The Divine Appointment of the Lords Day, Part · Chapter 5

The Divine Appointment of the Lords Day · Part · Chapter 5

p. 12CHAP. V.

Prop. 4. The Apostles did actually separate and appoint the first day of the Week for holy Worship, especially in Church-Assemblies.

Here the Reader must remember, that it is … matter of fact, that is to be proved in the proof of this Proposition; and that all till this, is clearly and undenyably proved; so that the whole Controversie resteth upon the proof of the fact! That indeed The Apostles did separate … set apart this day for ordinary (publick) Worship.

And in order to the fuller proof of this, I have these … Propositions to prove.

p. 13Prop. 1. Matter of past fact is to be known to us by History (Written, Verbal or Practical.)

This is evident in the nature of the thing. History is the Narration of facts that are past. We speak not of the fact of meer natural agents, but of Moral or humane facts. It may be known without History what Eclipses there have been of the Sun; what changes of the Moon, &c. But not what in particular Morals have been done by man.

The necessity of other distinct wayes of knowledge, are easily disproved. 1. It need not be known by Divine supernatural Revelation. Otherwise no men could know what is past, but Prophets or inspired persons: nor Prophets but in few things: For it cannot be proved, that God ever revealed to Prophets or inspired persons, the general knowledge of things past; but only some particulars of special use (as the Creation to Moses, &c.) so that if Revelation by Inspiration, Voice or Visions, were necessary, Scripture it self could be understood by none but inspired persons, or that had such revelation.

2. It is not known by Natural Causes, and by arguing from the Natural Cause to the Effects. It is no more possible to know all things past this way, (by knowing the Causes) than all things future. Therefore it must be ordinarily known by Humane report, which we call History or Tradition.

Prop. 2. Scripture History is not the only certain History; much less the only credible.

Without Scripture History we may be certain, that there was in 1666. a great Fire in London, p. 14and a great plague in 1665. and that there were Wars in England, 1642, 1643, &c. and that there have been Parliaments in England which have made the Statutes now in force; and that there have been such Kings of England for many Ages, as our Records and Histories mention, &c.

Prop. 3. Scripture History is not the only certain History of the things of the Ages in which it was written, or of former Ages; much less the only credible History of them.

We may know by other History certainly, that there were such persons as Cyrus, Alexander, &c. That the Macedonians had a large extended Empire; that the Romans after by many Victories obtained a spacious Empire; that there were such persons as Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Cicero, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, &c.

Prop. 4. Scripture History is not the only means appointed by God, to help us to the knowledge of Ecclesiastical matters of fact, transacted in Scripture times.

1. For if Humane History be certain or credible in other cases, it is certain or credible in these. There being no reason why these things, or much of them, should not be as capable of a certain delivery to us by humane History as other matters. As that there were Christians in those times, may be known by what Tacitus, Suetonius, &c. say. And the antient Writers oft appeal in many cases to the Heathens own History. And no man pretendeth as to the Civil matters mentioned in the Scriptures, that no other History of the same is credible or certain. As of the Government p. 15of Augustus, Tiberius, Herod, Pilate, Foelix, Festus, &c.

2. There are other certain means known to us; of which I must refer the Reader to what I have written in my Reasons of the Christian Religion, Part 2. Cap. 7. specially pag. 335. to 340.

3. No man can doubt but that the Christians of that same age, (as till the year one hundred) might easily and certainly know such a matter of publick fact, as whether the Lords day was constantly set apart and observed by all the Christian Churches for holy Worship: For 1. It is certain that they did know it by sight and sense, and therefore had no need of History.

2. It is certain that they knew it before the Scriptures were written, which we now speak of: For it is not possible that for all those years time before any of the New Testament was written, the Christians who assembled to worship God, should not know on what day they used to assemble.

And if they knew it in the year 100. they must needs know it as well in the year 101. & 102. & 103. and so on. For those that were young Christians fifty years after Christ, would be aged at an hundred: And those that were young at an hundred, would be aged at an hundred and fifty, and so on. So that an age of people, not ending at the age of a single person, Congregations and societies are like Rivers, that keep the same channel, and name, while one part of water followeth another. Nay, some of the same men are there anno 100. who were there anno 50. some anno 150. who were there anno 100. and p. 16so on. Ten thousand thousand men, women and children, can tell on what day the Congregations of England use to assemble; whereas if an Apostle were among us, and should write on what day we assemble; fewer would know it by that means; And they that knew it but by his writing, would know it less confidently, than they that knew it by sense and experience.

Yet, forget not, that I am far from ascribing a certainty or a credibility to all humane History: Much more from equalling any with the credit of Divine History. But only I say, 1. That sense is more assuring, as to the subject, than any History whatever: 2. And that some History besides Divine is certain: 3. And that much History is credible: 4. And that this instance of the Day on which all Churches in the world assembled for holy Worship, is one of the most palpable for certainty that possibly could be imagined.

4. And I add, that if some humane History or Tradition be not certain, there can be no certainty of much of the Divine History, to any but the persons who were themselves inspired, or that saw the Visions, or Miracles that confirmed them. For as internal sense or intuition must assure the Inspired persons themselves, and external sense must assure those that saw the matters of fact; so all the rest have no way to know them, but either still by a succession of New Revelations from Heaven, (which God doth not give) or else by Report. And I can no otherwise know what was revealed to an Apostle, nor what was done in those times: (Of which more anon.)

p. 17Prop. 5. The first institution of Church Offices, and Orders, and so of the Lords day, was not by Scripture.

The proof is undeniable: Because the Old Testament did not contain the Institution, (e. g. of particular Churches, Sacraments, Presbyters, Deacons, Deaconesses, and the Lords day, &c.) And the New Testament was none of it written till anno 40. at soonest when some (as Bucholtzer, Bellarm, &c.) think Matthews Gospel was written, though others say many years after,) and it was not all written till ann. 99. Now it is certain that the Church was not all these years without the Orders now in question, nor without a day to meet on for publick Worship. Even as Baptism and the Lords Supper were instituted by Christ himself, long before the writing of any part of the New Testament, and the Church was in long possession of them, upon the bare verbal declaration of the Apostles.

Prop. 6. Therefore it is certain that no part of the New Testament was written to any such end as to institute Sacraments, or Church Offices, or standing Orders; but to instruct men about those that were already instituted, (as to the use of those times.)

For it could not be written to institute that which was instituted before, so many years.

Prop. 7. No part of the New Testament was written to make known to the Churches of those times, the said Sacraments, Offices, stated Orders, and Time of Worship; (Still observe that by a part I mean any book; And I except the Decree, written in a Letter of the Apostles, Elders and p. 18Brethren, Act. 15. concerning Circumcision, not to be imposed on the Gentiles; which yet made no new institution, nor declared any, but only determined of the continued forbearance of some things forbidden before of God, in the precepts called Noah's; and Pauls Epistles, which reduce the Churches to Orders before setled, and urge them to duty, and decide some doubts about particular cases of Conscience.)

The proof is visible, 1. In the Writings themselves: 2. In that all the Churches were in the possession and use of all the things in question, long before: (For mutable Orders and Circumstances are none of the things in question.) It would be vain to write a history now, to tell English men of this present age, that the Lords day is used in England as a day set apart for publike worship; or that persons are Baptized, or receive the Lords Supper in England. For seeing it is the common usage of all the Christians almost of the Land, it is needless to tell men among us by writing that it is so (unless it be to inferr somewhat else from it.)

Prop. 8. Yet those holy Scriptures which were written to men of those times, were also intended for the instruction of all succeeding ages; And so the foure Evangelists wrote the history of Christ, and Luke wrote the history of Paul till his coming to Rome and longer, and of some more of the Apostles; And on the by, in the Epistles extant, the Churches Customes of those times are much intimated, And all this together with the subordinate history and the universal tenure and practice of the Churches, is that history by which we must know p. 19the matters of fact of those times; Nor is there any room left for a rational pretense of Rome or any other Church, to produce Divine Institutions, which were committed only to them, or entrusted to their particular keeping only, and were not delivered in Scripture, nor in Common to the whole Church.

Prop. 9. Thus according to the use of the writings of the New Testament, the matter of fact in question (of the Lords dayes separation) is historically touched on, and proved; though but briefly and on the by, as a thing as well known to the Church before, as what day goeth over their head.

The Historical hints of the New Testament must be taken together, and not a part only; that they may prove a usage.

And, 1. That Christ rose on that day is past doubt among Christians. Joh. 20. 1. Luk. 24. 1. Mar. 16. 2. Matth. 28. 1.

2. On that same day he taught the two disciples, Luk. 24. 13. And the same day he appeared to the Disciples, and instructed them, and did eate with them, Luk. 24. 33, 36. The… the Disciples were assembled, and the… he blessed them, gave them their Commission, and the Holy Ghost, Joh. 20. 19, 20, 21, 22.

3. The next first day of the week Christ chose to appear to them again, when Thomas was with them, and convinced him, Joh. 20. 26.

