Targum, of a week, Nachmanides says upon it, that if it be so (which he also grants and pleads), then qwspb twnwçl ytç wyhy dja , “there will be two tongues in one verse,” or the same word used twice in the same verse with different significations, — namely, that the word tB;væ should denote both the holy day of rest and also a week of days. And he gives another instance to the same purpose in the word µyriy;[\ , Judges 10:4, “Jair the Gileadite had thirty sons,” µh,l; µyriy;[\ µyvilv]W µyriy;[\ µyvilv]Al[æ µybik]wO; where the word µyriy;[\ signifies in the former place “colts of asses,” and in the latter “cities.” And the common number of seven is expressed by it, Leviticus 25:8, “Thou shalt number unto thee µyniv; ttoB]væ [bæv, ,” “seven sabbaths of years ;” that is, as it is expounded in the next words, [bæv, µyniv; [bv, µymi[;P] , seven times seven years;” seven years being called a sabbath of years, because of the land’s resting every seventh year, in answer to the rest of the church every seventh day. See the Tar-gum on Isaiah 58:13; Esth. 2:9. Moreover, because of the rest that was common to the weekly Sabbath, with all other sacred feasts of Moses’ institution in their stated monthly or annual revolution, they were also called sabbaths, as shall be proved afterwards. And as the Greeks and Latins made use of this word, borrowed from the Hebrew, so the Jews, observing that their Sabbath day had amongst them its name from Saturn, “dies Saturni,” as amongst us it is still thence called “Saturday,” they called him, or the planet of that name, yfbç , “Shibti,” and yatbç , “Shabbetai.” And even from hence some of the Jews take advantage to please themselves with vain imaginations. So R. Isaac Caro, commending the excellency of the seventh day, says, “that Saturn is the planet of that -day, the whole being nominated from the first hour;” whereof afterwards. “He therefore,” saith he, “hath power on that day to renew the strength of our bodies, as also to influence our minds to understand the mysteries of God. He is the planet of Israel, as the astrologers acknowledge,” (doubtless!); “and in his portion is the rational soul; and in the parts of the earth, the house of the sanctuary; and among tongues, the Hebrew tongue; and among laws, the law of Israel” So far he; but whether he can make good his claim to the relation of the Jews unto Saturn, or their pretended advantage on supposition thereof, I leave to our astrologers to determine, seeing I know nothing of these things. And on the same account, of their rest falling on the day under that planetary denomination, many of the heathen thought they dedicated the day and the religion of it unto Saturn. So Tacitus, Hist., lib. v.: “Alii honorem eum Saturno haberi. Seu principia religionis tradentibus idæis quos cum Saturno pulsos et conditores gentis accepimus; seu quod e septem sideribus queis mortales reguntur, altissimo orbe et præcipua potentia stella Saturni feratur; ac pleraque cœlestium vim suam et cursum septimos per numeros conficiant.” Such fables did the most diligent of the heathen suffer themselves to be deluded withal, whereby a prejudice was kept up in their minds against the only true God and his worship. The word is also sometimes doubled, by a pure Hebraism: 1 Chronicles 9:32, tB;væ tBævæ , “Shabbath, Shabbath,” — that is, “every Sabbath ;” and is somewhat variously used in the conjunction of another form: tB;væ ˆwOtB;væ , Exodus 16:23, 35:2; and ˆwOtB;væ tBævæ , Exodus 31:15; Leviticus 25:4. We render ˆwOtB;væ , by “rest,” “the rest of the Sabbath,” and “a Sabbath of rest.” Where “sabbaton” is preposed at least, it seems to be as much as “sabbatulum,” and to denote the entrance into the Sabbath or the preparation for it, such as was more solemn, when tbç lwdgh , “a great Sabbath,” a high (lay ensued. Such was the Sabbath before the passover, for the miracle, as the Jews say, which befell their forefathers that day in Egypt. The time between the two evenings was the “sabbatulum.”

This, then, was the name of the day of rest under the old testament; yet was not the word appropriated to the denotation of that day only, but is used sometimes naturally to express any rest or cessation, sometimes as it were artificially in numeration for a week, or any other season whose composition was by, and resolution into seven, though this was merely occasional, from the first limitation of a periodical revolution of time by a Sabbath of rest; of which before. 11. And this various use of the word was taken up among the Grecians and Latins also. As they borrowed the word from the Jews, so they did its use. The Greek sa>bbaton is merely the Hebrew ˆwOtB;væ , or perhaps formed by the addition of their usual termination from tB;væ ; whence also our apostle frames his sabbatismo>v . The Latin “sabbatum” is the same.

