The Divine Appointment of the Lords Day, Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
An Answer to certain Objections against the Lords Day.
THough they are answered before, the Reader must pardon me, if upon the particular urgencies of some Objectors, I again make answer to these that follow.
Obj. Act. 20. 7. The first day … the Week; Gr. [one of the Sabbaths] That … breaking of Bread there was common Eating, …mpare the like greek phrase, Act. 27. 35. & … 42. see Esa. 58. 7. However it was but an …ample of Preaching, and breaking Bread, upon a …ecial occasion.
Answ. 1. That foreign signi…th on the first day of the week, the Generality … the ancients both Greek and Latine agree, …hose testimony about the sense of a word, is the …st Dictionary and evidence that we can expect. …nd the same phrase used of the Day of Christs …surrection by the Evangelists proveth it. …hough I am sorry to hear of one that denyeth …at also, and asserteth that Christ rose on the second day morning, because else he could not as Jonah, be three dayes and nights buried. But I am not so proud as to think my self capable of convincing that man in such a matter of fact, who will not believe the historical witness of the whole Church of Christ, and expecteth to be believed against them all, at …uch a distance in the end of the World.
2. There is no doubt but that foreign breaking of Bread, was both a Common and a Sacred action: And the phrase is to be interpreted by the context, to know when it signifieth the common, and when the Sacred. In Act. 27. 35. the context teacheth us to interpret i… of common eating: But that it doth not so, Act. 2. 42, 46. or Act. 20. is plain to him that considereth, 1. That it was then usual to communicate Sacramentally in all their Church Assemblies. 2. That these mentioned were Church-assemblies; the Church being met purposely for Sacred works. Yet it is to be remembred, that the Love feasts did usually concurr in the beginning with the Sacrament, and the name might be used with respect to both.
3. That it was not a meer occasional meeting▪ is apparent to the unprejudiced, 1. Because they stayed at …roas seven dayes, v. 6. and in all the seven make no mention of this exercise, but on one only, which was the first, 2. Because as is said it was not a family, or by-meeting, but a Church…meeting; [The Disciples came or assembled together… 3. Because it said that they assembled for this very end, to b…k bread [foreign] 4. The great length of time which was spent in the holy exercises: Besides the rest of the Worship, and breaking of Bread, Paul Preaching till midnight: which intimateth that such work took up the day. 5. Because it is mentioned as a matter of their custome: They did not assemble because Paul called them to hear him only, as being to depart on the morrow; But Paul assembled with them at the time of their assembling to break Bread; And it seemeth that he deferred his journey for that opportunity. 6. Because other Texts as joyned with this, and infallible Church History following, do prove past all doubt that it was the constant custome of all the Churches so to do.
Obj. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. The first day of the week, &c. gr. one of the Sabbaths. It is an ordinance to lay aside for charitable uses; but not one word about changing of the Sabbath.
Answ. The abolition of the Sabbath we prove not by this Text, but by others: All that we bring this for, is but to shew in conjunction with others, as part of the Sacred History, that the first day was the Churches separated day. And I pray mark the strength of the proof, that the Apostle did [give order that all the Churches of Galatia as well as the Corinthians, should deposite] their Almes on one and the same day, viz. on the first day: Was it not enough to tie them to the contribution, but he must tie them all to one set day to lay it by, or deposite it? if it had not been because the Churches used to assemble on this day, and not to appear before God empty (as Dr. Hammond noteth on the Text?) Whoever heard else that God or man tyed several Countreys to one set day for the private depositing of their own moneys afterward to be distributed? With such Sacrifices God is well pleased; And therefore it was ever accounted by Christians a fit work for the sanctified day: But no other day was ever appointed peculiarly for the set time of laying by mens gifts of Charity.
Obj. Rev. 1. 10. John was in the Spirit on the Lords day. Compare Exod. 20. 10, &c. Esa. 58. 13, &c. Luk. 6. 5. Mark 2. 28. Mat. 12. 8, &c. And if the Scriptures be the rule to judge, resolve whether that day be not the Lords day, of which day, (and of which only as distinguished from the other dayes of the week,) the Son of man is Lord.