4. In Act. 20. 7. It is mentioned as the day of their Assembling to break bread (which though they did oft on other daies, yet no day else was peculiarly appointed for it,) As for the dissenters cavil about the Translation of foreign. p. 20Beza hath given them Reason enough against it; And Grotius and almost all expositors are against them: And most that translate it literally una Sabbatorum, take Vna and Prima here to be all one. And Calvin with others noteth, that the same phrase being used of the day of the Resurrection, Matth. 26. 1. Luk. 24. 1. Joh. 20. 1. will direct us to expound this; unless you mean also to deny the Resurrection to have been on the first day.

And 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. foreign must needs have the same signification; And Mark 26. 9. compared with the other Evangelists so expounds them as Beza noteth; who also telleth us that in one old Copy he found added [the Lords day] and citeth Hierome adv. Vigilant. saying [Per unam Sabbati; hoc est, in die Dominico, &c.] And Dr. Hammond well noteth that it plainly relateth to the Christian assemblies, to which they were not to come empty, but to deposite what they brought into the treasury of the Church; or if it were in their private repositories, it doth not much difference the case. Calvins exception against Chrysostome here is groundless, as the reasons before evince. So that by this Text the custome of holding Church meetings on the Lords day, as a peculiar day, is intimated, though but on the by, as most Expositors agree.

And the denomination of the Lords day, Joh. 1. 10. being the same which the Christian Churches ever used of the First day, puts it yet further out of doubt. As for his conjecture who doubteth whether it may be meant of the Anniversary p. 21day of Christs Resurrection, when as the constant use of the name by all the Churches, sheweth that it was taken ever since for the weekly day, it deserveth no other refutation.

Now though all this set together shew that Scripture is not silent of the matter of fact; yet it is the full and unquestionable expository evidence of the practice of all Churches in the world, since the very daies of the Apostles, which beyond all doubt assureth us that de facto the Lords day was by the Apostles separated for holy Worship, especially in publick Church-assemblies. But these several intimations being seconded with so full an Exposition, tell us that the Scripture is not silent in the case, nor doth pass it by. I was loth to name the day of the sending down of the Holy Ghost as a proof: Because that some do controvert it. But it seemeth to me a very considerable thing. 1. That the day (that year) … of Pentecost on which the Holy Ghost was given, was indeed the first day of the week, even Dr. Heylin granteth without any question or stop. And the Churches observation of Whitsunday as the day, and that so very early as Epiphanius and many others say, from the Apostles, doth seem a very credible history or tradition of it. 2. Its agreed on that the Passoever that year fell on the Sabboth day, and that Pentecost was fifty daies after the Passover: which falleth out on the Lords day. And Grotius noteth from Exod. 19. 1. that it was the day that the Law was given on, and so on which the Spirit was given for the new Law. 3. And considering that this great gift of the Holy Ghost p. 22which was to make the Apostles Infallible, and to enable them for their commission-work, and bring all Christs Doctrines and Commands to their remembrance, was so memorable a thing, that it was as it were the Beginning of the full Gospel-state of the Church, and Kingdom of Christ, (which through all Christs abode on Earth, was as the Infant, existent indeed but in the womb, and on this day was as it were Born before the world, and brought into the open light;) the Lords day also seemeth to me to be as it were Conceived on the day of Christs Resurrection, but Born on this day of the Holy Ghosts descent.

But Dr. Heylin hath one poor reason against it, viz. Because it was but an accidental thing that the day fell out that year on the first day.

Answ. 1. Was it not according to the course of Nature? How then can that be called Accidental? 2. But however it was no contingent accidental thing (in his sense) that the Holy Ghost was sent down on that day rather than another. If a sparrow fall not to the ground without Gods providence, did God choose that day He knew not why? Or did it fall out hap hazard or by chance?

I need not insist on the confutation of his Cavi…s about the other Texts forecited. Note only, 1. That as to his exception about Christs travel on his Resurrection day, I have after answered it. 2. That he freely granteth that foreign, signifi…th The first day of the week, both in Act. 20. 7. and 1 Cor. 16. 2. 3. That he himself citeth afterward many testimonies that oblations and contributions were in the Churches a usual p. 23Lords dayes work. 4. That he confesseth that Rev. 10. 1. is meant of the Lords day, as by that time grown into reputation. 5. That he thinketh it was in small reputation before, because Paul chose the Sabbath so often to Preach on, to the Jews and Hellenists, or Greeks: whereas he himself is forced to confess that it was not for the days sake, but the Assemblies, to do them good. 6. That he vainly conceiteth [that Because the Lords day was kept on the account of Christs Resurrection,] it implyeth that it was not kept by Gods command, which needeth no confutation. 7. That his labour to prove that Paul meant the Jewish Sabbath as abrogated is vain; for we deny it not. 8. That he cannot deny that Christians had all that time of the Apostles a stated day (as Pliny himself witnesseth) for solemn worship, above other daies. 9. That he vainly snatcheth a little countenance from Calvin and Beza, &c. when as no man since Cochlaeus writeth more detestably of them. 10. That after he confesseth that [its no doubt but the Religious observation of the day began in the Apostles age with their approbation and Authority, and hath since continued in the same respect.] And what needs he more for confutation?

And as to his allegations of the Judgement of the Reformed, Lutheran and Roman Church, 1. We take none of them for our Rule (so impartial are we) But, 2. He himself citeth Beza, Mercer, Paraeus, Cuchlinus, Simler, Hospinian, Zanchius, &c. as holding that It was, an p. 24Apostolical and Truly Divine Tradition, that the Apostles turned the Sabbath into the Lords day, that it was an Apostolical custome, or a custome received in the Apostles times, &c.

And whereas afterward he would perswade us that they spent but a little of the day in holy worship, he himself cited Mr. George Sandys Travels; saying of the Copties, that [On Saturday presently after midnight, they repair unto their Churches, where they remain well nigh till Sunday at noon (of the Evening he speaketh not, but of their first meeting) during which time they neither sit nor kneel, but support themselves on Crutches; And they sing over the most part of Davids Psalms at every meeting with divers parcels of the New Testament] (This is like the old way; And such a Liturgie we do not contradict nor scruple.)

Sandys also informeth us of the ArmenianChristians that coming into the place of the Assembly on Sunday in the afternoon (no doubt they had been there in the Morning) be found one sitting in the midst of the Congregation, in habit not differing from the rest, reading on a Bible in the Chaldaean tongue: That anon after, came the Bishop in a hood or Vest of black, with a staffe in his hand? That first he prayed, and then sung certain Psalms assisted by two or three. After all of them singing joyntly, at interims praying to themselves, the Bishop all this while with his bands erected and his face towards the Altar; That Service being ended, they all kissed his hand, and bestowed their Almes, he laying his other hand on their heads, and blessing them, &c.

p. 25And of the Abaffines he reciteth out of Brierwood, (and he from Damianus a Goes) that they honour the Lords day as the Christian Sabbath, and the Saturday as the Jews Sabbath, because they receive the Canons called the Apostles which speak for both.

And King Edgar in England ordained that the Sabbath should begin ou Saturday at three a Clock Afternoon, and continue till break a Day on Munday. These Laws for the Sabbath of Alfred, Edgar, &c. were confirmed by Etheldred, and more fully by Canutus.

But of these things I shall say more anon under the Proposition following; In the mean time only remembring you, 1. That it is well that we are required after the fourth Commandment to pray [Lord have Mercy upon us, and encline our hearts to keep this Law] And we accept his Concession, that this includeth all of that Commandment which is the Law of Nature (Though I have told you that it reacheth somewhat further.) 2. That we approve of the plain Doctrine of the English Homilies on this point, and stand to the Exposition of sober impartiality.

Prop. 10. It hath been the constant practice of all Christs Churches in the whole world, ever since the daies of the Apostles to this day, to assemble for publick worship on the Lords day, as a day set apart thereunts by the Apostles. Yea so universal was this judgement and practice, that there is no one Church, no one writer, or one heretick (that I remember to have read of) that can be proved ever to have dissented or gainsaid it, till of late times.

p. 26The proof of this is needless to any one that is versed in the writings of the ancients; And others cannot try what we shall produce. I have been these ten years separated from my Library, and am therefore less furnished for this task than is requisite: But I will desire no man to receive more, than the Testimonies produced by Dr. Pet. Heylin himself, which with pittiful weakness he would pervert. And he being the Grand Adversary with whom I do now contend, I shall only premise these few Observations, as sufficient to confute all his Cavils and Evasions.

1. When his great work is to prove that the Lords day was not called the Sabbath (unless by allusion) we grant it him (as to a Jewish Sabbath) as nothing to the purpose.

2. Whereas he strenuously proveth that the Lords day was not taken for a Sabbath de re, we grant it him also, taking the word in the primitive Jewish sense.

