The Lords Day, Book 1 · Chapter 10

The Lords Day · Book 1 · Chapter 10

p. 145CHAP. X.

A day in every week is to be ſanctified under the Goſpel, which is not the ſeventh, but firſt: the celebrating of the Jewiſh Sabbath, Col. 2. 16. and Gal. 4. 10. examined: the places whereon the obſervation of the Lords Day in the New Testament is bottomed. The Fathers acknowledge its Divine authority: neither can the Church change that day, and ſubſtitute another in its place.

A Stated Day in every Week being granted, to perform Gods Worſhip on, it remaineth now farther to find out what day is determined by God for his worſhip, ſince the Light of the Goſpel was up and down diſperſed. And whereas thus far we have ſpoken of the Jews Sabbath, it remains, in the ſecond place, to be conſidered, Whether Chriſtians, or no, be bound by the Fourth Command in the Decalogue, to ſanctifie one day weekly? Amongſt equal eſtimates of things (ſaith the foreſaid Learned Divine) it cannot but be without p. 146controverſie, that it is as well for Chriſtians as Jews, having finiſhed their labours on the ſix dayes, to ſanctifie the ſeventh, that with the Jews they acknowledge that they worſhip the moſt bleſſed and Almighty God, the Maker of Heaven and Earth. But although in this both Jew and Chriſtian do agree, that when they have ſpent ſix dayes in their labours, on the ſeventh they ſhould reſt: yet they differ amongſt themſelves in the determination, or deſignation of the day deſtined to this holy reſt. For the Chriſtians keep holy that day, which to the Jews was the firſt in the week, and call it the Lords day, that they might prove themſelves the ſervants of God, who, in the dawning of that day ſubdued the Devil, that ſpiritual Pharaoh, and redeemed his people from a ſpiritual ſervitude, by raiſing up Jeſus Chriſt our Lord from the dead: who hath regenerated the Chriſtian Church, not unto a ſublunary Canaan, but unto a lively hope of an immortal inheritance, preſerved for us in the Heavens. And, that I may diſpatch in a word, The Chriſtian, by ſanctifying the Lords day, doth proſeſs that he is a Chriſtian; that is, as St. Peter interprets1 Pet. 1. …1.1 Pet 1:1 it, believes in hin… that raiſed up Chriſt from the dead. Hence it eaſily appears, that both Jews and Chriſtians (though the ſame day p. 147be not ſolemnized amongſt them both) were led by the ſame reaſon to ſanctifie the ſeventh day: which, to the Jews, might call to mind their liberty reſtored from Egypt, and ſervitude of a worldly Pharaoh; and to Chriſtians, from a ſpiritual Egypt and Pharaoh.

But, leſt any one ſhould object unto me, Chriſtians might profeſs this, by ſanctifying the laſt day in the week: I add moreover, they could not do ſo by right: for if the Chriſtians ſhould keep holy day after the manner of the Jews, then they would declare, that their ſpiritual Redemption was not yet perfected, but yet did look for it: eſpecially whenas the Redemption of Iſrael out of Egypt by the Miniſtry of Moſes, was a type and pledge of our future and ſpiritual liberty by Chriſt: and the inheritance of the earthly Canaan, which thoſe that were freed from Egyptian bondage, did ſeek after, prefigured a celeſtial inheritance, (which the redeemed by the holy Blood of Chriſt, did look for.) Since therefore the ſhadow vaniſhed when the body was preſent, we muſt not believe in God foretelling future things by types and ſhadows: but in him that hath moſt faithfully accompliſhed the truth, according to the prophecies foretold by him. So aalib. … c. …Auſtin againſt p. 148Fauſtus the Manichee. It is not, ſaith he, a diverſe doctrine, but a different time; it was one thing for theſe things that they muſt be foretold by figurative prophecies, and another thing, that they muſt now be fulfilled by the truth made manifeſt and accompliſhed. As by an apt ſimilitude Mr. D. G. illuſtrateth it. There is, ſaith he, in all Nations, the ſame law of all the Stars, and the ſame motion, although a great variety may ariſe from the difference of the Horizon: whereupon it may be our day, when it's night with our Antipodes: ſo the law of Nature is the ſame with us and the Jews; yet in ſome things it admitteth of ſome mutation, from the difference of the Horizon, as I may ſay, whilſt they inhabited the old world, and we the new: that is, the Sun of Righteouſneſs, on the ſeventh day, came to their Meridian by Creation; to ours, on the eighth day, by Chriſts Reſurrection; whence that which was a feſtival to them, to us is none.

Although the Sabbath be tranſlated to the Lords day, yet for that reaſon its being a ſign between God and his people, is not taken away, but tranſlated to another day: Neither is the thing changed, that was ſignified by that ſign; but only the manner and circumſtance of time, and clearneſs of ſignification. I will haſten therefore to demonstrate p. 149the ceſſation of celebrating the Sabbath after the Jewiſh manner, and ſubſtitution of the Lords Day into its place, both out of Scriptures and Fathers.

