CHAP. 1.

THat some certain time is to be as­signed by Divine Institution, on which, men ceasing from com­mon affairs, are diligently to bend themselves to▪ Divine Worship, for Gods glory, and the Churches good (although no [Page 2] Religion be placed in Holy-dayes) I think to be without controversie: the custome re­ceived amongst Nations of all Ages (that namely, at a stated time, and upon certain dayes, all should meet to invocate, and wor­ship that Deity which they took for their supreme) doth witness this: and reason it self doth require the same.

Conventions also for performing exercises of Piety, were alwayes used by the Christi­an Church, in which said exercises, it pra­ctised what pertained to godliness, and the worship of God, for which cause the Apo­stle, Heb. 10. 25. allows not of that readiness in Christians, to forsake [...], i.e. that coming to the Synagogue [or meeting to­gether] and if Christ disdained not to come himself to the Temple, and the Jews Syna­gogues, [...], Luk. 4. 16. 1. As his custome was; who will he be that shall think the places dedicated for the Churches assem­blies are not to be gone unto by Christians? But the necessity (which Hom. 1. c. 1. p. 81. Chrysostom at large decyphers de verbis Isaiae) of these Assem­blies (of which more afterwards) being ad­mitted: we must at this time briefly enquire out the fit season (without which the exer­cise of Divine worship cannot fitly be acted in them) for holding of them: for the best sign of the time which was solemnized by [Page 3] the Church, must be observed from the pub­lick conventions which were held for per­forming of the Duties of Religion.

The time assigned for Divine worship The extra­ordinary time for Divine worship. amongst the ancient Christians, was either extraordinary, or ordinary: solemnly to celebrate the extraordinary time, they were called upon only by an extraordinary occa­sion, when it sell out: so while the Apo­stles were living, Luke tells us, Acts 12. that many were gathered together in Maries house, during St. Peter's imprisonment, and for his sake poured out Prayers continually 10 God;—the occasion of which conven­tion was extraordinary, yet did they not therefore intermit the ordinary time of meeting: the ancient writers do also witness, that such were the meetings of the Christians after the Apostles times, when a just occasion was offered: who, as often as persecutions, or publick calamities sell out, they then joyned Prayers in their meetings congregated on that occasion: and so, as it were, Tertul. Apol. cont. Gentes. c. 39. by making a band in their Prayers to God, they compassed him about as they prayed: which thing we read was done by the Apostles and Church, Acts 4. 23. 31. When the Elders of the People forbad the Apostles they should not preach Christ, the Church poured forth Prayers to God.

[Page 4]The ordinary time for the exercises of Pie­tyThe ordi­nary time for the worship of God. was, at which they attended Divine wor­ship upon a stated and determinate day: to manifest which, it will be worth the while to know, that for convocating the Church ordi­narily, more days were set apart after the Apo­stles death, than the former Church observed.

Concerning the Assemblies of the Church while the Apostles were yet alive, some things observable do occurr in the Evange­lists (the Holy Ghosts amanuenses, and the faithful describers of the Acts of the Apo­stles) in declaring whereof, we will first consider what is recorded of the Apostles in this thing, and then of the other members of the Church.

And first of all we will shortly touch upon the assemblies of the Apostles (although they cannot truly be reputed amongst the ordina­ry conventions of the Church, because which way soever the Apostles turned, they took e­very occasion to preach the Gospel) because they open us a way to understand others. After the saving Passion of Jesus Christ, our most merciful Redeemer▪ the mention of theThe meet­ings that were held by the Apo­stles. first of these, at which were present the rest excepting Thomas, occurrs Joh. 20. 19. in which Christ vouchsafed his presence. The, occasion of which meeting is not mentioned; but doubtless, as all Interpreters conjecture, this was done, that by their mutual presence [Page 5] they might comfort one another: For as many as are Christs, do perpetually incline to communicate all things, whether their sorrows or joyes, among themselves: and then their Lord being gone, their greatest fear was of the Jews; for which cause we read that the place wherein they held their meeting was shut and barred: when the Apostles were assembled, they conferred among themselves of what divers related of Christs Resurrection: the time of this meet­ing is noted in John, Ioh. 20. 19. it was the first day of the week, and about evening of that day, or after Sun-set; at which time, Christ, having con­quered the grave and death, presented him­self to them alive.