And they use this word, though rarely, to express the last day of the week. So Suetonius in Tiber., “Diogenes grammaticus sabbatis disputare Rhodi solitus.” And the LXX. always so express the seventh-day Sabbath; and frequently they use it for a week also. And so in the New Testament, Nhsteu>w ditou , Luke 18:12; — “I fast twice in the sabbath;” that is, two days in the week. And hJ hJme>ra tw~n Sabba>twn Acts 13:14, “the day of the Sabbath,” is that day of the week which was set apart for a sabbatical rest. Hence mi>a sabba>twn , “one day of the sabbaths,” which frequently occurs, is the same with prw>th eJzdoma>dov , “the first day of the week,” ei=v or mi>a being often put for prw~tov , prw>th , the ordinal for the cardinal. 12. About the time of the writing of the books of the New Testament, both the Jews themselves and all the heathen that took notice of them called all their feasts and solemn assemblies their sabbaths, because they did no servile work in them They had the general nature of the weekly Sabbath, in a cessation from labor. So the first day of the feast of trumpets, which was to be on the first day of the second month, what day soever of the week it happened to be on, was called a sabbath, Leviticus 23:24. This Scaliger well observes and well proves, Emendat, Tempor. lib. iii., Canon. Isagog. lib. iii. p. 213: “Omnem festivitatem Judaicam, non solum Judæi sed et Gentiles sabbatum vocant; Judi quidem cure dicunt Tizri. nunquam incipere a feria prima, quarta, sexta, ne duo sabbata continuentur; Gentiles autem non alio nomine omnes eorum solennitates vocabant.”

And this is evident from the frequent mention of the sabbatical fasts of the Jews, when they did not, nor was it lawful for them to fast on the weekly Sabbath. So speaks Augustus to Tiberius in Suetonius, Octav. August. cap. lxxvi.: “Ne Judæus quidem, mi Tiberi, tam diligenter sabbatis jejunium servat, quam ego hodie servavi.”

And Juvenal, Sat. iv:158, — “Observant ubi festa mero perle sabbata reges.” And Martial, — “Et non jejuna sabbata lege premet;” speaking in contradiction, as he thought, unto them. And so Horace mentions their “tricesima sabbata;” which were no other but their new moons. And to this usual manner of speaking in those days doth our apostle accommodate his expressions, Colossians 2:16, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in part of an holy day” (any part of it, or respect unto it), “or of the new moon, or of the sabbath ;” that is, any of the Judaical feasts whatever, then commonly called sabbaths. So Maimonides, Tract. De Sabb. cap. xxix., speaking of their µybwf µymy , “good days” or “feasts,” says expressly, yyd twtbç µlwkç , — “They are all sabbaths to the Lord.”

And from this usage some think to expound that vexed expression, Sa>bbaton deutero>prwton? ejpeidh< deu>teron mesca , prw~ton de< tw~n ajzu>mwn? eij ou+n sa>bbaton ei]rhtai , mh< qauma>shv? sa>bbaton galoun , — Luke 6:1; which we render, “The second Sabbath after the first.” So Suidas, Sa>bbaton deutero>prwton? ejpeidh< deu>teron mesca , prw~ton de< tw~n ajzu>mwn? eij ou+n sa>bbaton ei]rhtai , mh< zauma>shv? sa>bbaton galoun — “ It was the second day of the passover, and the first of unleavened bread. And wonder not that it is called a sabbath, for they called every feast day a sabbath.” Theophylact gives us another day, but on the same reason. Saith he, OiJ jIoudai~oi pa~san eJorthbbaton wjno>mazon? ajna>pausiv gakiv ou+n ajph>nta hJ eJorth< ejn th~| paraskeuh~| , kai< ejka>loun thbbaton dia< thn? ei=ta to< kuri>wv Sa>bbaton wjno>mazon deutero>prwton , wJv deu>teron o[n ¸ prohghsame>nhv a]llhv kai< Sabba>tou —”The Jews call every feast a sabbath, for sabbath is as much as rest.

Ofttimes, therefore, there fell out a feast on the day before the weekly Sabbath; and they called it a sabbath bemuse it was a feast. And therefore that which was the proper Sabbath at that time was called ‘ the second Sabbath after the first,’ being the second from that which went before.”