The holy writings of the Apoſtles doThe ceſſation of the Jewiſh Sabbath, Col. 2. 16.Col 2:16 teſtifie, that the obſervation of the Jewiſh Sabbath, as well as other feſtivals in uſe amongſt them, is removed from off the Chriſtians ſhoulders. So St. Paul, Col. 2. 16. Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in reſpect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath dayes. In that Chapter, while the Apoſtle mentions various corruptions of the Sacred Religion▪ which he teacheth will be profitable for the Church, diligently to ſhun, he reckons up three ſorts of them: the firſt whereof, by falſe teachers, was drawn from Philoſophy, the ſecond from humane traditions, the third from the rudiments of the world. Now by the rudiments of the world, he means, the pedagogy of Moſes: out of which, ver. 16. he brings forth two corruptions, to wit, of the choice of meats prohibited by the Law, and ſanctifying of Feſtivals obſerved under the ſame. Amongſt the Jews there were divers Feaſts, ſome of great name and authorty, celebrated yearly, namely, of the Paſſover, Pentecoſt, and Tabernacles: and then, beſides theſe, they celebrated p. 150their New Moons every Month, and their Sabbath every week: the Apoſtle affirms, that all theſe Feſtivals (which after a manner, were the ſhadow of Chriſt to come, and Chriſt their truth and body, that is, they did portend what afterwards, were truly exhibited of Chriſt) had their end, when Chriſt was once come: for when the body is come, the ſhadow vaniſheth. Even as in the Emperours abſence his image Ambroſ. in. Col. 2.Col 2hath authority, but when he is preſent hath not: ſo theſe things alſo, before the coming of the Lord, in their time were to be obſerved, but when he is come, do want authority. And therefore they that contend for obſerving the Sabbath, after the Jewiſh manner, do, deny that Chriſt is come; witneſs the bleſſed Apoſtle: for gaping at the ſhadow, they embrace not the body. There was a time when they were to be trained up by the ſhadow, but he that follows the ſhadow, when the body is preſent, is deceived. Therefore from that place of the Apoſtle, we muſt believe, that the Jewiſh Sabbath (of which he ſpeaks, under the number of a Multitude, Sabbaths, becauſe it was celebrated every week, and ſeldome do we meet with it in the ſingular number, as before was obſerved) is ceaſed by the coming of Chriſt, or that Chriſt is not yet come.

p. 151The ſame Apoſtle ſharply taxeth the Galatians for obſerving of days, that having rejected the wholſom Doctrine of the Goſpel, they returned to the ſame beggarly Elements, (that is, legal obſervations) Gal. 4. 10. Ye obſerve, ſaith he, dayes, and months, and times, and yeares. Where (according to Tertullian contra Marcion, lib. 1. c. 20. Chryſoſtom, Theodoret, Primaſius, &c. in Gal. 4.) by dayes the Apoſtle underſtandeth the Sabbaths of the Jews, and by the names of Months, New moons; by years, the computing of years according to the Jews. The falſe Apoſtles did urge the Sabbath, New moons, and the other Feaſt dayes of the Jews, becauſe they were legal obſervations: but the Apoſtle, having pious bowels rolling within him, doth ſeaſonably admoniſh the Galatians, that they ſhould not yield to them in this buſineſs, and ſo his labour in promulging the Goſpel be in vain. And to any that conſiders the circumſtances of the Text, it is a thing without controverſie, that the Apoſtle properly doth reprehend the Galatians, becauſe that after they had acknowledged, and received the Doctrine of the Goſpel, in a Jewiſh manner, (to whom not only the day for the worſhip, but alſo the celebration in its reſt was of it ſelf religious) they had obſerved Feaſt dayes; p. 152as if ſuch a kind of obſervation were ſo neceſſary to the worſhip of God, that by its neglect their ſalvation was in hazard. Neither are the words of the Apoſtle ſo to be taken, as if he only reprehended the Galatians, for obſerving dayes [on this ground] that they might make a gueſs of the ſucceſs of their actions, as the Heathens did; as St. Auſtin would have it, Epiſt. ad Januarium.Epiſt. 119. c. 7. (although in another place he interprets this place doubtfully. Auſtin in Epiſt. ad Cal. expounds it, firſt of the Heathens cuſtom,…. 4. and then of the Jews.) Alſo the Commentaries in Gal. attributed to Ambroſe, do interpret the place of the Apoſtle in the ſame manner: but becauſe the obſervation of dayes, which was rejected of the Apoſtle, was done according to thoſe weak and beggarly elements, Gal. 4. 9. i. e. as we ſaid, legal obſervations, which the Galatians did ſeriouſly ſue for, being ſo taught of the falſe Apoſtles. The ſenſe of the Apoſtles words cannot be expounded according to the foreſaid Fathers.

