The Lords Day, Book 1 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
The Ordinance of the Lords day is not to be reckoned amongst unwritten Traditions: It was instituted of Chriſt by the Apostles: The Apoſtles prerogatives above other Miniſters of the Church: Things ordained of the Apoſtles are Divine.
WHen the Jews had obſerved John to uſe another form of Doctrine, than was commonly received, and to begin a new Ceremony of Baptiſme, they ask who he was? i. e. by what authority he did ſet upon theſe new things, and unheard of in former ages? that being informed in that thing, they might in time conſider what they ſhould do. So, ſince that we have found out of Scriptures and Fathers, that the Lords day was ſolemnized by the Church under the Goſpel, inſomuch that mens minds are to be maſculouſly applied to the duties of Piety, not on the laſt, (as under the Law) but firſt day of the week; a queſtion is made, by what authority Gods Holy Church doth this thing. For it was not ſo kept holy from the beginning, from whence even till the happy Reſurrection of our Saviour, the Lord commanded that the Seventh day in every week ſhould be held holy; and for ſanctifying the firſt day of every week, divers men ſeek for a command, which they confidently enough cry out is not extant in all the holy Scriptures: and divers more other wiſe Divines of great note, do greatly toyle in heaping up arguments whereby to enervate the Divine Authority of this day.
It is an ordinary thing with ſundry of the Papiſts (although ſome amongſt them, eſpecially of the School-men, do think otherwiſe) who ſtrenuouſly contend for unwritten Traditions, (on whoſe weak authority, as on a ſolid foundation, many of their dotages are grounded) to reckon up the obſervation of the Lords Day among this ſort of Traditions; which cannot be, fince the mention thereof doth ſo often occurr in the Sacred Word of God. Whilſt the moſt learned Dr. Whitaker doth ſtudie ſoberly to prevent, as his manner is, this errour of the Papiſts, he is ſcourged of Gretſer. Yet the learned Vedelius in his notes upon Ignatius, doth ſtrongly defend Whitaker againſt the vain fooleries of Gretſer.
Others contend, that the Lords day ſhould be held ſolemn, …ure divino.
Laſtly, Others do acknowledge it received from Apoſtolical ordination. We will, by Gods aſſiſtance ſhew, that ſolemn celebration of the Lords day was inſtituted of God by the Apoſtles.
The Holy Scriptures do teſtifie, that theChriſts inſtituting of the Lords Day by the Apoſtles. Lords day was obſerved of the Church, while the Apoſtles were yet alive, nor is there much doubt of this obſervation: This is the onelyonly thing (as I ſaid) of which the queſtion is, Whether this ſolemnity was inſtituted of the Apoſtles, or of the Church, according to that power allowed them by the Lord? And if it be aſcribed to the Holy Apoſtles, Whether they of themſelves, and by their own authority, or by Divine command, have preſcribed it to the Church? ſince the obſervation of the Lords day grew in uſe with the Church of Chriſt, while the Apoſtles were yet alive, it ſeems equitable, and agreeable to ſound reaſon, to take them for the authors of this obſervation: becauſeThe Apoſtles prerogatives, 1 Cor. 3. 10. the chief care of Eccleſiaſtical Government was by God devolved upon them: every one whereof, as a wiſe master-builder, laid a foundation, upon which their ſucceſſors builded: and all other modern Doctors of the Church, how great ſoever they were, gave place unto them. Ignatius for that reaſon, ſaith of himſelf, aEpiſt. ad Tralle….I do not command as an Apoſtle. And elſewhere, in an Epiſtle Ad Philadelphienſes, he doth not challenge Apoſtolical authority to himſelf. Neither would Ambroſe claim bOfi…. l. 1. c. ….Apoſtolical glory to himſelf, which he acknowledgeth is by right due to them whom the Son of God hath choſen: and he affirmeth, that by how much we are inferiour to the Apoſtles in time, we are ſo much inferiour to them in merit. cSerm. 20.Chryſoſtom alſo confeſſes, that he is far from the Apoſtles dignity; neither doth he account himſelf worthy to be called their ſhadow: dHom … in Math. Mark 3. 14.and Chriſt hath deſervedly joyned them to him, as individual companions, out of the number of all his Diſciples; or, that I may ſpeak with Tertullian, eAd…reſ. …lateri ſuo adlegavit. i. made themſelves Legates a latere.