Chrysostom allows of the same reason, Hom. XXXix. in Matt. Isidore of Pelusium fixeth on another day, but still for the same reason: Epist. cx.

Lib.iii., Deutero>prwton ei]rhtai , ejpeidh< deu>teron mesca , prw~ton de< tw~n ajzu>mwn? —”It is called the deuteroproton, because it was the second day from the sacrificing of the passover, and the flint day of unleavened bread;” which he shows was called a sabbath upon the general account of all the Jewish feasts being so called: for so he saith, Eij de< sa>bbaton ei[rhtai mh< zauma>shv? sa>bbaton gaSabbath, as it is called without any addition, Matthew 12:11, whereon depended the questions that ensued about its observation. But we are beholden to Scaliger for the tree meaning of this expression, which so puzzled the ancients, and concerning which Gregory Nazianzen turned off Jerome with a scoff scarce becoming his gravity, when he inquired of him what might be the meaning of it. Scaliger, therefore, conjectures that it is called Sa>bbaton deutero>prwton , because it was the first Sabbath ajpo< th~v deute>rav tw~n ajzu>mwn , “from the second day of unleavened bread.” For on that day they offered the handful or sheaf of new fruits; and from that day they counted seven weeks unto Pentecost. And the Sabbaths of thee weeks were reckoned ajpo< th~v deute>rav tw~n ajzu>mwn and the first that followed was called deutero>prwton . So he, both in his Emendat.

Tempor. lib. vi, and Isagog. Canon. p. 218. And this is subscribed unto by his mortal adversary, Dionysius Petavius, Animad. in Epiphan. n. 31, p. 64, who will not allow him ever to have spoken rightly, but in what the wit of man can find no tolerable objection against. But this calling of their feasts “sabbaths,” with the reason of it, is given us by all their principal anthem So Lib. Tseror. Hammor. on Levit. p. 102: µyarqn µyd[wmhç yplw tbçh ˆklw çdq arq arqnç tbçh ˆm µyawrq µh µyd[wmh lkç wçwrypç çdq yarqm ˆwtbç tbç wmçb warqn µlwkw µlwk µyd[wmh çar awh —”Because all solemn days are called holy convocations, they are all called so the Sabbath, which is called holy; wherefore the Sabbath is the head of all solemn feasts, and they are all of them called by the name thereof, sabbaths of rest ;” whereof he gives instances. 13. Some of the ancient Christians, dealing with the heathens, called that day which the Christians then observed in the room of the Jewish seventh day, hJme>ran hJli>on , or “diem sells,” “Sunday;” as those who treat and deal with others must express things by the names that are current amongst them, unless they intend to be barbarians unto them. So speaks Justin Martyr, Apol. ii., Thou hJme>ran , koinh~ pa>ntev thleusin poiou~meqa? — “We meet” (for the worship of God) “in common on Sunday.” Had he said” the Sabbath,” the Gentiles would have concluded it to have been the Judaical Sabbath. To have called it to them “the Lord’s day,” had been to design no determinate day; they would not have known what day he meant. And the name of “the first day of the week,” taken up signally by Christians upon the resurrection of Christ, was not in use amongst them. Wherefore he called the day he intended to determine, as was necessary for him, by the name in use amongst them to whom he spake, “Sunday.” In like manner, Tertullian, treating with the same sort of men, calls it “diem solis,” Apol. cap. xvi. And Eusebius, reporting the edicts of Constantine for the obviation of the Lord’s day, as it is termed in them, adds that is the day which we call hJme>ran hJli>ou , or “Sunday.”

But yet among Christians themselves this name was not in common use, but by some was rejected, as were also all the rest of the names of the days used among the Pagans. So speaks Austin in Psalm xcii.: “Quarta sabbatorum, quarta feria, quæ Mercurii dies dicitur a Paganis, et a mullets Christians. Sed noluimus ut dicant, et utinam corrigantur ut non dicant.”