Answ. We are not upon a Controversie of title or propriety, whether God be Lord of other dayes: For so no doubt, he is Lord of all, and therefore no more of one than another, because his propriety in each one is absolute; And it can be no more in any. Thus also he is absolute Lord of all things, all places, all persons, &c. And yet some things, some places, some persons have been separated to his service by a peculiar Dedication and Relation; and thence have been peculiarly called The Lords. And the Texts cited by you out of the old Testament prove that such was the seventh day Sabbath then: But not that it is so now; or was to be so for perpetuity.
And the words of the new Testament cited [The Son of man is Lord also, or even of the Sabbath day,] shews no more, then that it was in his power: He giveth it as a reason for his doing that which the Pharises counted Sabbath-breaking (By which he oftentimes offended them;) and not as a reason of his astablishing it. And it seemeth plainly to mean, that being but a Positive Law, and a Law of Moses, he had power to change it, and dispense with it, as well as with other Positives and Mosaical Laws. As it is said, Ephes. 1. 22, 23. he hath made him Head over all things to the Church; not Head to all things; so he is Lord over, or of all dayes; But all are not separated to his Worship. As it is said, Joh. 17. 2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him: so it may be said, he hath power over all dayes, that he may sanctifie one to his peculiar service, and use the rest in more common works.
But that which we bring this text for is but to know what day is notified to the world by this title of The Lords day, and consequently was then accounted his separated peculiar day. Now the signification of words is known but by use: They are not Natural signes, but Arbitrary: You know not the sense of one word of Hebrew, Greek, or Latine, but by the History of their use, by Dictionaries, Authors or other Tradition. Now it is unquestionable to any man verst in antiquity, that all the Churches, and Authors, Greek and Latine, Syriack, Aethiopick, Persian, Arabick, that have been known among us, and speak of such things, do unanimously call the first day of the week by the name of the Lords day, as being so called from the beginning, even from the Apostles; And all old expositors so interpret this present Text. And you may as well question what day the word Sabbath signified in the Old Testament almost, as what day the name of [The Lords day] signified in the new; Or what sort of people they were that were called Christians first at Antioch, when only one sort hath ever since been notified by that name; Even the Disciples of Christ. The Greek, with the Syriack Translation, the Arabick, the vulgar Latine, have all [The Lords day;] and the Ethiopick as equipollent, hath [the first day] And Dr. Heylin (who would find something against it if any thing were to be found) speaking of some of late that otherwise expound it, is so ingenious as to say (Par. 2. cap. 1. p. 37.) Touching this we will not meddle; Let them that own it look to it: The rather since St. John hath generally been expounded in the other sense, Aretas, and Andr. Caesariensis on the place, and by Bedae de rat. temp. c. 6. and by the suffrage of the Church, the best expositor of the word of God; wherein this day hath constantly since the time of the Apostles been honoured with that name above other daies] And I know no one man (nor many) that at 1600 years distance almost, is so worthy to be believed for the bare sense of a word, as the constant use and universal testimony of all ages from that time till now.
As Christ is the Lord of all our Suppers, yet all are not named The Lords Supper; so is it in this case.
I must needs conclude therefore, that if I should cast off the evidence of this Text, upon no greater reason than you offer me, I think, I should resist the holy Ghost, and use violence against Gods word which I should obey.
Obj. There is no Law in the Scripture to observe the first day, no promise made to observers of it, no threatning against the breakers of it, &c. shew it. And if no Law, no transgression, Rom. 4. 15. Sin is a transgression of the Law.
Answ. I have shewed you full proof of a Law for it before. Though it is not Christs way to enact his Laws in that Majestick Commanding forms as God did to Moses on the Mount: But as he condescended into flesh, to be a Teacher and Saviour, in the form of a Servant, under the Law himself, to redeem those that were under it, so he maketh his Laws in a merciful Teaching stile. All that is revealed by him as his will appointing our duty is his Law. But that we observe the Lords day is revealed by him as his will, making it our duty.
These are his Laws requiring us to Hear and obey his spirit in his Apostles, Joh. 20. 21, 22. As the Father hath sent me, so send I you: And when he had said this, be breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; &c. Luk. 10. 16. He that heareth you, heareth me.
And this is his Law requiring his Apostles by that spirit to promulgate his Laws, and make known his will. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Go, disciple me all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. Teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you, and loe I am with you alwaies to the end of the world (or age) with the other Texts forecited.