Secondly, He hath ſent them out furniſhed with ſpecial authority to gather the Church (to lay f….whoſe foundations belong to the Apoſtolical dignity) out of the promiſcuous multitude of all nations: and ſo they were ſent out by Chriſt to all Nations, without any exception; for which cauſe, when a Church was planted in any part of the world, whither they came, they fixed not, but removed ſome other way.
Thirdly, They were endued with that abundance of Grace of the Holy Ghoſt, for the Miniſtry committed to them by the Lord, that they preached the truth of the Goſpel infallibly: I know, ſayes Hierom, Epiſt. ad Theophil.how to eſteem of the Apoſtles in one manner, of other Doctors after another; that thoſe alwayes taught the truth, theſe in ſome things did erre as men. Whence the Doctrine commended to the Church by the Apoſtles, was alwayes accounted for the rule, and Canon of all Chriſtian Religion.
Fourthly, The Apoſtles, at the beginning of the Church, by the viſible ſign of impoſition of hands, conferred the gifts of the Holy Ghoſt upon others, that were inſtructed of them in the Doctrine of the Goſpel: and they were endued with divers other gifts of Miracles (by which their call was rendred clear both to themſelves and others) Matth. 10. 8. And theſe are the ſigns by which the bleſſed Apoſtle teaches us, that he had executed the office of a true Apoſtle in the Church of Corinth. 1 Cor. 12. 2.
Deſervedly, for theſe cauſes, were they that were elected to the honourable ſtate of Apoſtolical dignity, preferred to other Miniſters of the Church, not only in the chief eminency of Order, but of Power: and hence it was, that all queſtions reſpecting the affairs of the whole Church, were propounded to be diſcuſſed by the Apoſtles, (whom all the Churches conſulted in doubtful caſes) as may be ſeen, Acts 15. 2. 1 Cor. 7. 1. and whatever they determined, the whole Church every where embraced; which made a conſcience of departing a fingers breadth from thoſe things that were committed to them by the Apoſtles.
If therefore the ſolemnity of the Lords Day was celebrated while the Apoſtles were living, (which the Scriptures teſtifie was done, as we have ſeen, chap. 2.) it muſt of right chiefly be imputed to their ordination: otherwiſe, without doubt, the Univerſal Church had not followed it. Baronius …. 58. …. ….thinks, that all who are well in their wi… will ſay, that ſince it is found that it was done in the Apoſtles times, it could not be ordained, and commanded to be kept of any other but of themſelves. Neither is any thing worthy conſideration brought to the contrary; except it be becauſe the Bleſſed Apoſtles have left no ſingular command with the Church for the obſervation of this day: although he that ſhall attend their practiſe, may lawfully deny this, ſince their example and practiſe hath the force of a precept. But who will deny, that ſome things were inſtituted of the Apoſtles in the Church, whoſe uſe, while they were alive, (I paſs not for Traditions introduced into the Church when the Apoſtles were dead) was grown out with the primitive Chriſtians? of whoſe firſt inſtitution, or neceſſary continuation afterwards, no precept is extant in the Scriptures: yet who will be bold to extenuate the authority of theſe commands? or will affirm, that the Church at this day is not obliged to obſerve them? becauſe their obſervation being mentioned in Scripture, is as it were a command, by vertue whereof the Church is bound to continue them. The thing will be more plain by examples. The Apoſtles ordained Deacons, Act. 6. and Elders in every Church▪ Act. 14. 23. In the Ordinations of all Miniſters, impoſition of hands was uſed, but where is there extant an expreſs comman… from Chriſt for perpetuating the ordination of thoſe, the inſtitution of theſe, or for the uſe of this ceremony? yet none doubts, but that the Apoſtles in performing of theſe, were acted by a Divine inſtinct of the Spirit, and that the Church at this day is bound to them by vertue of Apoſtolical inſtitution.