Secondly, after eight dayes, or the eighth day current from his appearing, the same Evangelist tells us, John 20. 26. that they were all met together, where Jesus came again, and stood in the midst of them. Here some make a question, whether the day of their second meeting was the eighth from the first, or after the eighth day? l. 12. in Jo [...]. c. 58. p. 1026. Cyril af­firms it was the eighth, or Lords day, the first and last being reckoned: neither doth it hinder that it's said after eight dayes. Christ taught, that the Son of man must suffer many things, &c. and after three dayes rise again. Mar. 8. 31. yet Christ rose from the dead [Page 6] on the third day from his burial, not after the third day. So also 'tis said Luke 2. 21. When eight dayes were accomplished for the circumcising of the Child, i. e. on the eighth ve­ry day: for the H. Ghost speaks of the eighth day current, and not finished: so here after eight dayes, or on the eighth day, are all one. It must be added also, that Christ appeared in the evening of that day.

Afterwards some of the Apostles were to­gether, when they went to fish, to whom al­so Jesus appeared. Ioh. 21..

Thirdly, the General convention of all the Apostles is declared, Act. 1. 4. in which they were commanded, not to depart from Jerusalem, but there wait for the promise of the Father: and thither they came after the glorious Ascension of Christ, where be­ing gathered together, they tarried for the Spirit, promised of God the Father, and Christ. Act. 1. 14.. Luke reports that women also were present at this Congregation of the Apostles: where they continued their meet­ing, till the Feast of Pentecost, abiding with one accord in Prayer and Supplication: which fell out also on the first day of the week. So thinks Isychius in Levit. l. 2. c. 9., who sayes, the day of Pentecost fell out on that day which our Savi­our rose on; and indeed, whoever shall com­pare his reckoning with the Law of God, about keeping Pentecost, will find that Isy­chius [Page 7] in this misses not the truth at all. For the day of Pentecost (which the Scripture elsewhere calls the Feast of Weeks, or of New-fruits, because on that day the Shew­bread was offered out of the new fruits) was the fiftieth inclusively from the day of offer­ing the First-fruits, Lev. 23. which was the day immediately next after the Passover 1 Cor. 15. 20, 23., on which the Lord Jesus, who was the first­fruits of the dead, lay in the Grave: and the fiftieth day from that inclusively, was the first in the week, upon which the H. Ghost descended on the Apostles, as they were that day assembled. Act. 2.

These are the meetings▪ which the Holy Scripture testifies the blessed Apostles held upon the fiftieth day from Christs resurre­ction: which being held upon the first day of the Week, Christ oftentimes honoured with his presence. But why they met on that, and not another day, it is not easie to declare; although one may guess at the cause of the first and last meeting, yet hath the Holy Ghost shewn us nothing of the se­cond occasion. And it's uncertain whether Christ before his death, or for those fortyIoh. 20. 26 dayes wherein he reasoned with them after his resurrection, of things pertaining to the Kingdome of God, gave his Apostles any command for setting apart some new time [Page 8] for their meetings. Epiphanius sayes, they Contr. Ebi­on. haer. 30. [...]. 32. knew very well that the Sabbath was at an end, from his converse with them, and Do­ctrine before his Passion. This at least is an indubitable truth, that they met on the first day of the week, and that Christ made re­nowned their meeting held on that day by his own gracious presence, and mission of the Holy Ghost. And St. Cyril must be cre­dited, Holy Congregations are held at this day [...]ibi prius. of right in Churches, because on that day Jesus appeared to his Apostles, as they were met to­gether. Nor doth Isychius think otherwise in the place afore quoted. Therefore accor­ding to those most grave Fathers, because the eighth day was made famous with the presence of Christ, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven, it is at this day also by the Church solemnized with a more honourable worship.

Afterwards the Apostles, together with the faithful, are said daily to meet to hear the word of God, and receive bread, Act. 2. 46. Yea, the Apostles ceased not to teach from house to house, and in the Temple, Act. 5. 42. And these are the things which the Holy Ghost hath afterwards left us writ­ten in the Holy Scriptures, concerning the Apostles meetings: to the solemnizing whereof, we read not that they observed a [Page 9] certain or set time; because they had to do with the Jews, to whom, before others, ac­cording to the ancient prophecies, the Go­spel was to be declared. Therefore the Apo­stles were often present at the Jews assem­blies, [...]nd that upon their Sabbaths. And whether the Apostles, when first they went for [...] [...]o preach the Gospel, met apart from the Jews amongst themselves on other da [...]s, the Holy Ghost is silent in the Scri­pt [...]re. But at that time the Candidates of Christianity being hindred with fear of the Jews, could not without great difficulty meet together. We must then think they held their meetings in those dayes when they could. But the Church being wonder­fully increased, and daily corroborated in the Faith, by the frequent preaching of the Apostles, it appeareth by the History of the Apostles travels recorded by St. Luke, that the Christians where-ever they lived, were wont to meet upon set dayes, to handle Re­ligion: to prove its truth, divers examples are ready in the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles; in which the celebrating of their meetings is usually denoted by these phrases; meeting together to hear the word of God, Acts 13. 44. coming together to break bread, Acts 20. 7. to come together, 1 Cor. 11. 20. mini­string to the Lord. Acts 13. 2, &c. they are [Page 10] said sometimes to meet in the Temple, Act. 2. 46. Sometimes other Christians than the Apostles were at the Jews Synagogues: because there the Apostles preached Christ to the Jews, and therefore other Christians also resorted thither, that they might hear the Apostles teaching. Act. 5. 12.