And that the Spirit in the Apostles hath setled the Lords day, as the separated day for holy assemblies and Worship, I have proved to you, both by the Texts which you now sought in vain to make void, and by the unquestionable practice and history of the universal Church, from that age untill this. And withal by other Texts which you omit: which (not alone, but) all set together make up the proof, because it is historical evidence of a matter of fact, which we have to seek after.
1. Christs Resurrection laid the foundation, or gave the Cause; as Gods ceasing from his works did of the Sabbath. 2. Christs appearing to them assembled on that day, began the actual separation. 3. The Holy Ghost coming down on them, on that day, did more notably sanctifie it. 4. The Holy Ghost as an infallible spirit in them, did cause them to make a publick settlement of that day in all the Churches, which was the full and actual establishment. 5. This settlement is fully proved de facto in Scripture and infallible history. 6. And that there are promises and threatnings, to the obeyers and rejecters, of Christs commands, (whom the Father commanded us to hear, and who is the great Prophet of the Church,) I hope you believe. Rev. 20. 14. Happy are they who do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life, &c. Heb. 12. 25. See that yee refuse not him that speaketh; For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more, &c. Act. 3. 23. It shall come to pass that every soul that will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people: 1 Joh. 4. 6. We are of God: He that knoweth God heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not us: Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of Errour.
If besides all this you must have particular precepts, promises and threatnings in the form which you imagine to be fittest, you may for want of those deny many other Gospel Laws as well as this. Have you not much more for the separation of the Lords day, than you have for Infants Baptism, for a Christian Magistrate, for Christians wageing Warr, for prohibited degrees as to Marriage, &c.
I am perswaded the sober study of these points would do much to convince the contrary minded, 1. How much of Christs work as to the settlement of Church-Orders, was committed to the Apostles to be done, and how little he publickly setled himself in person, before his Resurrection.
2. How much the Gospel administration excelleth that of the Law. And what eminent Glory God designeth to himself by the work of mans Redemption, and how much more now he calleth man to Read, and Study and Know him in the face of Jesus Christ, than in the Creation, And how largely the change of the Covenant is proved in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
3. What a change is made herein as to mans duty, since the fall of man under the wrath of the Creator, who is not now his Rest, but his terrour and a consuming fire, till Reconciled and Adopting us in Christ; And since the Earth is cursed to us as a punishment for our sins.
4. How much of the certainty, and Glory of the Christian faith, and of all our Rest and Consolation in it, is laid in the Gospel on the RESURRECTION of our Lord, as beginning a new World, or Creation as it were, and as conquering and triumphing over death and Satan, and sealing the promise and bringing Life and Immortality to Light, and opening the Kingdom of Heaven to Believers.
5. How much of Christs Legislation, and administration of his Church-settlement and Government was to be done by the Holy Ghost! And how glorious this office of the Holy Ghost is, and of what grand importance to be understood: As he was the promised Paraclete or Advocate or Agent of our glorified Lord, to do his Work on Earth in his bodily absence; To whom the Infallibility of the Scriptures, the sealing operation of Miracles, the Sanctification of Believers, and forming them for Glory in the Image of God, is to be ascribed: Whom to Blaspheme is the unpardonable sin.
6. How dangerous a thing it is made by the Holy Ghost to seek to set up Moses Law, (as the whole Epistle to the Gal. besides most of the other Epistles testifie) as intimating a denyal of Christ, and a falling from Grace, and a perverse setting up of that which Christ came to take down, as part of our own redemption. And how large and plain Paul is upon this Subject; and how the spirit in all the Apostles did determine it, Act. 15. And how the Cerinthians, Nicolaitans, Ebionites, Nazaraeans, and many more of the condemned Heresies of that age, which troubled the Churches, and whom the Apostles wrote against, went all that way of mingling the Jewish Law with the Gospel.
7. How plainly and expresly Paul numbreth Sabbaths with the shaddows that cease, Col. 2. 16. (to pass by other Texts) And what violence mens own wits must use, in denying the evidence of so plain a Text. Their reason, that he saith not Sabbath but Sabbaths, is against themselves; the plural number being most comprehensive, and other Sabbaths receiving their name from this; And the word Sabbath alwaies used in Scripture, for a Rest which was partly Ceremonial. See what Dr. Young in his excellent Dies Domin saith of this Text (Though I know some say otherwise to the injury of their own cause,]
8. How many years together the Churches had been in possession, and consequently in the undoubted knowledge, of the true established day of holy Worship, before a word of the New Testament was Written. And therefore that it was not written to be the first enacting of this day or change; but for other uses.