Theſe ſacred teſtimonies of the bleſſed Apoſtle do ſhew, that the Jewiſh Sabbath was abrogated by Chriſts coming. Nor do I diſſent from the graveſt Lights in the Churh, in teaching the ceſſation thereof; for, with an-unanimous conſent, they do p. 153teach, that the obſervation of the Jewiſh Sabbath, is not to be impoſed on Chriſtians. So Athanaſ. Hom. de ſemente, & Homil. de Sab. & Circumciſ. aaEp. 59. ad Fidum.Cyprian would have the eighth day to be to the Chriſtians, what the Sabbath was; which, as he ſaith, is, as it were, the Image of the Lords day. Auguſt. Ep. 118. c. 12. Ambroſ. in Eph. 2. Chryſoſt. in Cal. 1. bbEp. adv. Jud. c. 6.Judg 6Tertullian calls the Sabbath, temporal, which in time ſhould ceaſe. Chryſoſtom confeſſes the ſame, Hom. 12. ad Pop. Aug. l. 6. c. 4. contr. Fauſt. Manich. & de Gen. ad literam. lib. 4. c. 13. Hither alſo are to be referred other fore-cited teſtimonies of the Fathers, which yield a teſtimony evident enough for the ceſſation of the Jewiſh Sabbath.

Now ſince theſe holy Fathers do aſſert,The Father… affirm not ſimply that the Sabbath is abrogated. that the precept of the Sabbath is not to be obſerved of Chriſtians, whether do they ſimply contend for abrogating the obſervation of the weekly Sabbath, or only that it muſt not be kept on that manner, and on the ſeventh day, as the Sabbath was commanded the Jews? Which is very worthy our conſideration; and the later ſeems to be intimated by the following examples.

Whereas the name is put upon the ſeventh day, and the obſervation thereof ordained, yet we, ccHil. prolog. in Pſalm. expoſit.ſaith Hilary, do rejoyce on the eighth p. 154which is alſo the first, the feſtival of the Sabbath being finiſhed. Therefore Hilary affirmeth not a ſimple abrogation, but change of the Sabbath (whoſe name we often meet with, and the obſervation preſcribed.) becauſe he confeſſeth, that Chriſtians did obſerve the feſtival of the Sabbath, though on the Sabbath day; i. e. the ſeventh day from the Creation, it was not done.

Tertullian, while he diſputeth that the Patriarchs did not acknowledge the uſe of the Jewiſh Sabbath, yet he granteth the Sabbath, which he calls eternal, that is, it was before the Law, and muſt laſt when it ceaſeth; for no where doth Tertullian deny the ſanctification of the ſeventh day from the Creation, which the Jewes do aſſert.

St. Auſtin aa…. 16. c. 28.contr. Fauſt. Manich. whilſt he teacheth, that the Sabbath and Circumciſion were figures, ſaith, it is no diverſe doctrine (namely, ours, from that of the Jews, about the obſervation of the Sabbath) but a different time, it was one thing for theſe things, that they must be foretold by figurative prophecies, and another thing that they now muſt be fulfilled by the truth made manifeſt and accompliſhed. Where Auguſtine confeſſeth, that both the Jews and Chriſtians obſervation of the Sabbath is grounded upon p. 155the ſame foundations of Doctrine, though the ſame conſideration of time be had amongſt both. Yea, in aaTract. 4. in Joh. & de decem chordis. c. 3.another place he acknowledgeth, that the command of the Sabbaths obſervation was more enjoyned to us, than the Jews. The 251 Sermon in Auguſt. de tempore, ſaith alſo, that the glory of the Sabbath is transferred upon the Lords day: that is, the poſitive determination of the ſeventh day is changed, which yet he affirmeth not is aboliſhed. For where there is only a mutation of a thing, there is not an utter deſtruction of it. Therefore, according to the author of that Sermon, the Law of the Sabbath is not vaniſhed, and made void, ſo that by it we are not obliged to obſerve any Sabbath.

Origen grants, bbHom. 232 in Num.that every holy and just man ought to obſerve the Sabbath's feſtival: and he ſhews how this muſt be done: neither doth he yet ſpeak of that ſpiritual Sabbath, of which we meet with frequent mention in the Fathers, but of the Chriſtian Sabbath, which now is ſucceeded into place of the former Sabbath; which he ſhews by the works that are to be done on that day. Leaving therefore, ſaith he, the Judaical obſervations of the Sabbath, let us ſee how the Chriſtian ought to obſerve the Sabbath. On the Sabbath day, (he ſpeaks of the Lords day p. 156under that name) he ought not to work any of all the worlds actions. If therefore thou ceaſeſt from all thy ſecular works, and doeſt no worldly thing, but attendeſt on ſpiritual works, goeſt to the Church, heareſt godly Lectures and Treatiſes, lookeſt not after preſent and viſible things, but at inviſible, and things future, this is the obſervation of the Chriſtian Sabbath. This ſhews that Origen ſpeaks of the Sabbath, as it is to be obſerved of Chriſtians, and not of the ſpiritual Sabbath: or elſe Chriſtians all their dayes, ought not to be troubled with their ſecular labours; which Origen never thought on.

aaDe Sab. & Circumciſ.Athanaſius ſaith, that he obſerved the Sabbath day, not as they in the firſt age. Now what elſe meaneth the obſervation of the Sabbath in Athanaſius, but keeping it holy day by vertue of the command in the Decalogue about the Sabbath?

bbEp. 59.The image of the Lords day, according to Cyprian, went before in the Sabbath. Whereby he infinuateth, that the Lords day is to us what the Sabbath was to the Jews, whoſe place it now ſupplieth in the Church, when the image is removed.

ccin Pſ. 32.Ps 32Ruffinus contendeth for obſerving the Sabbath, though not carnally, or in Jewiſh delights. To theſe let be added, a place in Conſtit. Apoſt. lib. 7. cap. 37. which p. 157tells us, that the Lords day ſupplies the room of the Sabbath.