That the first Christians were sometimesHow the A­postles and other Chri­steans were present at the Jews Syna­gogues. present at the Jews Synagogues on the Sab­bath day is granted, the Holy Writ being witness hereof, Acts 13. 14. also Acts 17. 2. it's said, the Apostle, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath dayes reason­ed with them out of the Scriptures, &c. but not to solemnize the Sabbaths after the Jew­ish manner (from whose observation the Christians, and that by authority commit­ted to the Apostles from the Lord, were far enough off) especially when Paul himself could most severely reprove the Colossians and Galatians, because some amongst them stood for the Sabbath, and other feasts of the Jews: but because they then had ob­tained a good occasion of communing with the Jews, being met together: that their readings of the Law and Prophets being finished in the Synagogues, they might preach the Gospel with more fruit in such a concourse of men (which upon other dayes they could not so easily obtain) and [Page 11] for no other end, as from the alledged testi­monies is evident. Which things let the Reader seriously weigh with himself. For at what time, or in what place soever they could speak with the Jews, they set upon them, and preached the Gospel to them. Therefore, both on the Sabbaths, and other dayes, as well in the Synagogues, as when they were met other where, the Apostles were not wanting amongst the Iews in the office of preaching. When they had tarri­ed certain dayes amongst the Macedonians, because no fit occasion for preaching the Gospel was offered (as the circumstances of that place teach) which the Apostles every where greedily sought after, they preached Christ on the Sabbath dayes out of the City, by Act. 16. 13. a River side, to the women which resorted to publick Prayers according to their custome. St. Paul hastened to keep the Feast of Pentecost at Ierusalem, only because he might have many of the Iews living dispersedly in divers places of the world there gathered together, with whom he might treat about Christ, and so the preaching of the Gospel by them returning home might be made famous through the world. So thinketh Chrysost. Hom. 43. in Act. who sayes, What means that haste of his? (he speaks of Pauls hasting to the Feast) it was not for the Feast, but for the Multi­tude. [Page 12] Afterwards he sayes, He made haste to preach the word.

It's granted therefore that the Apostles and other Christians in those first times, were present at the Synagogues of the Iews: yet although they met with them on the Sabbaths, they are not read in the Scripture to meet on the Sabbath dayes apart from the Iews, and by themselves. Neither do we read that this was done of them with an intention to solemnize the Sabbath, or have a worship common to the Iews, which was not lawful to be done. St. Paul sometimes disputed in Areopagus, Act. 17. 19. and the Schools of the Heathen, Act. 19. 9. In which the Schoolmasters were wont to explain Tert. lib. de Idol. c. 10. the names, genealogies, fables, and histories of their gods, to observe their Feasts, and instruct their Catechetae in their rites. Yet no man will thence conclude, (as Mr. Eaton well observes) that because he was present in their Schools, he did observe the Heathens feasts, and worship their gods. In like man­ner the Apostles must not be said to have observed the Jewish Sabbath, although they had divers disputations thereon, as the con­course of the Iews gave them occasion.

Moreover if the Christians had observed the Sabbath, then Justin Martyr had satis­fiedDial. cum Tryphon. with little ado, Trypho the Jew, that [Page 13] counselled him to observe the Sabbath. For it had been enough for Martyr to have answer­ed the Iew, that the Christian Church did observe the Sabbath. Yet this he grants not, but that blessed Martyr▪ plainly denies that the Jewish Sabbath ought to be observed by the Christians. The same do other Fathers against the Iews, as we shall see afterwards.