9. And yet how much evidence of the fact there is in the Scripture it self, that really such a day was used for the ordinary Church-assemblies, as a peculiar separated day; even by the Common order of the Apostles in the Churches, as 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. speaks.
10. And how impossible it is that all the Churches in the World should from their beginning keep this as the separated day, even by the Apostles and from their times, if it had not been so ordered by them indeed. And whether it be possible that in no age neer the original hereof, no Pastor, no Christian, no Heretick, no Enemy would have detected the fraud or common Errour, or once have written, that this day was not separated or used by the Apostles or Apostolical Churches; no nor any one (that I know of, that denyed not the Resurrection) ever to have scrupled or opposed the day.
11. Whether they that can reject such Historical evidence as this is, do not unwittingly cast away the holy Scriptures, what zeal soever they pretend or have for their honour and perfection.
12. Whether they that can reject all this evidence, and yet can find in the second Commandment, the prohibition of all formes of Prayer, Sermons, Catechismes, & all modal inventions of men, as Images, if not Idols, are without partiality, or do not walk as men, by very different measures; and partial conceptions.
I would on my knees intreat some most dear and worthy friends, on their knees to ponder these twelve particulars.
But because by their preterition of the Text, Act. 2. 1, 2. I perceive they observe not, that the Holy Ghost came down on the Lords day, Let them consider that the Passeover was on the Sabbath day that year, and therefore it must needs be just fifty dayes to that Lords day, and it must be the day of Pentecost.
And it is not a trifle, that the first Sermon to … people was Preached by Peter on that day, and …000 Converted by it and Baptized
Dr. Heyli…s own words are these, [Part. 2. p. 13. The first particular passage which did occ… in holy Scriptur… touching the first day of the week, is that upon that day the Holy Ghost did first come down on the Apostles, and that on the same day St. Peter Preached his first Sermon, to the Jews, and Baptized such as believed, there being added to the Church that day 3000 souls] And to prove the day he saith, p. 14. [The rule being this, that on what day soever the second of the Passover did fall, on that also fell the great Feast of Pentecost (as Scaliger de Emend. Temp. l. 2.) So that as often as the Passover did fall on the Sabbath, as this year it did, then Pentecost fell on the Sunday.]
The last part of our Objections are from History; and it is said,
Obj. [Qu. Whether the observation of the first day was not brought into this Island by Antichrist, about 408 or 409 years agoe? Roger Hoveden about an. 1202 (above 1200 years after Christ) mentioneth a Council held in Scotland for the initiation or first bringing in that which he calls the Dominical day: see this testimony mentioned by Binius in his Councils, and somewhat enlarged by Matth. Paris the old impression fol. 192, 193. and the last Edition fol. 200 and 201; And how the King of England and the Nobility would not then receive this alteration.—I conceive that in the first Centuries the great Controversie relating to this was about translating the keeping the Passover, which they now call Easter, from the fourteenth day of the first Moon, &c. (under the colour of honouring Christ) to the first day of the Week as the Dominical day; which the Popes first set themselves with great vehemency to introduce—And as the Pope obtained his purpose for one day in a year, so by degrees in some places, came in one day in a week, the first day to be observed, and the seventh day by one of the Popes turned from a Festival … Fast, whilest many of the Eastern and some of the Western Churches did still retain withall the observation of the seventh-day Sabbath together with the first day, and others of the Churches in the East and West kept only to the seventh day as the Christian Sabbath, &c.
Answ. How much more desirable an Adversary is Heylin by his acquaintance with History! 1. Were any of the Authors I before cited either Antichristian or 1200 years after Christ?
Ignatius, if genuine was about an. 102. If not, as Dalaeus thinks then he was about 300. The Canons called the Apostles, and the Constitutions called the Apostles, very ancient.
Justin Martyr wrote his Apol, an. 150. about 50 years after St. Johns death; where his testimony is as plain as can be spoken. To which Plinyes who wrote about 107. some seven years after St. Johns death, may be joyned that he may be understood of the day.
