The Doctrine of the Sabbath, Thesis 35
Thesis 35.
In the first of these places, Acts 10.7. these particulars are manifest.
1. That the Church of Troas (called Disciples) publikely and generally now met together, so that it was no private Church-meeting (as some say) but generall and open, according as those times would give leave.
2, That this meeting was upon the first day of the week, called foreign: which phrase although Gomarus, Primrose, Heylin, and many others go about to translate thus, viz. upon one of the dayes of the week. Yet this is sufficient to dash that Dream (besides what else might be said) viz That this phrase is expounded in other Scriptures to be the first day of the week, Luke 24, 1. Iohn 20, 1. but never to be found throughout all the Scriptures expounded of one day in the week. Gomarus indeed tels us of foreign Luke 5.17. & 8.22. & 20.1. which is translated quodam die, Gomar. Invest. Sent. & orig. Sab. cap. 9.or a certain day; but this will not help him, for this is not foreign as 'tis in this place.
3. That the end of this meeting was Holy Duties, viz. to break bread, or to receive the Lords Supper, as the phrase is expounded, Acts 2.43. which was therefore accompanied with preaching the word and prayer, Holy preparation and serious meditation about those great mysteries. Nor can this breaking of Bread be interpreted of their Love-feasts or common Suppers, as Gomarus suspects. For their Love-feasts and common Suppers were not of the whole Church together (as this was) but in several houses, as Mr. Cartwright proves from Acts 2.46. And although the Corinthians used their Love-Feasts in publike, yet they are sadly reproved for it by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.12. and therefore he would not allow it here.
4. 'Tis not said that Paul called them together, because he was to depart the next day, or that they purposely declined the Lords Supper till that day, because then Paul was to depart (as Master Primrose urgeth) but the text speaks of it as of a time and Day usually observed of them before, and therefore it is said that when they came together to break bread;Primr. par. 3. cap. 5. and Paul therefore took his opportunity of preaching to them, and seemes to stay purposely, and wait seven dayes among them, that he might communicate with them, and preach unto them in this ordinary time of publike meeting, and therefore though he might privately instruct and preach to them the other seven dayes, yet his preaching now is mentioned in regard of some speciall solemnity of meeting on this Day.
5. The first Day was honoured above any other Day for these Holy Duties; or else why did they not meet upon the last Day of the week, the Iewish Sabbath for these ends? For if the Christian Churches were bound to observe the Iewish Sabbath, why did they not meet then and honour the seventh Day above the first day? considering that it was but the day before, and therefore might easily have done it, more fitly too, had that seventh day been the Christian Sabbath.
6. Why is the first Day of the week mentioned which is attributed onelyonly in the New Testament to the Day of Christs resurrection, unlesse this day was then usually honoured and sanctified for Holy Duties called here breaking of bread by a Synecdoche of a part for the whole, and therefore comprehends all other Sabbath Duties? For there is no more reason to exclude prayer, preaching, singing of Psalmes, &c. because these are not mentioned, then to exclude drinking of Wine in the Sacrament, (as the blinde Papists do) because this neither is here made mention of. Master Primrose indeed tels us that it may be, the first Day of the week is named in respect of the Miracle done in it upon Eu…ichus: But the Text it plaine, the time of the meeting is mentioned,Primr. par. … cap. 5. and the end of it to break Bread, and the Miracle is but brought in as a particularly event which happened on this day, which was set apart first for higher ends.
7. Nor is it said in the Text that the Church of Troas me… every day together to receive the Sacrament (as Master Pr…mrose suggests) and that therefore this action of breaking Bread was done without resp…ct to any particular or special Day, Ibid.it being performed every Day. For, I do not finde that the Primitive Church received the Lords Supper every day: for though it be said, Acts ….…2. That the Church continued in the Apostles Fellowship and breaking of Bread; yet it is not said that they broke Bread every day: they are indeed said to be daily in the Temple, verse 46. but not that they brake Bread every day in the Temple, or from house to house; or if they should, yet the b…eaking of Bread in this verse is meant of Common not Sacred Bread, as it is verse 42. where I think the Bread was no more Common, then their continuance in the Apostles Droctrine and Fellowship was Common; and therefore in this 46. verse, the phrase is altered, and the *foreign.Original word properly signifies ordinary Bread for common nourishment, And yet suppose they did receive the Sacrament every day, yet here the breaking of Bread is made mention of as the opus diei, or the speciall businesse of the day; and the day is mentioned as the special time for such a purpose; and hence no other day (if they break Bread in it) is mentioned, and therefore its called in effect the day of meeting to break bread: Nor do I finde in all the Scripture a day distinctly mentioned for holy duties (as this first day of the week is) wherein a whole people or Church meet t…gether for such ends; but that day was Holy: the naming of the particular day for such ends, implies the Holinesse of it, and the time is purposely mentioned, that others in after times might purposely and specially observe that Day.
8, Nor is it said that the Disciples met together, the night after the first day; but its expressely said to be upon the first day of the week: and supp…se (as Mr. Brabourne saith) that their meeting was no… together in the morning, but onelyonly in the evening time to celebrate the Lords Supper, a little before the shutting in of the day: yet its a sufficient ground for conscience to observe this day above any other for holy services, although every part of the day be not filled up with publike & Church duties; for suppose the Levites on the Jewish sabbath should do no holy publike duty on their own Sabbath untill the day was farre …pent; will Mr. Brabourne argue from thence, that the Jewish Sabbath was not wholly holy unto God? But againe, suppose the latter part of the day was spent in breaking of Bread, yet will it follow that no other part of the day was spent before, either in any private or publique holy duties? possibly they might receive the Lords Supper in the evening of this Sabbath (for the time of this action is in the general indifferent) yet might they not spend the rest of the morning in publike Duties, as we know some do now in some Churches, who are said to meet together to break Bread the latter part of this day, and yet sanctifie the Sabbath the whole day before. Suppose it be not expressely said that they did shut up shopwindwes at Troas and forsake the Plough and the Wheele, and abstaine from all servile work; yet if he beleeves that no more was done this day but what is expressely set downe, Mr. Brabourne must needs see a pitiful face of Christ in the Lords Supper, and people comming …ushing upon it without any serious examination or preparation or singing of Psalms, because no such Duties as these are mentioned to be upon this Day.
9. Lastly, Master Primrose like a staggering man knowes not what to fasten on in answer to this place, & therefore tels us that suppose it was a Sabbath, yet that it might be taken up from the Churches Liberty and Custome, rather then from any Divine institution: But besides that which hath been said to dasht his Dreame, Thes. 27. the falsenesse of this common and bold assertion will appeare more fully in the explication of the second text, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. which now followes, wherein it will appeare to be an Apostolical (and therefore a Divine) Institution from Jesus Christ.