All theſe things argue, that the pious Fathers did not under the Goſpel explode that precept in the Decalogue about the Sabbath: and therefore ſometimes under the name of the Sabbath, which to them the Lords day is ſignified, as we have ſeen chap. 3. For they yield, that Chriſt fulfilled, and not deſtroyed the Law by his coming; and that Chriſtians are to rejoyce on the Sabbaths feſtival, and that the ſolemnity of this feſtival is grounded on the Command in the Decologue: and ſeem only to ſtand for this, that now it ſhould not be in that manner celebrated of Chriſtians, that the Sabbath was amongſt the Jews. They celebrated the Sabbath on the ſeventh day, and flinging off the weighty care of godlineſs, gave themſelves up to idleneſs, and delights of this world; but the Fathers taught, that Chriſtians ought not ſo to keep the Sabbath, who ſhould keep the firſt day of the week holy, not carnally, but ſpiritually. For they judged it far better under the light of purer Chriſtianity (as after ſhall appear) to labour on the Sabbath, than to attend on the alluring pleaſures of the world.

But though they abhorred the Jewiſh manner of obſerving the Sabbath, yet they p. 158alwayes ordained one day of the ſeven (as Chryſoſtom ſpeaks) to be bestowed in the Hom. 2. in Joh.worſhip and ſervice of the common Lord of us all. And therefore paſſing by the abrogating of obſerving the Sabbath, in the Jewiſh manner, being confirmed by teſtimonies both of Scriptures and Fathers; Thirdly, it remains to be conſidered, what may be brought from the ſame fountains to aſſert the authority of obſerving the Lords day. For it is moſt ſure, that the Apoſtle (althoughThe ordaining of the Lords day is gathered from Scripture. he call back in the foreſaid places the Church from obſerving the feſtival of the Sabbath in the Jewiſh manner) doth not forbid Chriſtians all obſerving of every day: otherwiſe the Apoſtle himſelf had given an offence to the Church, in keeping the Lords day with a Church, (which it appears he did, Act. 20.) which to think of him, the candour of a Chriſtian mind will not admit. Therefore we doubt not, but by the Apoſtle's ſentence (whom we believe did not ordain it by that ordinary power which yet continueth in the Church) a certain day is to be employed about ſpiritual labour: otherwiſe the Church had not met at a ſtated time in the dayes of the Apoſtles.

And whereas a certain day is appointed, whereon weekly Divine worſhip is to be attended only, that neither diminiſheth, nor p. 159aboliſheth Chriſtian liberty; it only directeth Chriſtians, that their minds fluctuate not in obſerving it: which is not to deſtroy Chriſtian liberty, but rightly to inſtruct Chriſtians in the uſe thereof, the better, that they miſs it not in performing ſervice to their God. Now for the weekly conventions of the Chriſtian Church, no day was deputed of the Apoſtles but the Lords day: the firſt mention whereof in their writings, we meet with, is, Rev. 1. 10. where John Rev. 1. 10.Rev 1:10ſaith, that he was in the ſpirit on the Lords day. And although that be the firſt time that it's mentioned in the Scriptures under that appellation, yet might it, before John writ the Revelation, be known in the Church by that name. No Evangeliſt before St. John called Chriſt foreign, i. e. the Word, yet the ſame author being witneſs In the beginning was the word, Joh. 1. 1. So that day doubtleſs was called foreign, the Lords day, before; not as by ſome new inſtitution, which lately was eſtabliſhed in the Church, but as a thing well known to the Church: otherwiſe he would not ſo have named that day, without farther explication, but that he knew for certain it was named in the Church by that agnomination. Which ſhews, that the Lords day was celebrated in the Church, before that John p. 160was in the Spirit. Neither could the Lords day be ſo ſolemn, throughout all Churches in John's time, but that all the Apoſtles before him had diſperſed abroad this Doctrine.

Secondly, it appears from Scripture alſo, that this day was by Apoſtolical ordination deſtined to the collecting of almes, 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 16. 2.1 Cor 16:216. 2. Where he gives order, that upon the firſt day of the week every one ſhould lay by him in ſtore the Collection for the Saints, of which he had ſpoken in the former verſe. The primary intention indeed of that place is, to give order about the collections made for relieving the neceſſity of the poor; but ſince he orders, that they may be made on the Lords day, there is no doubt but he changes them to celebrate the day it ſelf. For whenas he requires the end, why ſhould he not alſo preſcribe the means directly conducing to that end? without doubt the effect, which was on that day to be performed, preſuppoſeth the day it ſelf: and in commanding the end, the command of the means is alwayes included, without which we obtain not the end.

To Chryſoſtom▪ that ſearches out the cauſesHom. 43. in Corin. of this Apoſtolical ordination, that time ſeems, very commodious to exerciſe mercy on▪ Firſt, becauſe the mind being free from p. 161labours, it is more eaſily perſwaded to commi…eration: And ſecondly, becauſe the communicating of celestial holy things, being had on that day, will ſtrongly provoke men to the duties of mercy.