Lastly, we read not that the Apostles were alwayes at their Synagogues. For it's said Act. 19. 9. when the Iews hearts were hard­ned at Pauls Doctrine, first Paul himself de­parted from them, neither is he ever after read to enter into their Synagogues. Besides he segregated from them the Disciples that embraced the sounder Doctrine, lest, as it's in the Proverb, the sick cattel should infect the sound. Therefore as long as they concei­ved any hope of converting the Iews, they neither declined their company nor Syna­gogues. But when they observed, that they rose up against the sound Doctrine of the Gospel with an obdurate heart, they forth­with forsook them, neither are they read in Scripture ever after to enter into their Syna­gogues any more.

CHAP. II.

AFterwards, when the Christians had no dealing with the Iews, we read that they met by themselves, in the Apo­stles age, and that on the Lords day, to ex­ercise the offices of Piety and Divine Wor­ship. But for the period of time, in which at first they held these conventions by them­selves, apart from the Iews, there's nothing occurrs in Scripture, and divers dispute about it. Passing by whose dispute, it plainly appears in the Holy Scripture▪ that the Lords day, while yet the Apostles were alive, was destined for the publick meeting of the Church.

There are three Texts of the New Testa­ment,All Inter­preters of Scripture are not at one with themselves. (namely, Act. 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. and Apoc. 1. 10. in which there is plain mention of that dayes celebrity) on whose most grave authorites the religious observa­tion [Page 15] of the Lords day, by the common suf­frage almost of all Divines, doth chiefly rest. Yet all Interpreters agree not amongst them­selves in their Expositions of them: and no wonder, since to all it is not given presently to hit upon the sense of what is delivered in the Scriptures, but to some that prophesie some things are revealed, according to the Apo­stle, whilst other sit by. Yea, men of every1 Cor. 14. 30. age studiously following after the known truth; even while they diligently apply their ages to the study of the Scripture, are blessed with a New-light of knowledge not observed by their Predecessors. It sometimes also falleth out, that some things may be re­vealed to men of inferiour condition, which are hid to others of greater name and autho­rity; as may be seen in St. Paphnatius, who being armed with the Divine authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, wherein it's as­serted, that Marriage is honourable in all, opposed in that famous Council of Nice theSocr. Hist. l. 1. c. 8. Bishops that ordained an excess of rigour, or studiously endeavoured to prejudice the Church with an intolerable inconveniency of too severe a prescription: yet all that fa­mous convention of Holy Bishops, Presby­ters, and Deacons, yielded to Paphnatius his opinion. Chrysostom gives leave to theHom. 18. in 2 Cor. weaker, although the least, to speak any [Page 16] thing that's profitable, even in the Church­assembly.

Moreover, one and the same understand­ing at the same moment, receiveth not all the sacred mysteries of Faith; but the Ho­ly Ghost, (the onely teacher of truth) open­eth to men their understanding at divers times. And most commonly it happens, that he that cannot have the first place for wisdome, may have the second for modesty, byAug. pro­log. in Re­tract. retracting what he hath inconsiderately spo­ken. Now as in the Expositions of other Scriptures, there are more Masters, when they judge diversly, and contradictorily amongst Aug. ibid. themselves: so it falleth out in the gloss of the foresaid Texts. For some of them (whereof the first and second do note, that the offices of Religion are to be performed by the Christian Church on that day; the third its name) being supported by testimo­nies, do piously and modestly defend the au­thority of the Lords day: which others of them contend, cannot be defended by those authorities. The former of these opinions is more common, and received of more both ancient and modern Divines: Neither doth the latter want asserters of great authority in the Church.

Mr. Calvin, of blessed memory, in hisAp. Mar­ [...]rat. Learned Commentaries, so interprets that [Page 17] place, Act. 20. 7. that it seems to bring lit­tle help to prove the Lords day solemnity. Whose opinion I see divers do embrace; whose temper I cannot enough wonder at in this: because in this point they stifly-ad­here to Learned Calvins opinion, from which, in other matters of Christian Faith, they are altogether aliens, and cry out that the vilest Comments of the Papists are far to be preferred to his elaborate Expositions, which breath forth Piety and excellent Lear­ning: and whatever is approved by the judgment of that well exercised Divine, Mr. [...]. Calvin▪ Calvin, they little esteem it: and that be­cause the most famous Calvin sometimes thought so. Yet in this business they judge nothing ought to be approved, but what, for­sooth, seems good to Calvin.