3. When he laboureth to prove that Christians met on other daies of the week besides the Lords day (though not for the Lords Supper) we grant it him as nothing to the purpose. So Calvin Preached or Lectured daily at Geneva, and yet kept not every day as a holy day separated to Gods worship, as they did the Lords day, though too remisly. So we do still keep Weekday Lectures, and the Church of England requireth the Reading of Common Prayer on Wednesdayes and Fridays, and holy day Evens; Do they therefore keep them Holy as the Lords day?

p. 274. When he tells us that Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, plead against them that would hear and pray on that day only, we grant it him; and we are ready to say as they do, that we should not confine Gods Service to one day only, as if we might be profane and worldly on all other daies; but should take all fit opportunities for religious helps, and should all the week keep our minds as near as we can in a holy frame and temper. Of the rest of his Objections I shall say more in due place.

5. But I must note in the beginning that he granteth the main cause which I plead for, acknowledging, Hist. Sab. l. 2. page 30. it thus; [So that the Religious observation of this day, beginning in the age of the Apostles, no doubt but with their Approbation and Authority, and since continuing in the same respect for so many ages, may be very well accounted amongst those Apostolical Traditions, which have been universally received in the Church of God.] And what need we more than the Religious Observation, in the Apostles time, by the Apostles Approbation and Authority, and this delivered to us by the universal Church, as an Apostolical Tradition.

But yet he saith that the Apostles made it not a Sabbath. Answ. Give us the Religious observation, and call it by what name you please. We are not fond of the name of the Sabbath.

6 And therefore we grant all that he laboriously proveth of the abolition of the Jewish Sabbath, and that the Ancients commonly consent, that by the abolished Sabbath, Col. 2. 16. is p. 28meant inclusively the weekly Jewish Sabbath: Epiphan. l. 1. haeres. 33. n. 11. Ambros. in loc. Hieron. Epist. ad Algus. qu. 10. Chrysost. Hom. 13. in Haebr. 7. August. cont. Jud. cap. 2. & cont. Faust. Manich. l. 16. c. 28. I recite the places for them that doubt of it.

Now let us peruse the particular Testimonies.

1. I begin with Ignatius, (though Dallaeus have said so much to prove the best Copy of him of latter date and spurious; because others think otherwise, and that Copy is by him thought to be written Cent. 3.) who saith [Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner in sloth and idleness, but after a spiritual manner; not in bodily ease, but in the study of the Law; not eating meat drest yesterday, or drinking warm drinks, and walking out a limited space, but in the contemplation of the works of God—And after the Sabbath let every one that loveth Christ keep the Lords day Festival, the Resurrection day, the Queen and Empress of all daies, in which our life was raised again, and death was overcome by our Lord and Saviour.]

Either these Epist. of Ignatius (ad Philip. &c.) are genuine or spurious. If genuine, than note how clearly it is asserted that the Lords day was to be observed as the Queen of all daies, by all that were lovers of Christ. And that the seventh day Sabbath was kept with it then and there (in Asia so near the Apostles daies) no wonder; when it was but the honourable, gradual, receding from the Mosaical Ceremonies, with an avoiding the scandalous hinderance of the Jews Conversion. And Dr. Heylin well noteth, that it was p. 29only the Eastern Churches next the Jews that for a time kept both daies, but not the Western, who rather turned the Sabbath to a fast.

But if Ignatius Ep. be spurious written Cent. 3. then as Dallaeus would prove, they were written by some heretical or heterodox person; And so it will be no wonder that holy dayes are pleaded for, when (as Dr. Heylin observeth) Cerinthus and his followers in the Apostles times, stood up for the Jewish Sabbath and Ceremonies, and so were for both daies: But it will be our Confirmation that even the Hereticks held with the universal Church for the Lords day.

2. The great Controversie about the Day of Easter, which spread so early through all the Churches is a full Confirmation of our matter of fact. For when the Western Churches were for the Passover day (the better to content the Jews saith Heylin) the Eastern thought it intollerable that it should not be kept on a Lords day, because that was the weekly day observed on the same account of the Resurrection: The Eastern Churches never questioned their supposition of the Lords day; And the Western (after Victors rash excommunicating the Asian Bishops) never rested till they brought them to keep it on the Lords day: Pius, Anicetus, Victor, &c. prosecuting the cause.

3. The Book (though perished) which Melito wrote of the Lords day, Euseb. l. 4. c. 25. by the title may be well supposed to confirm at least the matter of fact or usage.

4. All those little Councils, mentioned by Heylin, p. 48. held at Osroena, Corinth, in Gaul, p. 30in Pontus, in Rome prove this, The Canons of them all, saith Heylin, being extant in Eusebius's time, and in all which it was concluded for the Sunday.

But saith Heylin by this [You see that the Sunday and the Sabbath were long in striving for the Victory] p. 49. Answ. I see that some men can out-face the clearest light. Here was no striving at all which day should be the weekly day set apart for holy worship, but only whether Easter should follow the time of …, or be confined to the Lords day.

5. Justin Martyrs Testimony is so express and so commonly cited, that I need not recite the words at large [VponUpon the Sunday all of us assemble in the Congregation—VponUpon the day called Sunday all within be Cities or in the Countrey, do meet together in some place, where, &c.] He proceedeth to shew the worship there performed.

Now 1. Here being mention of no other day, no man can question but that this day was set apart for these holy assemblies in a peculiar manner as the other week dayes were not. 2. This being the writing of one of the most Learned and antient of all the Christian Writers. 3. And being purposely written to one of the wisest of all the Emperours, as an Apologie for all the Christians: 4. And being written at Rome, where the matter of fact was easily known, deserveth as much credit as any Christian History or Writing since the Apostles can deserve. Nor hath Heylin any thing to say against it.

6. The next remembred by Heylin is Dionysius Corinth. who lived 175. cited out of Eusebius p. 31Hist. l. 4. c. 22. [To day we keep the Holy Lords day, wherein we read the Epistle you wrote to us, &c.] Against this Heylin saith not a word.

7. The next is Clemens Alexander. who expresly asserteth the matter of fact, that the Lords day was then kept by Christians. Yea, Heylin derideth him for fetching it as far as Plato Strom. l. 7. But Heylin thinks he was against keeping any dayes: But he that will examine his words shall find, that he speaketh only against them that would be Ceremonious observers of the day, more than of the work of the day, and would be religious on that day alone. And therefore he saith, that [He that leadeth his life according to the Ordinances of the Gospel doth keep the Lords Day, when he casteth away every evil thought, and doing things with knowledge and understanding, doth glorifie the Lord in his Resurrection.] This is not to speak against the Day, but to shew how it ought to be sincerely kept. But if he had been against it, its all one to my cause, who only prove that de facto all Christian Churches kept it.

8. The next witness is Tertullian, who oft asserteth this to be the holy day of the Christians Church-Assemblies, and holy Worship: His testimony in Apolog. cap. 16. is so commonly known that I need not recite it. It is the same in sense with Justin Martyrs, and written in an Apology for the Christians, purposely describing their custom of meeting and worshipping on the Sunday (as he calls it there) as Justin did. And that it was not an hours work only, he shews in saying, that The day was kept as a day of rejoicing, p. 32and then describeth the work. And de Idolol. c. 14. he saith, that every eighth day was the Christians festival. And de Coron. Mil. c. 3. and oft he calleth it the Lords day, and saith it was a crime to fast upon it. And the work of the day described by Justin, and by him Apolog. c. 39. is just the same that we desire now the day to be spent in: we plead for no other.

But most grosly saith Heylin, pag. 55. [But sure it is that their assemblies held no longer than our Morning Service; that they met only before noon; for Justin saith, that when they met they used to receive the Sacrament, and that the service being done, every man went again to his daily labours.] Answ. Is this a proof to conclude a [Certainty] from? Most certainly abundance of testimonies might be produced to prove that they came together early in the Morning, and stayed till Evening, if not till within Night. The former Pliny and many others witness: And the later many accusations of the Heathens, that censured them for night-crimes at their meetings: And all that report it almost, tell us of the Sacrament administred, and Tertullian and others, of their feasting together (their Love Feasts) as a Supper before they parted: Now let but the time be measured by the work: By that time the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New were read, and all the prayers then made, and all the Preaching and Exhortations, and then all the Prayers and Praises at the Celebration of the Lords Supper (especially if they were half as long as the Liturgies ascribed to Basil, Chrysostom, and the rest in the Biblioth. Patrum) and by p. 33that time the Sacrament it self was administred, with all the action and singing of Psalms, and all the Oblations and Collections made; and besides this, all the Church Discipline on particular persons exercised, where Questions and Answers and Proofs must take up a great deal of time, sure one day would be at an end, or very near it. And after when the Love Feasts were left off, and the Church met twice, and made an intermission, they did as we do now. And the very Custom of Preaching all the Morning to the Audientes and Catechumens, till almost Noon, when they were dismist with a Missa est, and spending the rest of the day in Teaching the Church, and Celebrating the Sacrament with all the larger Eucharistical acts, do fully shew how the day was spent: Which I would quickly prove by particular Testimonies, but that I am separated from my Library; and Dr. Young hath fully done it to my hand. The very Context of these testimonies, with what Albaspinaeus hath of their Catechizing and Church order will soon satisfie the impartial searcher.