Clemens Alexand. about 94 years after St. John, an. 194.
Tertullian who is most express, and full, and frequent, about 198, that is, 98 years after St. John.
Origen about 206 began his Teaching.
Cyprian about an. 250.
Athanasius who wrote largely of it, about an. 330.
To what purpose should I mention again Eusebius, Greg. Nazianzen, Nyssen, and all the rest. It was but about an. 309, that Constantine began his raign, who made Laws for the Lords day, which other Christian Emperours enlarged. But how much earlier were all those Synods which Eusebius mentioned, which in the determination of Easter owned the Lords day? And that of Nice was but about an. 327. The Council of Laodicea but about an. 314 or 320.
The Council of Eliberis about an. 307. Can. 21. saith, If any that live in the Cities shall stay from Church three Lords daies, let him be so long suspended from the Sacrament, till he be sensible of his punishment.
After this how many Councils and how many Imperial Laws take care of the Lords dayes? It is tedious to cite them.
To these may be added, 1. The common agreement that it is founded in the Resurrection, and was from that time. 2. The early contest for keeping Easter only on that day, which you note, as being a day by all Christians received. 3. The common detestation of Fasting on that day. 4. And the universal custome of not kneeling in adoration on that day: which all shew that the day was specially observed.
Athanasius saith de sab. & Circ. Even as at the first it was commanded that the Sabbath should be observed in memory of the finishing of the World, so do we celebrate the Lords day as the commemoration of the beginning of a new Creation. And Hom. de Sem. The Lord transferred the Sabbath to the Lords day. Though Nannius question the Hom. de semente, so do few others▪ and none that I know of, question that de Sab. & Circ.
Greg. Nyss. Orat. in s. Pasc. saith, As God rested on the Sabbath from all his works which he had done in the Creation, so did the only begotten Son of God rest in truth from all his works, &c.
August. Epist. 119. The Lords day was declared to Christians by the Lords Resurrection. From that time (or thence) it began to have its Festivity.
Maximus Taurinensis saith, Hom. 3. de Pentec. The Lords day is therefore set apart because on it our Saviour as the rising Sun, discussing the infernal darkness, did shine forth in his resurrection.
And for Fasting, Tertul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. saith, We account it unlawful to fast on the Lords day. And though the Montanists fasted excessively, they excepted the Lords day, Tertul. adv. Psych. c. 15.
Ignatius and the Apost. Const. & Can. are forecited of this.
Austin saith, Ep. 86. It is a great scandal to fast on the Lords day. (Which the Manichees were accused of.)
The Concil. Gangr. Can. 18. saith. If any on pretense of abstinence fast on the Lords day, let him be Anathema.
The Concil. Caesar-august. c. 2. is against fasting on the Lords day either for the sake of any time (as Lent) or perswasion, or superstition whatsoever. So the Concil. Agath. c. 12. Concil. Aurel. 4. c. 2. And the Concil. Carth. an. 398. Can. 64. Let him be taken for no Catholick who purposely fasteth on the Lords day.
And the prohibition of kneeling in adoration, I have opened before, ex Concil. Nic. c. 20. Concil. Trul…. Epiphan. &c. To which I adde Collect. Can. Joh…n. Antioch. sub titulo L. Tertul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. (now cited) Hieronym. adv. Lucifer. cap. 4. Die dominico & per omnem Pentecosten nec de geniculis adorare, & jejunium solvere, multaque alia que non Script… sunt, rationabilis sibi observatio vindicavit. (yet Paul kneeled, Act. 20. in that time, vid. Justell. ad Can. 20. Conc. Nic.) Question. ad Orthod. inter Justin. opera qu. 115. p. 283. Die Dominico genua non flectere symbolum est Resurrectionis, &c. Germanus Constantinop. in Theoria Eccles. p. 149. Our not kneeling on the Lords day, signifieth our erection from our fall, by Christs Resurrection, &c. see also Basil de spir. Sanc. c. 27. To. 2. p. 112, 113. & Balsamon theron p. 1032. & Zonari. in c. 20. Conc. Nic. p. 66. see Casp. Suicerus de bisce sacr. observ. c. 6.