And Jerome, Epist ad Algas. “Una sabbati, dies dominica intelligenda est; quia hebdomada in sabbatum, ut in primam, et secundam, et tertiam, et quartam, et quintam, et sextam sabbati dividitur; quam ethnici idolorum et planetarum nominibus appellant.” He rejects the use of the ordinary names unto the heathens. And Philastrius makes the usage of them amongst Christians almost heretical, Num. 14. All the eastern nations also, amongst whom the planetary nomination of the days of the week first began, have, since their casting off that kind of idolatry, rejected the use of those names; being therein more religious or more superstitious, than the most of Christians. So is it done by the Arabians and Persians, and those that are joined unto them in religious observances. The day of their worship, which is our Friday, the Arabians call “Giuma,” the Persians “Adina.” The rest of the days of the week they discriminate by their natural order within their hebdomadal revolution, — the first, the second, the third, etc.; only some of them in some places have some special name occasionally imposed on them. The church of Rome, from a decree, as they suppose or pretend, of Pope Sylvester, reckons all the days of the week by “Feria prima, secunda,” and so onwards; only their writers for the most part retain the name of “sabbatum,” and use “dies dominica” for the first day. And the Rhemists, on Revelation 1:10, condemn the name of Sunday as heathenish. And Polydore Virgil before them says, “Profecto pudendum est, simulque dolendum, quod non antehac data sunt istis diebus Christiana nomina; ne dii gentium tam memorabile, inter nos, monumentum haberent,” De Invent. Rer. lib. vi. cap. v.

And indeed, among sundry of thee ancients, there do many severe expressions occur against the use of the common planetary names. And at the first relinquishment of Gentilism, it had no doubt been well if those names of Baalim had been taken away out of the mouths of men, especially considering that the retaining of them hath been of no use nor advantage. As they are now rivetted into custom and usage, claiming their station on such a prescription as in some measure takes away the corruption of their use, I judge that they are not to be contended about; for as they are vulgarly used, these names are mere notes of distinction, of no more signification than first, second, and third, the original and occasioned imposition of them being amongst the many utterly unknown. Only I must add, that the severe reflections and contemptuous reproaches which I have heard made upon and poured out against them who, it may be out of weakness, it may be out of a better judgment than our own, do abstain from the using of them, argue a want of due charity and that condescension in love which become those who judge themselves strong; for the truth is, they have a plea sufficient at least to vindicate them from the contempt of any. For there are some places of Scripture which seem so far to give countenance unto them, that if they mistake in their application, it is a mistake of no other nature but what others are liable unto in things of greater importance; for it is given as the will of God, Exodus 23:13, “In all things,” saith he, “that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.”

And it cannot be denied but that the names of the days of the week were the names of gods among the heathen. The prohibition is renewed, Joshua 23:7, “Neither make mention of the name of their gods:” which is yet. extended further, Deuteronomy 12:3, to a command “to destroy and blot out the names of the gods of the people ;” which by this means are retained. Accordingly, the children of-Reuben, building the cities formerly called Nebo and Baal-meon, changed their names, because they were the names of heathen idols, Numbers 32:38. And David mentioneth it as a part of his integrity, that he would not take up the names of idols into his lips, Psalm 16:4. And some of the ancients, as hath been observed, confirm what by some at present is concluded from these places. Saith Jerome, “Absit ab ore Christiano dicere, Jupiter omnipotens, Mehercule, et Mecastor, et cætera magis portenta quam nomina,” Epist. ad Damas. Now, be it granted that the objections against the use of the planetary names of the days of the week from these places may be answered from consideration of the change of times and the circumstances of things, .yet certainly there is an appearance of warranty in them sufficient to secure them from contempt and reproach who are prevailed on by them to another use. 15. But of a day of rest there is a peculiar reason. If there be a name given in the Scripture unto such a day, by that name it is to be called, and not otherwise. So it was unquestionably under the old testament. God himself had assigned a name unto the day of sacred rest then enjoined the church unto observation, and it was not lawful for the Jews to call it by any other name given unto it or in use among the heathen. It was and was to be called “the Sabbath day,” “the Sabbath of theLORD.” In the new testament there is, as we shall see afterwards, a signal note put on “the first day of the week.” So thence do some call their day of rest or solemn worship, and contend that so it ought to be called. But this only respects the order and relation of such a day to the other days of the week, which is natural, and hath no respect unto any thing that is sacred. It may be allowed, then, for the indigitation of such a day, and the discrimination of it from the other days of the week, but it is no proper name for a day of sacred rest. And the first use of it, upon the resurrection of our Lord, was only peculiarly to denote the time. There is a day mentioned by John, in the Revelation, (which we shall afterwards consider,) that he calleth hJme>