As for what he saith out of Justin, of returning to their labours, I can find no such word in him; nor do I believe there is any such to be found, unless of returning to their six dayes weekly labour, when the Religious work was ended with the day: And I imagine the Reader will find no more, if so much.

9. The next proof is universal, even the consent of all the Christian Churches without one contradicting Vote that ever I read of, that the p. 34Lords dayes worship was to be performed standing, and that it was not allowed them to pray or worship kneeling, upon any Lords day in the year (or any week day between Easter and Whitsontide): And the difficulty of these stations is expressed (see Albaspinaeus of it) which sheweth that it was for a long time. Whatever they did in Hearing (its like they sate, for Justin saith, We rise to pray) but it is certain they stood in worshipping acts, as prayer and praise. This Justin Martyr hath before mentioned: Tertullian hath it expresly, and Heylin himself citeth him de Coron. Mil. & Basil l. de Spir. S. c. 27. & Hieron. advers. Luciferian. August. Epist. 118. Hilar. Praef. in Psal. Ambros. Serm. 62. To which he may add Epiphanius, and divers Councils, especially Nic. 1. & Trul. of which after. (I once pleaded this ancient custom with them that would have all excluded from the Sacrament that kneel not, to prove that kneeling at the Sacrament on the Lords dayes could not be in the Church of many hundred years after the Apostles, when the universal Church condemned kneeling on all Lords dayes worship.) And Dr. Heylin himself saith [What time this custom was laid by I can hardly say; but sure I am, it was not laid aside in a long time after; not till the time of Pope Alexander the third, who lived about the year 1160. &c.] Now from all this it is most evident that the Lords day was then observed.

10. In this place though by anticipation I add the two General Councils now named: The first great General Council at Nice, Can. 20. which p. 35reneweth and confirmeth this antient custom of not kneeling in prayer on the Lords dayes, that there might be an uniformity kept in the Churches. And the Cano…. Con… Trul. have the same again; which proveth what we seek, the matter of fact of the dayes general observation.

11. The next is Origen, who is not denyed to witness to the matter of fact; but Heylin thinks he was against the Right of it: But his mistake is the same, as about Clemens Alex. Origen did but desire that other dayes might be kept also as profitably as they could; as our Lecture dayes are.

12. Cyprian is the next, whose testimonies for matter of fact are full, and Heylin hath nothing to say against him, but that it is his private opinion, that the Lords day was prefigured in the eighth day destined to Circumcision. Which is nothing at all to our business in hand.

13. And he himself cites Pope Fabians Decretal Anno 237. (a testimony therefore that he is not to refuse) [for every man and woman on the Lords dayes to bring a quantity of bread and wine to be first offered on the Altar, and then distributed in the Sacrament]

The Canon of Clem. before mentioned I now pretermit.

But saith Dr. Heylin 1. All days between Easter and Whitsunday had adoration by genuflection also prohibited on them. 2. And the Church had other Festivals also.

Answ. 1. The Reason of Station was to signifie Christs Resurrection and ours: Therefore it continued for these dayes: But that was for the p. 36short occasional meetings of those dayes, which he himself will not say were separated to worship. 2. And the other Festivals of the Church make nothing against us: For 1. Some of them (as Easter and Whitsunday) were but the same Lords day. 2. And some of them were but Anniversary, and not weekly Holy dayes; as the Nativity, &c. 3. And he confesseth even these were brought in long after the Apostles dayes, and therefore can lay no claim to Apostolical institution. Pag. 62. he himself saith, that [The Feast of Christs Nativity was ordained or instituted in the second Century, and that of his Incarnation in the third.] And besides Easter and Whitsunday (which are the Lords day) Christmas is all that he nameth out of Beda (so long after) as the Majora Solennia. The Eves were but hours for preparation.

14. To these (though in the fourth Century) I may add Epiphanius, who recordeth the Station (and Adoration to the East) on the Lords dayes as those Traditions received by the Universal Church.

And here I would have it specially noted, that when Tertullian, Epiphanius and others note standing on the Lords dayes to be an unwritten Tradition received by the whole Church, they do not say the same of the Lords day it self, (though the Antients oft say, that we received it from the Apostles:) Now by this it is plain, that they took the Lords day to be of Apostolick Institution past all question, and the unwritten Vniversal Traditions to be somewhat lower (which there was no Scripture for at all.) (Among which the p. 37white Garment, and the Milk and Honey to the Baptized, and the Adoration toward the East are numbred.) For he that is appointed to worship on the Lords dayes standing, or toward the East, is supposed to know that on that day he is to worship. If the Mode on that day be of Universal Tradition as a Ceremony, the day is supposed to be somewhat more than of unwritten Tradition.

15. I add here also (though in the fourth Century, because it looks back to the Institution) the words of Athanasius cited by Heylin himself, Homil. de Semente (though Nannius question it) [That our Lord transferred the Sabbath to the Lords day.] But saith Dr. Heylin [This must be understood, not as if done by his Commandment, but on his occasion: the Resurrection of our Lord on that day, being the principal Motive which did influence his Church to make choice thereof for the Assemblies—For otherwise it would cross what formerly had been said by Athanasius in his foreign, &c.] Answ. It expresseth the common judgement of the Church, that Christ himself made the Change by these degrees: 1. Fundamentally and as an Exemplar by his own Resurrection on that day; giving the first cause of it, as the Creation-rest did of the seventh day: 2. Secretly commanding it to his Apostles. 3. Commissioning them to promulgate all his Commands. 4. Sending down the Spirit on that very day. 5. And by that Spirit determining them by promulgation to determine publickly of the day, and settle all the Churches in long possession of it before their death. That which p. 38is thus done, may well be said to be done by Christ, 2. And what shew of Contradiction hath his foreign to this? [It was commanded at first that the Sabbath day should be observed in memory of the accomplishment of the World: so do we celebrate the Lords day as a Memorial of the beginning of a new Creation.] Had not he a Creating head here that out of these words could gather, that we celebrate the Lords day without a command Voluntarily? One would think [so] should signifie the contrary.

But ib. pag. 8. he citeth Socrates for the same, saying that [The designe of the Apostles was not to busie themselves in prescribing festival daies, but to instruct the people in the wayes of Godliness.]

Answ. Socrates plainly rebuketh the busie Ceremonious arrogancy of after Ages, for making new holy dayes; and doth not at all mean the Lords day; but saith that to make festivals, that is, other and more, as since they did, was none of the Apostles business. Nor is this any thing at all to the matter of fact, which none denyed.

16. I will add that as another Testimony which p. 9. he citeth against it. The Council at Paris, An. 829. c. 50. which as he speaketh ascribeth the keeping of the Lords day to Apostolical Tradition, confirmed by the Authority of the Church: The words are [ut creditur Apostolorum traditione, immo Ecclesiae authoritate descendu, &c.] Now I have proved that if the Apostles did it, they did it by the Holy Ghost, and by Authority from Christ,

But he citeth p. 7, 8. the words of Athanasius, Maximus Taurinensis and Augustine, saying p. 39that [We honour the Lords day for the Resurrection, and because Christ rose, and (Aug.) The Lords day was declared to Christians by the Resurrection of our Lord, and from that (or from him rather) began to have its festivity] From whence he gathereth that it was only done by the authority of the Church and not by any precept of our Saviour.

Answ. As if Christs Resurrection could not be the fundamental occasion, and yet Christs Law the obliging cause? Would any else have thus argued, [The Jews observed the seventh day Sabbath, because the Creator rested the seventh day: Therefore they had no command from God for it?] Woe to the Churches that have such expositors of Gods commands! Or as if Christ who both Commissioned and Inspired the Apostles by the Holy Ghost, to teach all his commands, and settle Church Orders, were not thus the chief Author of what they did by his Commission and Spirit: What Church can shew the like Commission or the like Miraculous and Infallible Spirit as they had?

See further August. de Civitat. Dei l. 22. c. 30. & Serm. 15. de Verb. Apostol.

But, saith he, Christ and two of his Disciples travelled on the day of his Resurrection from Jerusalem to Emaus, seven miles, and back again, which they would not have done if it had been a Sabbath.

Answ. 1. They would not have done it if it had been a Jewish Sabbath of Ceremonial Rest; But those that you count too precise will go as far now in Case of need to hear a Sermon: And p. 40remember that they spent the time in Christs preaching and their Hearing and Conferring after of it. 2. But we grant that though the Foundation was laid by Christs Resurrection, yet it was not a Law fully promulgate to, and understood by the Apostles till the Coming down of the Holy Ghost (nor many greater matters neither) who was promised and given to teach them all things &c.

And it is worth the noting how Heylin beginneth his Chap. 3. l. 2. [The Lords day taken up by the common consent of the Church, not instituted or established by any Text of Scripture, or Edict of Emperour, or Decree of Council, save that some few Councils did reflect upon it: In that which follows we shall find both Emperours and Councils very frequent in ordering things about this day and the Service of it.]

Answ. Note Reader, What could possibly besides Christ and the Holy Ghost in the Apostles be the Instituter of a day, which neither Emperour nor Council instituted, and yet was received by the common consent of all Churches in the World, even from and in the Apostles dayes? Yea, as this man confesseth by their Approbation and Authority?