2. Your Historical observations are utterly mistaken. The observation of the Lords day was in all the Churches past all Controversie from the beginning, while the time of Easter was in Controversie, as I have proved. Why would you not name those Churches in East and West (which I never read or heard of) yea or that person, that was for the seventh day alone? I am confident because you could not do it. Indeed all Churches called the seventh day alone by the old name Sabbath, while they maintained the Sabbath to be ceased; But under the name of the Lords day, the first was solemnly observed.
3. In Hoveden and Mat. Paris, there is not a word of what you say; so much do you mis-cite History. There is indeed an. 1201. (which as I remember is Hovedens last) the story that many Authors talk of, and Heylin mentioneth, of one that sound a Letter pretended from Heaven upon the Altar, reproving the crying sins of the times, and especially the prophanation of the Lords day, and requiring them to keep it strictly for the time to come: which was so far from being the initiation of the Lords day, that it was about 1167 years after it. And how could men pretend such a Divine reproof for such a sin, if the day not been received before? I pray read Heylins History against us, which will set you righter in the matter of fact. And there is no mention of any such Council as you talk of, for the initiation of the Lords day, nor any resistance of the Kings, or Scots: There is nothing of all this in Hoveden or Mat. Paris.
4. But what if England had been ignorant of the Lords day till then (which is utterly untrue) it followeth not that they kept the Sabbath on the seventh day. Nor would a Barbarous remote corner of the World, prejudice the testimony of all Christs Churches in every age.
5. But that you may see how greatly you mistake the case of England; read but our eldest English Historian, Beda Hist. Eccles. As l. 1. 26. he mentioneth an old Church named St. Martins built in the Romans time, and cap. 33. a Church built by the ancient faithful Romans; (And by the way, I think it most probable that the Roman Souldiers first brought Christianity into Brittain) so he oft describeth the Worship as agreeable to other Churches: And l. 2. c. 2. he begins his reproof of the Britains for not keeping Easter on the due Lords day, but never reproveth them for not keeping the Lords day it self. And though the Britans and the Scots had so little regard of the English Bishops sent from Rome, that they awhile refused so much as to eat with them, yea or to eate in the same Inne (cap. 4. li. 2.) yet about the Lords day there was no Controversie. Lib. 3. c. 4. he tells you that the Scots difference about Easter day continued till, an. 716. for want of intelligence from other Churches, though Columbanus and his followers were very holy persons. And (that you may see you errour) he there tells you that they did not keep Easter day with the Jews on the fourteenth day still, as some thought, but on the Lords day; but not in the right week: For (saith he) they knew (as being Christians) that the Lords Resurrection which was on the first day of the week, was alwaies to be celebrated on the first day of the week; But being Barbarous and Rusticks, they had not yet learned when that same first day of the week, which is now called the Lords day, did come.
Here you see that it was past Controversie with them that the Lords day must be Celebrated in memorial of Christs Resurrection, and the Scots kept not Easter on any other Week day; And that they had not been like Christians, if they had not owned and kept the Lords day; only they had not skill enough in Calculating the times, so as to know when the true Anniversary Lords day came about, but kept Easter on a wrong Lords day.
The same he saith again in the praise of F…nan lib. 3. cap. 17. that though he kept not Easter at the due time, yet he did not, as some fals…y think, keep it on any week day in the fourteenth Moon with the Jews; but he alwayes kept it on the Lords day, from the fourteenth Moon to the twentieth, because of the Belief of the Lords Resurrection, which the Church truly believed was on the first day of the week for the hope of our Resurrection, and which (they believed) will fall out on the same first day, of the week, which is now called the Lords day.
So cap. 25. the King and the Queen kept Easter on several Lords dayes, and the difference made the stir: And Wilfrid in his Speech there saith the same, that the Scots kept Ester only on the Lords day; (by whom the King at that time was changed.)
And li. 3. c. 26. Beda saith that Tuda, (another holy follower of the Scots) being made Bishop,
On the Lords daies the people flockt by crowds together either to the Church, or to the Monasteries, not to refresh their bodies, but to learn the word of God; and if any Priest hapt to come into a Village, presently the Inhabitants, Congregati in unum, gathered together, took care to seek from him the word of life.]
Cap. 2. li. 4. Theodorus his Consecration on the Lords day is mentioned.