But that I may briefly ſhew, that the bleſſed Apoſtles, and no others, were the authors of this ſolemnity, that which follows may ſuffice. If it were obſerved while they were yet living, (which the Scriptures do evidently enough manifeſt) it is deſervedly to be aſcribed to their ordaining it: for it was either inſtituted by them, and their authority, or by ſome other Doctors of the Church, without their conſent; a third way is not given; the latter whereof is abſurd, and never to be admitted of any exerciſed in the Chriſtian Faith: becauſe the Apoſtolical authority (as formerly we have abundantly enough ſhewn) was ſupreme in the Church: it belonged to them to declare to the Chriſtian flock what was beſt to be done in all things: and not to the Church, to preſcribe them Statutes and Laws. Why therefore did it not appertain to the Apoſtles, the faithful founders of the Church, amongſt other things, to commend this alſo to the Church, and not to the Church to preſcribe it the bleſſed Apoſtles?
Moreover, the general conſent of all Churches, in celebrating this feſtival, evinceth the ſame: otherwiſe they had diſſented from one another, as in other obſervations (not received from the Apoſtles, but obſerved for a time by the ſucceeding Church) as in the Feaſt of the Paſſover, in obſerving Faſts, &c. ſo doubtleſs it would have happened in celebrating the Lords Day, if by Divine authority received from the Apoſtles its obſervation had not been uſed amongſt the Chriſtians.
Thirdly, if the Chriſtian Church had ordained that day to be celebrated, without the advice of the Apoſtles, either thoſe that turned Chriſtians from Jews or Gentiles, had done this; but not thoſe, to whom the ceſſation of their old Sabbath was not known, but by the Apoſtles; much leſs would they attempt to do this by themſelves, or on their own authority. Neither will any wiſe man think, that thoſe whom the Apoſtles invited from Heatheniſm, to embrace the Chriſtian faith, were the authors of this Feſtival, becauſe it is not uſual with them to Sabbatize after the manner of the Church, unleſs ſo far as they were inſtructed to it by the Apoſtles.
Fourthly, if the Holy Apoſtles, by authority committed to them from Chriſt, had not inſtituted the Lords Day, but had left its obſervation free to the judgment of the Church, then we might on good reaſon have called the Church the Queen of the Sabbath: which yet is a very clear argument of Chriſts Divinity, (as the Learned Dr. Paraeus piouſly) for none is Lord of the Sabbath, but he that hath inſtituted the Sabbath, &c. The Sabbath is of the Lord they God.
Laſtly, if its authority did depend upon the Churches inſtitution, then it may by it be again aboliſhed, when it ſhall think good: but this was never hitherto, ſince Chriſts aſcenſion, attempted, becauſe the Lords day being taken away, the publick worſhip of God muſt of neceſſity fall.
Since, therefore, the obſervation of the Lords day was uſed while the Apoſtles were living, it muſt altogether be aſcribed to them as the firſt founders of the Church.