But hence forward in the fourth Century I am prevented from bringing in my most numerous witnesses, by Heylins Confession that now Emperours, Councils and all were for it. But yet let the Reader remember, 1. How few and small Records be left of the second Century, and not many of the third. 2. And that Historical copious Testimonies of the fourth Century, that is Emperours, Councils, and the most pious and p. 41learned Fathers, attesting that the Universal Church received it from the Apostles, is not vain or a small Evidence; when as the fourth Century began but 200 years after St. Johns death, or within less than a year.

And that the first Christian Emperour finding all Christians unanimous in the possession of the day, should make a Law (as our Kings do) for the due observing of it; And that the first General Council should establish uniformity in the very Gesture of Worship on that day, are strong Confirmations of the matter of fact, that the Churches unanimously agreed in the holy use of it as a separated day even from and in the Apostles dayes.

Obj. But the Emperour Constantines Edict alloweth Husbandmen to labour.

Answ. Only in case of apparent hazard lest the fruits of the Earth be lost; as we allow Sea-men to work at Sea, in case of necessity. And so though by his second Edict Manumission was allowed to the Judges as an act of Charity, yet they were forbidden Judging in all other ordinary causes, lest the day be profaned by wranglings.

Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius by their Edict forbad publick spectacles or shews on the Lords day. And all seeking and judging of Debts and litigious Suits. and afterward Valentinian and Valens make an Edict that no Christian should on that day be convented by the Exactors or Receivers.

Ob. But (saith H.) for 300. years there was no Law to bind men to that day.

p. 42Answ. The Apostles Institution was a Law of Christ by his spirit, Mat. 28. 20. And how should there be a humane Law before there was a Christian Magistracie?

Obj. Saith H. p. 95. The powers which raised it up, may take it lower if they please, yea take it quite away, &c.

Ans. True: that is, Christ may: And when he doth it by himself, or by new Apostles, who confirm their Commission by Miracles, we will obey: But we expect his presence with the Apostolical constitutions to the end of the World, Mat. 28. 20.

Theodosius also enacted that on the Lords day and in the Christmas, and on Easter and to Whitsuntide the publike Cirques and Theaters should be shut up. (For we grant that when Christian Magistrates took the matter in hand, other Holy dayes were brought in by degrees; whereas before the Christians indeed met (yea and Communicated) as oft as they could, even most daies in the week; but did not separate the daies as holy to Gods service as they did the Lords day: Only Christmas day, and the Memorials of those Martyrs that were neer them (to encourage the people to constancy) they honoured somewhat early; But those were anniversary, and not weekly. And the Wednesdays, and Fridays, were kept by them but as we keep them now, or as a Lecture day.

I grant also that when Christian Magistracie arose, as the Holy dayes multiplied, the manner of the dayes observation altered. For whereas from the beginning, the Christians used to stay p. 43together from morning till night, (partly through devotion, and partly for fear of persecution, if they were noted to go in and out;) Afterward being free, they met twice a day, with intermission as we do now. Not that their whole dayes Service was but an hour or two as Heylin would prove from a perverted word of Chrysostomes and another of Origenes (or Ruffinus) and from the length of their published Homilies: For he perverteth what was spoken of the length of the Sermon, as spoken of the length of all the Service of the whole day: whereas there was much more time spent in the Eucharistical and Liturgick offices, of Prayer, Praise, Sacraments, and Exhortations proper to the Church, than was in the Sermon. When I was suffered to exercise my Ministry my self, having four hundred or five hundred if not six hundred to administer the Sacrament to (though twice the number kept themselves away) it took up the time of two Sermons usually to administer it, besides all the ordinary Readings, Prayers and Praises Morning and Evening.

Heylin noteth by the way, 1. That now officiating in a white garment begun; 2. And Kneeling at the Sacrament; which last he proveth from two or three words where Adoration only is named: But, 1. A late Treatise hath fully proved that the White garment was not a Religious Ceremony then at all, but the Ordinary splendid Apparel of honourable persons in those times, which were thought meet for the honour of the Ministry when Christian Princes did advance them. 2. And he quite forgot that Adoration on p. 44the Lords dayes was ever used standing, and that he had said before, that it was above a thousand years before the custome was altered.

The inclinations to overmuch strictness on the Lords day. The destruction of the Gothish Army by the Romans in Africa because they would not fight on that day, &c. see in Heylin, p. 112, 113, &c. His translation of the words of the Synod or Council at Mascon, 588. I think worthy the transcribing.

[It is observed that Christian people do very rashly slight and neglect the Lords day; giving themselves thereon as on other dayes, to continual labours, &c. Therefore let every Christian, in case he carry not that name in vain, give eare to our instruction; knowing that we have care that you should do well, as well as the power to bridle you, that you do not ill. It followeth, Custodite Diem Dominicum qui nos denuo peperit, &c. Keep the Lords day, the day of our new birth, whereon we were delivered from the snares of sin. Let no man meddle in Litigious Controversies, or deal in actions or Law suites▪ or put himself at all on such an exigent, that needs he must prepare his Oxen for their daily work, but exercise your selves in Hymnes, and singing praises unto God; being intent thereon both in mind and body. If any have a Church at hand, let him go unto it, and there pour forth his soul in tears and Prayers; his Eyes and Hands being all that day lifted up to God. It is the everlasting day of rest, insinuating to us under the shadow of the seventh day or Sabbath, in the Law and p. 45Prophets: And therefore it is very meet that we should celebrate this day with one accord, whereon we have been made what at first we were not. Let us then offer to God our free and voluntary service, by whose great goodness we are freed from the Goal of error: not that the Lord exacts it of us, that we should celebrate this day in a corporal abstinence or rest from labour, who only looks that we do yield obedience to his holy will, by which contemning earthly things, he may conduct us to the Heavens of his infinite mercy. However if any man shall set at naught this our Exhortation, be he assured, that God shall punish him as he hath deserved; and that he shall be also subject unto the Censures of the Church. In case he be a Lawyer, he shall lose his cause; if that he be an Husbandman, or Servant, he shall be corporally punished for it: But if a Clergy-man or Monk, he shall be six Moneths separated from the Congregation.]

His reproof of Gregorius Turonensis for his strictness for the Lords day, sheweth but his own dissent from him and from the Churches of that Age.

King Alfreds Laws for the observation of the Lords day, and against Dicing, Drinking, &c. on it, are visible in our own Constitutions, in Spelman and others. And many more Edicts and Laws are recited by H. himself of other Countreys.

Two are worthy the observation for the Reasons of them. 1. A Law of Cl…tharius King of p. 46France, forbidding servile labours on the Lords day [Because the Law forbids it, and the holy Scripture wholly contradicteth it.] 2. A Constitution of the Emperour Leo Philosophus, to the same purpose [Secundum quod Spiritui sancto ab ipso que institutis Apostolis placuit; As it pleased the Holy Ghost and the Apostles instructed by him.] You see that then Christian Princes judged the Lords day to be of Divine Institution. Yea, to these he addeth two more Princes of the same mind, confessing that Leo was himself a Scholar, and Charles the Great had as Learned men about him, as the times then bred, and yet were thus perswaded of the day; yea, and that many Miracles were pretended in confirmation of it; yet he affirmeth, that the Church and the most learned men in it were of another mind. Let us hear his proofs.

1. Saith he, Isidore a Bishop of Sevil makes it an Apostolical Sanction only, no Divine Commandment: a day designed by the Apostles, for Religious Exercises in honour of our Saviours resurrection; and it was called the Lords day therefore: to this end and purpose, that resting in the same from all earthly acts and the temptations of the world, we might intend Gods holy Worship, giving this day due honour for the hope of the resurrection which we have therein. The same verbatim is repeated by Beds l. de Offic. and by Raban. Maurus l. de inst. Chr. l. 2. c. 24. and by Alcuinus de Die Offic. c. 24. which plainly shews, that all these took it only for an Apostolical usage, &c.

Answ. Reader, is not here a strange kind of proof? This is but just the same that we assert, p. 47and I am proving; save that he most grosly puts an Apostolical usage, and sanction (sanxerunt) as distinct from, and exclusive of a Command, which I have fully proved to be Christs own Act and Law to us, by vertue of 1. Their Commission: 2. And the infallible Spirit given them.

And having brought the History to so fair an account by our chief Adversaries own Citations and confessions, I will not tire my self and the Reader with any more; but only wish every Christian to consider, whether they that thus distinguish between Apostolical Sanctions, and Divine Institutions as this man doth, do not teach men to deny all the holy Scriptures of the New Testament, as being but Apostolical writings: and go far to deny or subvert Christianity it self; by denying the Divine Authority of these Commissioned Inspired men, who are foundations of the Church, and sealed their Doctrine by Miracles, and from whom it is that our Christian Faith, and Laws, and Church constitutions which are Universal and Divine, are received.