Tertullian, and Justin Martyr, do teſtifie,Ubi ſupra that almes were collected on that day (doubtleſs by authority of the aforeſaid Apoſtolical ordination) which they had laid by them in ſtore till this day, as we have ſeen in the ſecond chapter. Theſe collections were by the Chriſtian people obſerved of their own accord, as pledges of piety, as Tertullian: Ap. adv▪ gen. c. 39.which Iuſtin Martyr affirms, in his ſecond Apology, were on the Sunday depoſited with the Preſident, out of which proviſion was made for pupils, widows, and thoſe who were in want, through ſickneſs, or any other cauſe.

Thirdly, it alſo appears by the Scripture, that on that day aſſemblies were held, for hearing the Word, and adminiſtring the Euchariſt: which are chiefly to be counted amongſt the ſacred offices of holy dayes. St. Paul, as in the ſecond Chapter, although he abode ſeven dayes at Troas, we readAct. 20.Acts 20 not that the Diſciples met to break bread but on the firſt day of the week. Whence it is collected conveniently, that even then the Church had on that day ſolemn conventions, p. 162to perform the ſacred exerciſes of Religion on, in the preaching of the Word, and adminiſtration of the Sacraments: neither did this cuſtome grow out of uſe with the ſucceeding Church (as after, when we ſhall treat of ſanctifying the Lords day, we will ſhew) but the devout preaching of Gods Word being happily begun on that day by the Apoſtles, Acts 2. 1. was ever after continued at the ſame time to the honour of God, and profit of the Church.

From the three foreſaid places of the Newin 4 praec. c. 7. Teſtament, and teſtimonies of various Divines, and Verſions of the Scripture, the learned Wallaeus concludes, that the uſe of the Lords day is to be referred to the Apoſtles. And whatever is brought of ſome in their Expoſitions to the contrary, is ſolidly by him weighed and refuted.

Laſtly, We have ſhewn in the ſecond chapter of this Treatiſe, that the Lords day was ordinarily ſolemnized by the Church, while the Apoſtles were living, and the preheminence of it above other dayes, which the ſucceeding Church hath conſecrated to Gods worſhip, in the third Chapter.

Since therefore the Holy Scriptures doIts inſtitution is divine. plainly bear witneſs of the name and uſe of this day, (for the name which the Church ever after uſed, is by St. John expreſſed, Rev. p. 1631. 10.) and ſince it is by the Apoſtles charge deſtined to the ſacred aſſemblies of the Church, and gathering of almes, 1 Cor. 16. And laſtly, ſince at the ſame aſſemblies the Apoſtle and Church ſpent it in hearing the word of God, and communicating the Euchariſt, Act. 20. what man is there that can rightly deny that its authority in the Church was eſtabliſhed by the teſtimony of Holy Scripture (of which in the third place we have undertaken to enquire in ch. 7th.)? ſince it is bottomed upon the ordination and practice of the bleſſed Apoſtles, which are recorded in the Scriptures; amongſt un-written traditions, it cannot be reckoned. I deſervedly therefore affirm, that its obſervation is commended to us in the Scriptures. Becauſe we ſo often read in the Scriptures, that the Apoſtles, and the whole Church of Chriſt did unanimouſly hold their aſſemblies on that day, to whom will it not be thought a needleſs thing to diſpute the authority of its inſtitution? eſpecially ſince we read this was done of the Church, while the Apoſtles were alive. For it is dangerous Epiſ. Winton. reſp. ad 3 Ep. Petri M… ▪linaei▪either to ſay or write, that the Apostles in ſome things uſed a divine inſpiration, and in others their own prudence, and that in thoſe things which are found written. If the Apoſtles in Scripture admoniſh Chriſtians, p. 164that they receive no opinion from thoſe to whom they have given no Commandment, Act. 15. 24. if they ordained in all Churches what they received from the Lord, 1 Cor. 7. 7. if Chriſtians muſt imitate the Apoſtles, 2 Theſ. 3. 7. and withdraw themſelves from every one that walketh not after the tradition received of the Apoſtles, 2 Theſ. 3. 6. Surely it ſeems juſt to think, that the Chriſtian Church in all Nations would not yield to thoſe that obtrude the Lords ſolemnity upon them, unleſs they knew for certain, that this burden was impoſed on them of God by the Apoſtles. Laſtly, if thoſe things be to be done by the Church, which it hath learned and heard of the Apoſtles, Phil. 4. 9. why ſhould it not keep holy the Lords Day, ſince the Apoſtolical Church kept its meetings on that day? and who will ſay, that the Apoſtles do not command us to imitate them, when in holy records their example is repreſented unto us?