Moreover, if it ſhould be granted, thatWhatever is ordained by the Apoſtle:, is Divine. this ſolemnity was inſtituted of the Apoſtles, others ask, Whether therefore doth this Ordination lean upon a Divine right? We, paſſing by this rather curious, than ſound Diſputation, Whether the Ordinance of the Lords day be an inſtitution of God or his Apostles? diſcuſſed by ſome doltiſh, and drowſie men, do acknowledge with all willingneſs, as the ancients did, that it was introduced by Divine authority. And although its authority ſhould be granted to be of Apoſtolical inſtitution, it would not thence follow, that it is not Divine; unleſs ſomething be ordained in the Church by the Apoſtles, which the Holy Ghoſt did not inſpire them with: which will not eaſily be admitted of any that is in his ſenſes: becauſe the poſtles in all matters delivered thoſe things to the Churches, which they received from Chriſt, as St. Paul witneſſeth, 1 Cor. 11. 23. and according to Chriſts precept, taught men that embraced the Goſpel, to obſerve thoſe things which Chriſt had commanded them, Matth. 28. 20. aDe praſcripti adv. haer. c. 6.So judgeth Tertullian. The Apoſtles, ſaith he, choſe nothing which they brought in at their own pleaſure, but faithfully appointed to the nations that diſcipline they received from Christ. And why ſhould I believe that the Apoſtles were leſs acted with the Divine Spirit in their Sacred Inſtitutions, (which they impoſed upon the Churches) than in promulgating the Doctrine of the Goſpel? For there is nothing Ep. Wi… t…nienſis in reſp. ad Epiſt 1. Petri Motinaei.Apoſtolical, done by a right that is not Apoſtolical; i. e. Divine: and nothing done by them but the Holy Ghoſt endites it to them: and therefore what they did, they did by Divine right, and that their facts (which are certain) and not onelyonly their ſaying, or writings are of Divine right cannot be denied. The Apoſtle ſhews it neceſſary, that he that is a Prophet, or ſpiritual man, muſt acknowledge, that they are the Lords Precepts, which he hath written to the Churches, 2 Cor. 14. 37. Surely, nothing was enjoyned the Church by the Apoſtles, which was not firſt preſcribed by the Lord; becauſe the Apoſtles were to teach what they learned of Chriſt: which thing they performed with great faithfulneſs: neither will any one, who ſavours the things of the ſpirit, deny this; and yet I acknowledge, that ſome things were inſtituted of them for a time; inaſmuch as whoſe occaſions were ſingular, and not to be continued, wherefore thoſe ordinations were mutable: which yet cannot be affirmed of the Lords Day.
If there be any of the Fathers therefore, who think that the inſtitution of the Lords day was made by the Apoſtles, they are not ſo to be underſtood, as if they acknowledged it not for Divine, but Humane: becauſe the ſame Fathers elſewhere are not affraid to aſcribe it to God and Chriſt: and they acknowledge that the bleſſed Apoſtles were not the authors of this ſolemnity, but the Holy Ghoſts amanuenſes, (i. e. as Leo interprets it, who Leo Conſtitut. 54.writ their Decrees by virtue of a Divine authority) in propounding it to the Church. For which cauſe, the moſt pious Leo hath ordained abſtinence from labours on Ubi ſupra.the Lords Day, becauſe this ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt; and the Apoſtles inſtituted thereby: and confeſſeth, that that day was abundantly honoured by the Lord.
The Lords Day therefore was inſtituted of the Apoſtles, as the faithful Architects of the Chriſtian Church, by extraordinary power, which continues not now in the Church, and by inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt; that Chriſtians might be obliged not by Humane, but by Divine authority, to keep holy Convocations, and to celebrate the private exerciſes of godlineſs on that day. Apoſtolical grace, ſaith Ambroſe, hath raiſed up the dead, which,Hexa. l. 4. c. 4. although it was not the grace of the Apoſtles, but of Chriſt, as the Apoſtles themſelves confeſs, Acts 3. 12. 16. is called Apoſtolical, becauſe it was poured out upon them, and by his help they raiſed up the dead: So here the Lords day is called an Apoſtolical Inſtitution, not becauſe it is a mere ordinance of the Apoſtles, as they were Chriſtians, but becauſe it was inſtituted of Chriſt, by thoſe who were endowed with extraordinary power.