I only remember you of Pliny a Heathens testimony, of the Christians practice stato die. No man can question Pliny on the account of Partiality: And therefore though a Heathen, his Historical testimony as joyned with all the Christian Church History, hath its credibility. He telleth Trajan, that it was the use of Christians on a stated day, before it was light to meet together, to sing a Hymn to Christ as to God secum invicem, among themselves by turns; and to bind themselves by a Sacrament, not to do any wickedness, but that they commit not Thefts, Robberies, Adulteries; p. 48that they break not their word (or trust) that they deny not the pledge (or pawn); which being ended they used to depart, and to come again together to take meat, but promiscuous and harmless.] Epist. 97. p. 306, 307.

Where note, 1. That by a stated day, he can mean no other than the Lords day, as the consent of all other History will prove. 2. That this is much like the testimonies of Justin and Tertullian, and (supposing what they say of the use of Reading the Scripture, and Instructing the Church) it sheweth that their chief work on that day, was the Praises of God for our Redemption by Christ, and the celebration of the Lords Supper; and the Disciplinary exercises of Covenanters thereto belonging. 3. That they had at that time where Pliny was two meetings that day, that is, they went home, and came again to their Feast of Love, in the Evening. (Which, no doubt, was varied, as several times, and places, and occasions required; sometimes departing and coming again, and sometimes staying together all day.) 4. That this Epistle of Pliny was written in Trajans dayes, and it is supposed in his second year: And Trajan was Emperour the year that St. John the Apostle died, if not a year before; so that it is the Churches custom in the end of the Apostles dayes, which Pliny here writeth of. 5. That he had the fullest testimony of what he wrote, it being the consent of the Christians whom he, as Judge, examined; even of the timorous that denyed their Religion, as well as of the rest. And many of them upon his prohibition forbore these p. 49meetings. 6. And the number of them he telleth Trajan in City and Countrey was great, of persons of all degrees and ranks.

So that when 1. Christian History, 2. And Heathen, acquaint us with the matter of fact, that the day was kept in the Apostles time; 3. Yea, when no Hereticks or Sects of Christians are found contradicting it, but the Churches then and after universally practised it without any controversie; what fuller historical evidence can there be? And to say, that 1. The Apostles would not have reproved this, if it had not been their own doing: 2. Or that it could be done, and they not know it: 3. And that all Christians who acknowledged their authority, would have consented in such a practice superstitiously before their faces, and against their wills, and no testimony be left us of one faithful Church or Christian that contradicted it, and stuck to the Apostolical authority, even where the Churches received their writings, and publickly read them, all this is such, as is not by sober Christians to be believed.

But the great Objection will be, That other things also were then taken for Apostolical Traditions, and were customs of the universal Church, as well as this; which things we now renounce as superstitious.

Answ. Though I answered this briefly before, I now give you this fuller answer: I. It is but few things that come under this charge, viz. the Unction, white Garment, with the taste of Milk and Honey at Baptism, Adoration towards the East, and that standing; and not kneeling on the p. 48duplicate page p. 49duplicate page p. 50Lords dayes, and the Anniversary Observation of Easter and Whitsuntide: And the last is but the keeping of one or two Lords dayes in the year with some note of distinction from the rest, so far as there was any agreement in it. 2. That these are not usually by the Antients called Apostolical Traditions, but Customs of the Vniversal Church: 3. That when they are called Traditions from the Apostles, it is not with any assertion that the Apostles instituted them, but that they are supposed to be from their times, because their Original is not known. 4. That the Antients joyn not the Lords day with these, but take the Lords day for an Apostolical institution written in Scripture, though the universal practice of all Churches fullier deliver the certain History of it: But the rest they take for unwritten Customs, as distinct from Scripture Ordinances. (As Epiphanius fully sheweth.) 5. That most Christians are agreed, that if these later could be proved Apostolical Institutions for the Church universal, it would be our duty to use them, though they were not in Scripture. So that we reject them only for want of such proof: But the proof of the Lords dayes separation being far better (by concurrence of Scripture and all antient History) it followeth not that we must doubt of that which hath full and certain proof, because we must doubt of that which wants it. 6. And if it were necessary that they stood or fell together (as it is not) it were necessary that we did receive those three or four Ceremonies, for the sake of the Lords day, which …ath so great evidence, rather than that we cast p. 51off the Lords day, because of these Ceremonies. Not only because there is more Good in the Lords d…y, than there is evil to be any way suspected by a doubter in these Ceremonies; but especially because the Evidence for the day is so great, that if the said Ceremonies had but the same, they were undoubtedly of Divine authority or institution. In a word, I have shewed you somewhat of the evidence for the Lords day; Do you now shew me the like for them, and then I will prove that both must be received: But if you cannot, do not pretend a parity. 7. And the same Churches laying by the Customs aforesaid, or most of them, did shew that they …ok them not indeed for Apostolical institutions, as they did the Lords day which they continued to observe; not as a Ceremony, but as a necessary thing. 8. And the ancient Churches did believe, that even in the Apostles dayes some things were used as Indifferent which were mutable, and were not Laws, but temporary customs. And some things were necessary, setled by Law for perpetuity: Of the former kind they thought were, the greeting one another with a holy kiss, the Womens praying covered with a Veil, (of which the Apostle saith, that it was then and there so decent, that the contrary would have been unseemly, and the Churches of God had no such custom, (by which he answereth the contentious) yet in other Countreys, where custom altereth the signification, it may be otherwise: Also that a man wear not long hair; and that they have a Love Feast on the Lords day, (which yet Paul seemeth to begin p. 52to alter in his rebuke of the abusers of it, 1 Cor. 11.) And if these ancient Churches thought the Milk and Honey, and the white Garment, and the Station and Adoration Eastwards, to be also such like indifferent mutable customs, as it is apparent they did, this is nothing at all to invalidate our proof, that the Lords day was used (and consequently appointed) in the dayes of the Apostles.

Obj. At least it will prove it mutable as they were.

Answ. No such matter: Because the very nature of such Circumstances, having no stated necessity or usefulness, sheweth them to be mutable. But the reason of the Lords dayes use is perpetual: And it is founded partly in the Law of nature, which telleth us that some stated dayes should be set apart for holy things; and partly in the positive part of the fourth Commandment; which telleth us, that once God determined of one day in seven, yea, and this upon the ground of his own Cessation of his Creation-work, that man on that day might observe a Holy Rest in the worshipping of the great Creator, which is a Reason belonging not to the Jews only, but to the whole world. Yea, and that Reason (whatever Dr. Heylin say to the contrary, from the meer silence of the former History in Genesis) doth seem plainly to intimate that this is but the repetition of that Law of the Sabbath which was given to Adam: For why should God begin two thousand years after to give men a Sabbath upon the reason of his rest from the Creation, and for the Commemoration p. 53of it, if he had never called man to that Commemoration before.

And it is certain that the Sabbath was observed at the falling of Manna before the giving of the Law: And let any considerate Christian judge between Dr. Heylin and us in this; 1. Whether the not fal…ing of Manna, or the Rest of God after the Creation, was like to be the Original reason of the Sabbath. 2. And whether if it had been the first, it would not have been said, Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day; for on six dayes Manna fell, and not on the seventh,] rather than [For in six dayes God created Heaven and Earth, &c. and rested the seventh day.] And it is causally added, [Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.] Nay, consider whether this annexed Reason intimate not, that the day on this ground being hallowed before, therefore it was that God sent not down the Manna on that day, and that he prohibited the people from seeking it.

And he that considereth the brevity of the History in Genesis, will think he is very bold, that obtrudeth on the world his Negative Argument: [The Sabbath is not there mentioned: therefore it was not then kept.]

And if it was a Positive Law given to Adam on the reason of the Creation Rest, it was then such a Positive, as must be next to a Law of Nature, and was given to all mankind in Adam, and Adam must needs be obliged to deliver it down to the world.

So that though the Mosaical Law (even as given in Stone) be ceased, yea, and Adams Positives p. 54too, formally as such; yet this is sure, that once God himself determined by a Law, that one stated day in seven, was the fittest proportion of time to be separated to holy Worship. And if it was so once, yea, to all the world from the Creation, it is so still: Because there is still the same reason for it: And we are bound to judge Gods determination of the proportion to be wiser than any that we can make. And so by parity of Reason consequentially even those abrogated Laws do thus far bind us still; not so far as abrogated; but because the record and reason of them, is still a signification of the due proportion of time, and consequently of our duty.

Now the Lords day, supposing one weekly day to be due, and being but that day determined of, and this upon the Reason of the Resurrection, and for the Commemoration of our Redemption, and that by such inspired and authorized persons, it followeth clearly, that this is no such mutable ceremony, as a Love Feast, or the Kiss of Love, or the Veil, or the washing of feet, or the anointing of the sick, which were mostly occasionall actions and customs taken up upon reasons proper to those times and places.

Obj. But by the reason aforesaid, you will prove the continuance of the seventh day Sabbath; as grounded on the Creation rest.

Answ. This is anom to be answered in due place. I only prove that it continued, till a successive dispensation, and Gods own change did put an end to it; but no longer.

Obj. But to commemorate the Creation, and p. 55praise the Creator is a Moral work, and therefore ceaseth not.