And theſe are the things with which I am perſwaded to believe, that the Sabbaths feſtival, by Divine authority (which proceeded from God by the Apoſtles) was tranſlated to the Lords day: for he onelyonly who is▪ Lord of the Sabbath, can change the Sabbath day, Mar. 2. 28. Beſides this, all p. 165men know, that that is grounded on the word of God, which is either expreſſed in ſo many words in Scripture, or elſe by virtue of neceſſary conſequence, is drawn out from thence: and in this later way, the beſt of our Divines affirm, that we meet with in Scripture the inſtitution of the Lords day, as at large, and pithily the famous Mr. D. G. De Die Dominicae determ.Firſt, ſaith he, in the Old Teſtament, a parallel precept occurrs, as all know, in the Decalogue, from which any may know, that it ſeemed juſt and good to the Divine Majeſty, to ſet apart a whole day of the ſeven, for the worſhip of God. Secondly, Apoſtolical practice is a ſign of Gods will in this buſineſs: they obſerved this day, and commended it to be obſerved by others: and if their practice in this particular had been doubtful, the perpetual and conſtant cuſtome of the Church, from the Apoſtles age (which illuſtrates their practice in doubtfuls, and confirms it in plain things) doth moſt evidently demonſtrate this. For although we reject …n vritten traditions, yet may the inviolate cuſtome of all Churches, from the Apoſtles times, interpret to us their writings. If we could have the interpretation of ſome place of Paul, allowed of in the judgment of all his auditors, who would not prefer this far to the Commentaries of p. 166all others? deeds do as well ſpeak as ſayings. Since therefore we ſee this a confirmed practice of all Chriſtians, we ſhould be too unjuſt and hard, if we ſhould deny our belief.

With theſe ſame arguments doth that famous and learned Divine teach the Church to defend the truth againſt its adverſaries. As in the point of Infant-baptiſme, we ſuppreſsInfantbaptiſme juſtified. the bawling Anabaptiſts with theſe weapons, whom we cannot ſmite with clear teſtimonies. Firſt, from a parallel precept about Circumciſion. Secondly, Apoſtolical practice: which ſince it is ſomewhat more dark, we add the cuſtome of the whole Church, from the primitive and heroical times. Which things, although they will not move the obſtinate Anabaptiſts, yet will they prevail with prudent, obedient, and equal eſtimators of things. The Church alwayes ordained, that ſacred Baptiſme is notBaptiſme not to be repeated. to be repeated: touching which prohibition we meet with nothing in the ſacred Records: but becauſe Circumciſion (into whoſe place Baptiſme ſucceeded) was not repeated: becauſe it's agreeable with reaſon that regeneration, no leſs than generation, ſhould be but once: becauſe in the Scriptures examples of once ſprinkling only do occurr: and laſtly, becauſe the Orthodox Church p. 167of God hath hitherto abhorred Anabaptiſme, therefore all grant that Baptiſme is not to be repeated. I will add no more. What hath been ſaid, declares to them that deſpiſe not truth, that the Lord made the Pſ. 118. 22.Ps 118:22day, on which the Stone which the builders refuſed, was made the head ſtone of the corner, that on it we ſhould rejoyce. But ſince it is not my purpoſe to handle any queſtions on this ſubject, but leave them to others to be diſcuſſed, I will return to my undertaken task; namely, to enumerate the teſtimonies of the ancients on this particular: by which it will be made manifeſt, that the Fathers were of no other mind: becauſe they contended, that this day was religiouſly to be obſerved, and fetch'd the Doctrine, wherein they aſſerted this, out of the holy Scriptures. To the truth of which thing, we will firſt bring Athanaſius, Homil. de ſemente. In time paſt, with the ancients, the Sabbath was of great account: which ſolemnity the Lord tranſlated to the Lords day: neither do we ſet light of the Sabbath, by our ſelves. Where, firſt, he with the finger points at the author of the Lords Feſtival, namely, Chriſt; whom he tells us, tranſlated the Sabbath day into the Lords: and then denies, that the Church of her ſelf, or by her own authority, did ordain that tranſlation: p. 168for, ſaith he, we ſet, not light by the Sabbath of our ſelves. Therefore Athanaſius Sabb. Circum.being Judge, it appears, that the Church doth not of her ſelf, but by the authority of Chriſt; whereby the Lords day was ordained, obſerve its ſolemnity, and honour it, as he elſe where ſpeaketh. And let it move noObj. body, that while he expreſſeth the honour wherewith the Church honoureth it, he doth not ſpeak in that manner of its inſtitution, as of the Sabbath; of which, when he ſpeaks, he ſaith, foreign, as God hath commanded; but when he mentions the Lords day▪ he only ſaith, foreign, we hnour the Lords day. Nor doth he ſay that this honour is givenReſp. of the Church to the Lords day, by authority of any Divine precept. Let this, I ſay, move no body; as if Athanaſius had acknowledged the inſtitution of this ſolemnity, to be received from the Churches ordination, and not Chriſts: for if this grave Prelate had ſo meant it, he would have contradicted himſelf, as appeareth out of the place forecited, Homil, de ſement. in which he plainly acknowledgeth not the Church, but the Lord, to be the author of the Lords day: neither can any thing elſe be inferred from that later phraſe which Athanaſius uſeth. When Subjects do openly profeſs that p. 169they with all honour do honour their own Kings and Magiſtrates, ſhall not I therefore conclude, that they are not obliged by Divine authority to this duty? No verily: but the Subjects perform this to their Princes, with a moſt ready will, becauſe by Divine Law and authority they are bound to perform this duty: So Chriſtians honour the Lords day, becauſe the Divine inſtitution of this Feſtival by Chriſt (which Athanaſius makes mention of in the ſame place) requires this by right of them.