But, as I have ſaid, this is the onelyonly thing that vexes them, that call in queſtion the authority of this inſtitution; that there is no place extant in Scripture, in which, by Divine authority, the ſolemn obſervation of this day ſeems to be enjoyned. Theſe are men of ſubtil wits, who, as the Proverb goes, cannot ſee the wood for trees. Whoſe opinion, when I conſider, that in the Author aHom. 44.Oper. Imperf. in Matthae, comes into my mind, where the Prieſts of old that rail'd upon the people that paid not their tythes, are ſharply reproved for not reproving thoſe that ſinned againſt God. If any of the people, faith he, offer not his tithes, the Prieſts did ſo reprove him, as if he had committed ſome great fault, becauſe he had not offered the tenth part of any thing, though never ſo little: but if any of the people had ſinned againſt God, or injured any one, or done any ſuch thing, none cared for reproving him, as though he had committed no fault, who had ſinned againſt God; and very careful they were of their own gain, but careleſs of the glory of God, and ſalvation of men. Whoſe fault in this thing, he accommodates to the Biſhops, Elders, and Deacons of the Church, as guilty of this crime. Even ſo muſt we judge of theſe men. With what heat of mind, and earneſtneſs, do the very authors of this doubt contend for tythes, which they cry out, that the Lord hath indulged to the Church under the Goſpel, by a Divine right, whenas yet they cannot produce one plain teſtimony out of the New Teſtament, for their beſtowing on the Miniſters of the Goſpel? but about the Lords Day (whoſe being obſerved more than once by the Chriſtian Church, is plain enough in the Scriptures) their faith is wavering; nor can they be perſwaded to believe, that its authority can be demonſtrated out of the Word of God. Let others judge, whether they be worthy Tenths, who deny Sevenths (if I may ſay ſo) to God. But for their ſakes, admitting the Law about Tythes, I would ask this, Whether it's likely, that the moſt good, great, and wiſe God (who hath put the ſeaſons of times in his own power, Act. 1. 7.) would determine any thing certain of a Salary, to be beſtowed on the adminiſtrators of his Worſhip, when yet he left nothing certain in the Church, of the time in which his worſhip ſhould be performed? It's a wiſe mans part, firſt to determine the work, and a fit time to do it in, and then the wages, where with they that under went it, are to be rewarded. The Parable, Math. 20. relates, how the houſholder hired Labourers; but firſt he ſignified what he would have them do, and then he agreed with them for a penny a day. If therefore they aſſert, that Tythes are allowed by God for the uſe of the Miniſters of the Church, they muſt of neceſſity grant, that God hath appointed a time, in which they muſt attend his worſhip (to whom, in their opinion, he hath granted Tythes) becauſe it is the ſame authority that muſt both define the Worſhip, and a fit time for performing of that Worſhip.
Now for eſtabliſhing the Divine inſtitution of this day, we muſt not have recourſe to that ſpurious ſcroul, that, (as it's reported in the third tome of ap. 1448.Councils) was ſent down from Heaven to Hieruſalem; becauſe that what things the Holy Ghoſt hath revealed to us in Scripture, they do demonſtrate it to all to be Divine, of thoſe that embrace the truth: and for the fabulous fooleries about this matter, we leave them to the Papiſts (whoſe Kingdome had long ſince fallen without their ſupport) and we will briefly, according to our manner, examine what light may be brought out of the New Teſtament, to manifeſt the truth in this matter. Here three things come to be examined.
Firſt, Whether in the compaſs of every week, muſt the Church keep holy a certain day, by Gods inſtitution?
Secondly, Whether the Jewiſh Sabbath be abrogated?
Thirdly, What can be brought out of the books of the New Teſtament to confirm the keeping holy the firſt day in the week?
The firſt of theſe is more obſcure, the other two may plainly enough be obſerved out of the Holy Scriptures, and Fathers, and one of them depends upon another. Of the laſt many things have been obſerved out of the Scriptures, in our ſecond, third, &c. Chapters; but the truth about the two former Queſtions being made manifeſt by the teſtimonies of the ancients, it will appear with little ado, what is to be enquired into in the third place.