Answ. True: but that it be done on the seventh day; is that which ceaseth. For the same work is transferred to the Lords day; and the Creator and Redeemer to be honoured together in our Commemoration. For the Son is the only way to the Father; who hath restored us to Peace with our Creator; And as no man cometh to the Father but by the Son, and as we must not now worship God, as a Creator and Father never offended, but as a Creator and Father reconciled by Christ, so is it the appointment of Christ by the Holy Ghost, that we commemorate the work of Creation now as repaired and restored by the work of Redemption, on the Lords day, which is now separated to these works.

That the Sabbath was appointed to Adam, Wallaeus on the fourth Commandment, cap. 3. and Rivet dissert. de sab. c. 1. have most copiously proved. And Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 5. out of Homer, Hesiod, Callimachus and others proveth that the Heathens knew of it.

We may therefore summ up the prerogatives of the Lords day, as Leo did, Ep. 81. c. 1. On this day the world began; on this day by Christs Resurrection, Death did receive Death, and Life its beginning; on this day the Apostles take the trumpet of the Gospel to be preached to all Nations; on this day the Holy Ghost came from the Lord to the Apostles, &c. See more in Athanas. de Sab. & Circ. & August. Serm. 154. de Tempore. Therefore saith Isychius in Levit. l. 2. c. 9. The Church setteth apart the Lords day for holy Assemblies. p. 56And in the times of Heathenish persecution, when men were asked, Whether they were Christians, and kept the Lords dayes, they answered that they were, and kept the Lords day, which Christians must not omit: as you may see Act. Marty…. apud Baron. an. 303. n. 37, 38, 39. They would die rather than not keep the holy assemblies and the Lords dayes: For saith Ignatius, After the Sabbath every lover of Christ celebrateth the Lord… day … to (or by) the Lords resurrection, the Queen and chief of … d…yes (as is afore cited.) For saith Augustine, The Lords Resurrection hath promised us an eternal Day, and consecrated to us the Lords day; which is called the Lords, and properly belongeth to the Lord, Serm. 15. de Verb. Apost. And saith Hilary Pr…leg. in Psalm. Though the name and observance of a Sabbath was placed to the seventh day, yet is it the eighth day, which is also the first, on which we rejoyce with the perfect festivity of the Sabbath.

Of the f…l keeping of the whole day, and of the several Exercises in which it was spent, and of the more numerous testimonies of Antiquity hereupon. Dr. Y…ung in his Dies Dominica hath said so much, with so much evidence and judgement▪ … I purposely omit abundance of such Testimonies, because I will not do that which he hath already done; The Learned Reader may there find unanswerable proof, of the matter of fact, that the Lords day was kept in the Apostles dayes, and ever since as by their appointment; And for the unlearned Reader, I fear lest I have too much interrupted him with Citations already. p. 57I only tell him in the Conclusion, that If Scripture Hi…tory interpreted and seconded by fullest practice and History of all the Churches of Christ, and by the consent of Heathens and Heretick…, and not contradicted by any Sect in the world, be to be believed, then we must say, that the Lords day was commonly kept by the Christians in and from the Apostles times.

Prop. 11. This evidence of the Churches universal constant usage, is a full and sufficient proof of the matter of fact, that it was a day set apart by the Apostles for holy Worship, especially in the publick Church-assemblies.

1. It is a full proof, that such Assemblies were held on that day above others, as a separated day. For if it was the usage in Anno 100. (in which the Apostle John dyed) it must needs be the usage in the year 99. in which he wrote his Revelations, where he calleth it the Lords day: For all the Churches could not silently agree on a sudden to take up a new day, without debate and publick notice, which could not be concealed. And if it was the universal usage in the dayes of Ignatius or Justin Martyr, it was so also in the dayes of St. John, (and so before) For the Churches were then so far dispersed over the world, that it would have taken up much time to have had Councils and meetings or any other means for agreement on such things.

And it is utterly improbable that there would have been no dissenters? For, 1. Did no Christians in the world so neer to the Apostles daies make any scruple of superstition? or of such an addition p. 58to Divine institutions? 2. Was there no Countrey, nor no persons whose interest would not better suit with another day, or an uncertain day? or at least their opinions? when we find it now so hard a matter to bring men in one Countrey, to be all of one opinion. 3. And there was then no Magistrate to f…rce them to such an Union; And therefore it mast be voluntary. 4. And they had in the second age such Pastors as the Apostles themselves had ordained, and as had conversed with them, and been trained up by them and knew their mind, and cannot soberly be thought likely to consent all on a sudden to such a new institution, without and contrary to the Apostles sense and practice. 5. Yea, they had yet Ministers that had that extraordinary spirit which was given by the laying on of the Apostles hands: For if the aged Apostles ordained young men, it is to be supposed that most of those young men, (such as Timothy) overlived them. 6. Yea and the ordinary Christians in those times had those extraordinary gifts by the laying on of the Apostles hands, as appeareth evidently in the case of Samaria, Act. 8. and of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 12. & 14. and of the Galathians, Gal. 3. 1, 2, 3. And it is not to be suspected that all these inspired Ministers and people would consent to a superstitious innovation, without and against the Apostles minds.

2. Therefore this history is a full proof, that these things were done by the consent and appointment of the Apostles. For, 1. As is said, the inspired persons and Churches could not so suddenly be brought to forsake them universally in p. 59such a case. 2. The Churches had all so high an esteem of the Apostles, that they took their Authority for the highest, and their judgement for infallible, and therefore received their writings as Canonical and Divine. 3. The Churches professed to observe the Lords day as an Apostolical Ordinance, And they cannot be all supposed to have conspired in a lie, yea to have belyed the Holy Ghost. 4. The Apostles themselves would have controlled this course, if it had not been by their own appointment. For I have proved that the usage was in their own daies. And they were not so careless of the preservation of Christs Ordinances and Churches, as to let such things be done, without contradiction; when it is known how Paul strove to resist and retrench all the corruptions of Church-order in the Churches to which he wrote. If the Apostles, silently connived at such corruptions, how could we rest on their authority? Especially the Apostle John in an. 99 would rather have written against it as the superstition of Usurpers (as he checkt Diotrephes for contempt of him) than have said that he was in the Spirit on the Lords day when he saw Christ, and received his Revelation and message to the Churches. 5. And if the Churches had taken up this practice universally without the Apostles, it is utterly improbable that no Church writer would have committed to memory either that one Church that begun the custome, or the Council or means used for a sudden Confederacy therein. If it had begun with some one Church, it would have been long before the rest would have been brought to an agreeing Consent. It was many hundred years before they all agreed of the Time of Easter; And it was till the middle of Chrysostomes p. 60time (for he saith it was but ten years agoe, when he wrote it) that they agreed of the time of Christs Nativity.

But if it had been done by Confederacy at once, the motion, the Council called about it, the debates, and the dissenters and resistances would all have been matter of fact, so notable, as would have found a place in some Author or Church History: Whereas there is not a Syllable of any such thing; either of Council, letter, messenger, debate, resistance, &c. Therefore it is evident that the thing was done by the Apostles.

Prop. 12. They that will deny the validity of … Historical evidence, do by consequence betray the Christian faith, or give away or deny the necessary means of proving the truth of it, and of many great particulars of Religion.

I suppose that in my Book called The Reasons of the Christian Religion, I have proved that Christianity is proved true, by the SPIRIT as the great witness of Christ, and of the Christian Verity; But I have proved withall, the necessity and certainty of historical means, to bring the matters of fact to our notice, as sense it self did bring them to the notice of the first receivers. For instance,

I. Without such historical Evidence and Certainty, we cannot be certain what … of Scripture are truly Canonical and of Divine authority, and what not. This Protestants grant to Papists in the Controversie of Tradition. Though the Canon be it self compleat, and Tradition is no supplement to make up the Scriptures, as if they were i… su… genere imperfect, yet it is commonly p. 61granted that our Fathers and Teachers Tradition is the hand to deliver us this perfect Rule, and to tell us what parts make up the Canon.

If any say that the Books do prove themselves to be Canonical or Divine, I answer, 1. What man alive could tell without historical proof that the Canticles, or Esther, are Canonical? yea or Ecclesiastes, or the Proverbs, and not the Books of Wisdome and Ecclesiasticus?

2. How can any man know that the Scripture histories are Canonical? The suitableness of them to a holy soul, will do much to confirm one that is already holy, of the truth of the Doctrines: But if the spirit within us assure us immediately of the truth of the History, it must be by Inspiration and Revelation, which no Christians have, that ever I was yet acquainted with. For instance, that the Books of Chronicles are Canonical, or the Book of Either, or the Books of the Kings, or Samuel, or Judges. And how much doth the doctrine of Christianity depend on the history? As of the Creation, of the Israelites bondage, and deliverance, and the giving of the Law, and Moses miracles, and of Chronologie and Christs Genealogie; and of the History of Christs own Nativity, Miracles and Life; and the History of the Apostles afterward? To say that the very History so far proveth its own truth, as that without subsequent History we can be sure of it, and must be, is to reduce all Christs Church of right believers into a narrow room; when I never knew the man that (as far as I could perceive) did know the History to be Divine by its proper evidence, without Tradition, and subsequent History.

p. 623. And how can any man know the Ceremonial Law to be Divine, by its proper evidence alone? Who is he that readeth over Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, that will say that without knowing by History that th… is a Divin… Record, he could have certainly perceived by the Book it self, that all these were indeed Divine institutions or Laws?