Lib. 4. cap. 5. In the Synod at Herudford the first Canon is that all keep Easter on the Lords day next after the fourteenth Moon of the first Month.
Lib. 5. cap. 22. Ceolfridus sendeth an Epistle to the King of the Picts, in which are these words [Postquam verò Pas…ha nostrum immolatus est Christus, Diemque nobis Dominicam, quae apud antiqu…t una … prima Sabbati sive Sabbatorum vocatur, gaudio suae Resurrectionis fecit esse solennem; ita hanc nunc Apostolica traditio festis Paschalibus inseruit.] that is, [But when Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, and by the Joy of his Resurrection made the Lords day, which by the Ancients was called one or the first of the Sabbath or Sabbaths, to be a solemn day to us; so now Apostolical Tradition hath ingraffed it into the Paschal Festivals:] Where you see that the Lords day settled as solemn by the Resurrection, he taketh for uncontroverted, but the graffing it into the Easter Festivals, he ascribeth to Apostolical Tradition, meaning St. Peters.
And after in the same Epistle [Qui tertia post immolationem suae passionis die resurgens à mortuis, hanc dominicam vocari, & in eâ nos annuatim Paschalia ejusdem Resurrectionis voluit festa celebrare;] that is, [Christ rising from the dead, the third day after the Sacrifice of his passion, would have this called the Lords day, and would have us on it to Celebrate the Paschal Feast of his Resurrection.] The like is after again in that Epistle, with this addition, that we hold that our own Resurrection will be on the Lords day. By this Epistle the King of the Picts was brought to Conformity in that day and made Laws for it: And Cap. 23. The Scots of Hy who stood out so long, were brought to it by the perswasion of Eigbertus. Judge now of your Historical note of England.
But that you may see more of this, you may Read Beda's mind that lived in England in other of his Works. On Act 20. [In una Sabbathi eum convenissemus ad fraugendum p…nem; id est, Die Dominico qui est primus a Sabbate, cum ad mysteria celebrandae Congreg…ti essemus;] that is, [On the Lords day, which is the first from the Sabbath, when we were Congregated to Celebrate the Mysteries]—And he thinks it called, The Lords day, because it is the Remembrance of the Lords Resurrection or ours.
And on Luc. 6. fol. 78. he saith [The observation of the Legal Sabbath, ought of it self to cease, and the natural liberty of a Sabbath to be restored, which till Moses time was like other dayes. That as it is not circumcision or the Ceremonies of the Law that save the Church but the faith of Abraham working by Love, by which being uncircumcised he was justified, so he calleth the second Sabbath after the first, no other but the spiritual Sabbath, in which as on other daies, it is lawful to do any profitable work, for distinction from the Jewish Sabbath, in which it was not lawful to travel, to gather Wood, nor to do other needful things] Pardon his Errour about that word; I only cite it for the historical use.
And on Luc. 24. 1. fol. 143. [One of the Sabbaths, or the first of the Sabbaths, is the first day after the Sabbath, which the Christian custome hath called the Lords day, because of the Lords Resurrection.]
And ibid. fol. 143. [Whence Ecclesiastical custome hath obtained, that either in memory of Christs Resurrection, or for the hope of ours, we Pray not with bended knees, but only with faces declined towards the Earth, on every Lords day, and all the quadragesimae.]
And in Act. 2. 1. [The Holy Ghost sent—the example of the ancient sign returning, did himself by his own coming most manifestly Consecrate the Lords day.]
And on Col. 2. fol. 308. he sheweth that the Sabbath was a shadow, and Christ that made it was Lord of it and ended it; and that to abstain from sin is now our Sabbath. See him also on Rev. 1. 10. Heb. 4. fol. 308. 2 Cor. 3. fol. 176. D.
And because he was a Scot, I will adde Sedulius who lived 430. In Col. 2. fol 91. [The Sabbath being a shadow ceased when the Body came, because the Truth being present, the Image is needless. And on Heb. 4 9. There remaineth a Rest, that is, The Eternal Rest which the Jewish Sabbath signified.]
See Philastrius H…res. 8. Abundance more of this kind I might Cite, but for making the Book tedious to those that need it not. And so much of the History, to satisfie your Objections and Mistakes.