Chryſoſtom aaHom. in Gen.in the often fore-cited place, acknowledges God to be the author of inſtituting one day in the week to be ſet apart for ſpiritual work.

When bbEuſ. orat. de laudibus conſtant. circa finem.Euſebius gathers divers arguments to demonſtrate the Divine power of Chriſt above all the Heroes of the Heathens; amongſt the reſt he adds this. Who, ſaith he, (meaning what God of the Heathen, or Heroes) hath preſcribed to all the inhabitants of the whole world, whether they be on land or ſea, that meeting weekly on one day, they ſhould celebrate the Lords Feſtival, and ordain, that as they fed their bodies with food, ſo they ſhould refreſh their Souls with divine instructions? Therefore, in Euſebius's judgment, the ſolemnity of this day is aſcribed to Chriſts inſtitution. And ccConſtit. 54.Leo acknowledges p. 170this ſolemnity to be received from the Holy Ghoſt, and Apoſtles ordained by him.

Augustine aaDecivit. Dei, l. 22. c. 30.confeſſes, that the Lords day was conſecrated by Chriſts Reſurrection; where he intimateth, that the Church did not only take occaſion from the Reſurrection of Chriſt, to celebrate this ſolemnity on that day, but that the very Reſurrection of Chriſt did adminiſter it unto Chriſtians: and if the Reſurrection of Chriſt hath conſecrated the Lords day, (which he confeſſes as well in this place, as elſewhere, Serm. 15. de verbis Apostoli) then Chriſt and no other, is to be reputed for the author of its inſtitution: for his Reſurrection hath conſecrated that day, bbAug. Ep. … 19. c. 13.and ſince that time he began to have his feſtival.

Moreover, if Augustine had not believed that God was the author of this Feſtival, by what right could he have derided Urbicus, ſpeaking after this manner, as if there were one Lord of the Sabbath, and another of the Lords day? ccEp. 86.if he had not eſteemed him for the author of the Lords day, who was author of the Sabbath; the contrary whereof, he thought Urbicus judged, Augustine would never have blamed him for that: which yet the premiſes do teſtifie he did, And he that ſhall p. 171look over that Epiſtle, ſhall ſee that he in round words doth acknowledge, that there is one Lord of the Sabbath and Lords day. pag. 389. He adds, It was made the Lords Day through Chriſt. pag. 383. And while that Learned Father renders a reaſon why it is called the Lords day, aaquaſt. ex utr… que mix…. cap. 106.he aſſigns this, becauſe, ſaith he, the Lord made it. And how, ſince he is the author of all dayes, yet may be ſaid eſpecially to make that, we have before, chap. 4. out of Auguſtin himſelf explained. And after Auguſtin the Fathers in bbCan. 13.Concil. Forojubenſi, have alſo explained this, The Lord hath ſanctified it by the glorious Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt.

What needs more? It's enough to point at briefly the Divine inſtitution of this day, and theſe things manifeſt enough do ſuffice in a matter ſmelling of Piety. Therefore as Baſil the Great ſometime concluded his Sermon of the perpetual virginity of the bleſſed Virgin, ccHom. de human. Chr. gener.Theſe reaſons, ſaith he, we think are ſufficient, becauſe Chriſtian ears cannot endure the contrary: ſo alſo, we being content with theſe teſtimonies, (which, although few in number, are yet, we truſt, of great authority with equal eſtimators of things) we will add no more.Divers badges of the Lords day. And though many badges of this day have p. 172thus far been obſerved, as that Chriſt roſe again on that day, Luke 24. 6. on that oftener than once he appeared to his Diſciples, Joh. 20. 19, 26. on that day the Apoſtles taught, and adminiſtred the Sacraments. Act. 20. 7. on that day John received a Divine Revelation, Rev. 1. 10. I could alſo reckon up others, mentioned by divers,Leo Ep. 81. …. 1. as on this day the world received its beginning, on this, by the Reſurrection of Chriſt, both death received its deſtruction, and life its beginning; on this the Apoſtles took up thetrumpet of the Goſpel, to preach to all nations; on this, laſtly, the Holy Ghost came down from the Lord on the Apoſtles. More badges are alſo extant in Auſtin of the Lords Day. Serm. 154. de Tempore. And others relate, that other Miracles were done on that day. Theſe are indeed great badges; but becauſe amongſt certain, ſome of theſe are reckoned for uncertain, they are not proper enough in their judgment to demonſtrate the truth: only whereas at every perfect period of time the very Heathens do teſtifie, that certain feſtival dayes were to be celebrated, for ſome eminent benefits of God conſerred upon us, and when any thing eminent was ordained of God, it was done in honour of this day, (the reaſon of whoſe obſervation p. 173ariſes not from the foreſaid prerogatives, but is founded in the authority of God the inſtitutor.) I am more eaſily induced to believe with the ancients, its ſolemnity was inſtituted of God.