4. And how can any meer Positive institutions o… the New Testament be known proprio lumine, by their own evidence to be Divine? As the institution of Sacraments, Officers, Orders, &c. What is there in them that can infallibly prove it to us?

5. And how can any Prophecies be known by their own evidence to be Divine, (till they are fulfilled and that shall prove it.)

I know that the whole frame together of the Christian Religion … its sufficient Evidence, but we must not be guilty of a peevish rejecting it. The … part … its witness within us, in that state of holiness which it imprinteth on the soul; and the rest are witnessed, to or proved partly by that, and partly by Miracles, and those and the records by historical evidence. But when God hath made many things necessary to the full evidence, and wranglers through partiality and Contention against each others will some throw away one part and some another, they will all prove destroyers of the faith (as all dividers be.) If the Papist will say, It is Tradition and not inhaerent Evidence, or if others will say that it is inhaerent evidence alone, and not history or Tradition, where God hath made both needful hereunto, p. 63both will be found injurious to the faith.

II. Without this historical evidence we cannot prove that any of the books of Scripture are not maimed or depraved. That they come to our hands as the Apostles and Evangelists wrote them, uncorrupted. It is certain by History, that many Hereticks did deprave and c…rrupt them, and would have obtruded those Copies or Corruptions on the Churches: And how we shall certainly prove that they did not prevail, or that their copies are false, and ours are true, I know not without the help of History. Mahomet and his followers (more numerous than the Christians) pretend that Mahomets name was in the Gospel of John as the Paraclet or Comforter promised by Christ, and that the Christians have blotted it out, and altered the Writings of the Gospel. And how shall we disprove them but by Historical Evidence? As the Arrians, and Socinians pretend that we have added, 1 John 5. 7. for the Trinity, so others say of other Texts; And how shall we confute them without Historical Evidence?

III. Therefore we cannot make good the Authority of any one single Verse or Text of Scripture which we shall alledge, without historical evidence. Because we are not certain of that particular text, (or words,) whether it have been altered or added, or corrupted, by the fraud of Hereticks, or the partiality of some Christians, or the oversight of Scribes: For if a Custome of setting apart one day weekly, even the first, for publick Worship, might creep into all the Churches in the World, and no man know how, nor p. 64when; much more might one or a few corrupt Copies become the exemplar of those that follow. For, what day all the Churches meet, men, women, and children know; Learned and unlearned know; the Orthodox and Hereticks know; and they so know, as that they cannot choose but know. But the alterations of a Text, may b… u…nown to all save the Learned, and the observing …iligent part of the learned only, and … that they tell it to. And besides Origen (… a Heretick) and Hierome, alas, how few of the Fathers were …ble and diligent Examiners of such things? Therefore in the case of various Re…dings such as Ludov. Capellus treats of in his … Sacra, contradicted in many things by Bishop Vsher and others, who are those Divines that have hitherto appealed either to the Spirit, or to the proper light of the words, for a decision? Who is it that doth not presently fly to historical evidence? And what that cannot determine we all con…ess to be uncertain? And if Copies and History had delivered to us as various Readings o… every Text as they have done of some, every Text would have remained uncertain to us.

Let none say that this leaveth the Christian Religion, or the Scriptures uncertain: I have fully answered that elsewhere. 1. Christian Religion, that is, The Material parts of the Scripture on which our salvation lyeth, hath much fuller evidence, than each particular Text or Canonical Book hath. And we need not regard the perverse zeal for the Scriptures of those men that would make all our Christianity as uncertain, as the authority of a particular Text or book is. And p. 65therefore God in mercy hath so ordered it, that a thousand Texts may be uncertain to us, or not understood (no not by any or many Divines) and yet the Christian faith be not at all shaken, or ever the more uncertain for this: When as he that understandeth not or believeth not every essential Article of the faith, is no Christian. 2. And those books and Texts of Scripture, are fully certain by the subservient help of History and usage, which would be uncertain without them. Therefore it is the act of an enemy of the Scriptures, to cast away, and dispute against that History which is necessary to our knowledge of its certainty, and afterwards to plead that they who take in those necessary helps do make it uncertain: Even as if they should go about to prove that all writings are uncertain, and therefore that they make Christs doctrine uncertain, who rest upon the credit of writings, that is, the Sacred Scriptures.

IV. Without historical notice, how should we know that these Books were written by any of the same men that bear their names? As Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, &c. Especially when the Hereticks did put forth the Gospel of Thomas, Nicodemus, the Itinerary of Peter and many Books under venerable names? Or when the name of the Author is not notified to all Christians certainly, either by the spirit within us, or by the matter? And though our salvation depend not on the notice of the Penman, yet it is of great moment in the matter of faith.

p. 66V. And how should we be certain that no other Sacred Books are lost, the knowledge of which would tell us of that which these contain not, and would help us to the better understanding of these? I know that a priore we may argue from Gods Goodness, that he will not so forsake his Church, As a Jew might have done before Christs incarnation, that the Gospel should be written, because it is best for the world or Church. But when we consider how much of the world and Church, God hath forsaken, since the Creation, and how dark we are in such Prognosticks, and how little we know what the Churches sins may provoke God to, we should be less confident of such reasonings, than we are of Historical Evidence, which tells us de facto what God hath done. So much of the use of the History, as to the Cause of the Scriptures themselves.

Next you may observe that the denyal of the certainty of humane History and usage, doth disadvantage Christianity in many great particular concernments. As, 1. Without it we should not fully know whether de facto the Church and Ministry dyed, or almost dyed with the Apostles? And whether there have been any true Churches since then till our own dayes? Christs promise indeed tells us much; but if we had no History of the performance of it, we should be ready to doubt that it might be yet unperformed; as far as the promise to Adam (Gen. 3. 15.) and to Abraham (in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed) were till the coming of Christ. Nor could we easily confute the Roman or any hereticall Usurpation, which would pretend possession p. 67since the Apostles daies, and that all that are since gone to Heaven, have gone thither by their way, and not by ours.

II. Nor could we much better tell de facto, whether Baptism have been administred in the form appointed by Christ, In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Indeed we may well and truly argue a priore, Christ commanded it, Ergo the Apostles obeyed him: But, 1. That Argument would hold good as to none or few but the Apostles: And, 2. It would as to them, be though true, yet much more dark than now it is, because, 1. We read that Peter disobeyed his command, in Gal. 2. And, 2. That after he had commanded them to Preach the Gospel to every Creature, and all the World, Peter scrupled still going to the Gentiles, Act. 10. And, 3. That when he said to them, Pray thus [Our Father, &c.] yet we never read that they after used that form of words; so when he said to them [Baptize in the name of the Father, &c.] yet the Scripture never mentioneth that they or any other person, ever used that form of words. But yet usage and History assureth us that they did.

III. Nor have we any fuller Scripture proof, that the Apostles used to require of those that were to be Baptized any more than a general Profession of the substance of the Christian faith, in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; Or of the ancient use of the Christian Creed, either in the words now used, or any of the same importance. From whence many would inferr that any one is to be Baptized, who will but say, that [I believe that Jesus p. 68Christ is the Son of God] with the Eunuch, Act. 8. 37. or that Christ is come in the flesh, 1 Joh. 4. 2, 3.

But Historical evidence assureth us, that it was usual in those times, to require of men a more explicite understanding profession of the Christian faith before they were admitted to Baptisme; And that they had a summary or Symbole, fitted to that use, commonly called The Apostles Creed; at least as to the constant tenour of the matter, though some words might be left to the speakers will, and some little subordinate Articles may be since added. And that it was long after the use to keep men in the state of Catechised persons, till they understood that Creed. And it is in it self exceeding probable that though among the intelligent Jews, who had long expected the Messiah, the Apostles did Baptize thousands in a day, Act. 2. Yet where the Miraculous communication of the Spirit did not antecede (as it did Act. 10.) they would make poor Heathens who had been bred in ignorance to understand what they did first, and would require of them an understanding profession of their Belief in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; which could not possibly (if understanding) contain much less than the Symbolum fid…i, the Apostles Creed.

IV. Nor have we any Scripture proof, (except by inferring obedience from the precept) that ever the Lords Prayer was used in words, after Christ commanded or delivered it: Whence some inferr that it should not be so used: But Church History putteth that past doubt. Other such instances I pretermit.

p. 69I think now that I have fully proved to sober considerate Christians, that the matter of fact (that the Lords day was appointed by the Apostles peculiarly for Church-Worship) is certain to us by historical Evidence, added to the historical intimations in Scripture as a full exposition and confirmation of it: And that this is a proof that no Christian can deny without unsufferable injury to the Scriptures and the Christian cause.