Here I could, out of the Fathers, tell you, the puniſhments of ſome that violated the ſolemnity of the Lords Day. In Concil. Pariſienſi ſo we read; Many Can. 50.of us, by the ſight of our own countrey men, and many of us by the relation of others, have been informed, that certain men exerciſing on this day their rural works, have been ſlain with Lightning, others puniſhed with contraction of their limbs, others having their bodies and bones alſo conſumed in an instant by viſible fire▪ and on a ſudden reſolved into aſhes, have died in great torment; as many other terrible judgments have been, and to this day are; by which it is declared, that God is offended at the diſhonour of ſo great a day. Theſe tremendous judgments of God do ſhew, that God, the avenger of all ſin, is angry, (as the Fathers ſpeak) at the impious violators of this ſolemnity. But if the holy feſtival of the Lords Day were not Gods own ordinance, his ſevere anger would not be ſo hot upon thoſe that are guilty of the violation thereof.

p. 174We therefore of right do eſteem the Lords Day above other dayes, and that by reaſon of its ſolemnity: becauſe it was by a poſitive determination of Chriſt by the Apoſtles ſet apart from other days in the week, that it might ſupply the room of the ancient Sabbath; that it might preſerve Religion, and the external Worſhip of God, both publick, leſt the diſorderly congregating of the people, Hier. in Gal.ſhould diminiſh their faith in Chriſt: and alſo private, that all might be obliged to attend meditations, and pious exerciſes on a certain ſtated day; which otherwiſe would ſeldome or never be done by men, attending on the world rather than God: therefore is the Lords day ordained, that they being at liberty from worldly things, might give up themſelves wholly to Divine matters.

Laſtly, It only remaineth, that thisThe Church cannot change the Lords day to another. queſtion may ſufficiently be ſatisfied, Whether it be in the Churches power to abrogate the Lords Day, and ſubſtitute another in its room? Surely he that ſaith, that ſo innocent a cuſtome, ſo long received of the Church, and that through authority of God by the Apoſtles, caught not to be troubled with a change, ſeems to be in the right: unleſs any think, that now greater p. 175authority doth reſide in the Church, than the Apoſtles were endued with: wherewith it being endued, it can change thoſe things which were ordained of the Apoſtles: or unleſs ſome greater occaſion than the Reſurrection of Chriſt do occurr, than which, the world never ſaw a greater miracle. And Chryſoſtom calls the Lords day, or the firſt day of the week, (Hom. 2. Tom. 6.) becauſe of Chriſts Reſurrection, the birth day of the whole humane nature. Laſtly, if the cuſtome of the Church, (from which arguments are not once fetched by the Apoſtle, as 1 Cor. 11. 26.) grounded on the word of God, be of any right amongſt Chriſtians: I ſee not why the Lords Feſtival, celebrared firſt by them of Hieruſalem, ſecondly, by them of Troas, thirdly, by the Galatians and Corinthians, fourthly, by them of the Iſles, Rev. 1. fifthly, by the Greeks and Latines, and laſtly, by the whole Churh through the world, profeſſing Chriſts name; I ſay, why this innocent cuſtome (which is attended with no incommodity, but much profit) happily continued from the very Apoſtles age hitherto, ſhould not be by us derived to our poſterity?

Whilſt Julius blames the prepoſterous irruption of Georgius the Arrian into the p. 176Biſhoprick of Athanaſius, he uſes this argument, It is not fitting, that this new manner Athan. Apol. 2.of canons ſhould be brought into the Church: for where is there ſuch an Eccleſiaſtical Canon, or ſuch an Apoſtolical tradition? ſo we ſay here, It is by no means fitting, that a new cuſtome ſhould be introduced againſt an innocent order, ſo long received by the Church: which is neither ſupported by the Canons of the Church, or tradition received from the Apoſtles. None in this found mind can grant, that things ordained by the Apoſtles, can be changed of the Church. I confeſs, all the ordinances of the Apoſtles were not of the ſame kind: for ſome of them pertained to Doctrine, ſome to rites, as Wallaeus obſerves, chap. 7. thoſe are perpetual, neither any wayes obnoxious to change: he muſt be anathematized, that preacheth any other Goſpel than what we have received from the Apoſtles, Gal. 1. 8. but theſe which reſpect the rites or circumſtances of Divine worſhip, are of a double nature: for either their cauſes were ſingular, and ſuch as perpetually ſhould not have place in the Church: therefore theſe ordinances were to be varied, becauſe when the cauſe was taken away, the ordinances themſelves ceaſed: but other ordinances reſpecting rites, were not to be changed, whoſe p. 177occaſions perpetually continued in the Church; ſuch was the laying on of hands in the ordinations of Miniſters: and therefore, when the cauſes of ordinances made by the Apoſtles, are changed, the ordinations themſelves are to be changed, but while the cauſe remains, the ordinances alſo remain unmoved. Which things being conſidered, it's eaſie to ſee, that the ordinance about the Lords day is not to be varied: becauſe no greater cauſe than what it's bottomed on, can ever occurr, for whoſe ſake it ſhould be changed: neither hath the Church ever thus far ſince the Apoſtles age, once attempted this. Therefore the foreſaid queſtion is, ſuperfluous, that I may ſay no worſe, and altogether unworthy a farther anſwer; eſpecially, whenas we know, that many priviledges neceſſary for a Church to be founded, were granted by God to the Apoſtles, which were not derived from them to the Doctors of the Church founded: for they were perſonal, and could not lawfully be challenged by others: which is ſhewn more at large in the ſeventh chapter.