When I consider these mens temper, it comes into my mind, what Theophilus some­time did to the Monks sirnamed Longi, atSozom. Hist. 8. c. 12. whom he was displeased. He conspired with the common sort of Monks, who af­firmed with Origen, that God had an hu­mane shape (although he thought other­wise) against those Friars Whence arose a great contention amongst the Monks, who turned themselves to rail and not dis­pute. So divers, who matter not Mr. Cal­vins judgment, do yet, under a pretence of [Page 18] his authority, studiously defend their own opinions, to the end they might set by the ears those whom they observe to admire and love famous Calvin's judgment, as reason re­quires, in other things, while some of them adhere to, and others dissent from his opinion; when yet in the mean time they value not Mr. Calvin a straw.

Whoever knows the Learned Calvin, can­not but acknowledge him for a most stout maintainer of Gods truth: by whose auspi­cious labours, in this age, through Gods mercy, an admirable course hath been made to all excellency of Doctrine and Religion: which might have perished, had not he, be­ing stirred up by Gods grace, as another At­las, upholden the ruinous affairs of the Church. He was also a most earnest resto­rer of Christian liberty, which with might and main pursued about the use of meats, and dayes, against the Papists, and other adversaries of the truth. And let none think it strange, if upon the matter he find the same happen to him, which does to the dili­gent Husbandman, after that his good seed sprouts out in his field: who perceiving Darnel and Tares, while he goes about to root them out, contrary to his purpose he plucks up some of the Wheat with the Tares. Whilst that famous Divine ob­serves [Page 19] the observation of the Jewish Sab­bath to cease, and that upon Apostolical authority: he thought it congruous to truth, to pronounce the Christian Church free from observing the Weekly Sabbath. This opinion he manifested especially, when he set himself against the unnecessa­ry Festivals of the Papists, from whose most grievous yoke, he had an earnest desire to free the Church of Christ.

It will not be well taken for me to dissent from Calvin, together with the Learned Be­za, Gallacius on Ex. 31. and Fajus, Mr. Cal­vins most intimate Colleagues, and other Divines of great name, though it be done with never so great modesty, and craving his pardon; however I judge him worthy to be reckoned amongst our greatest Writers. But I will come now to weigh the foresaid Texts, whereof the first is in Act. 20. 7.Act. 20. 7. is consider­ed. where St. Luke sayes, [...]. Upon the first day of the week, when the Disci­ples came together to break bread, Paul preach­ed unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight. Where the Church-assembly is, as they say, painted to the life, by all its circumstances: and first from the time, then from the duties performed of the Church in that assembly: concerning all which, a double question is [Page 20] moved of some that seek a knot in a bul­rush. In the one whereof, what Luke means by [...]. i. the first day of the week: in the other they discuss what must be under­stood by [...]. i. breaking of bread.

In describing the Church of Troas, first, the time is noted, namely, [...]. where some interpret it, not for the first, but one day of the week: as if Luke had sig­nified nothing else by that phrase, than that they met on a certain day of the week, when St. Paul was there. They eat, according to the Proverb, with very tender jaws, to whom these dainties relish. But with their leave, what they say cannot agree with the genuine sense of that place. For in that place Sabbatum must needs be taken either for the whole week (as the Hebrews usual­ly speak) or for the last day in the week. We must not understand it here in the latter sense, because the Apostle abode at Troas only seven dayes, Act. 20. 6 and in that space only one Sabbath, properly so called, did occurr: therefore, since he tarried there but only for one Sabbath, it cannot be said he preached to them on one of the Sabbath [...]: neither is [...], as divers observe, ever read in the New Testament for [...]. It follows therefore from thence ne­cessarily, that Sabbatum should be taken for [Page 21] the whole week; and then on one, or the first of the Sabbaths, will be all one. In which sense, that phrase occurrs else where, as in Mar. 16. 2. [...] i. very early in the morning, the first day of the week: as in the ninth verse of the same chapter, [...]. there the Evan­gelist expounds [...] by [...]. i. one by the first. And so the Greek Fathers next the Apostles times, interpreted [...].

Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. sayes, [...], &c. One of the Sabbaths, remaining the first of all the dayes, according to number, the spaces of all the dayes being run again into a circle, is called the eighth; and remaineth the first, as it is. p. 201. Chrysoft. Hom. 43. in Act. Apostol. expounds one of the Sabbaths by the Lords Day. So Hieronymus. Nor otherwise Augu­stine, Ep. 86. One of the Sabbaths, sayes he, was then called that day, which now is called the Lords, which is more plainly found in the Gospel.

Some also by breaking of bread understand a private banquet, not the Lords Supper: of which doubt this seems to be the cause. In that age the Christians meeting in the Church, did sup together, and also received the H. Eucharist; and so both tables, the [Page 22] common and sacred were joyned together, as Chrysostom teaches, Hom. 26. in 1 Cor. Upon set dayes they made common tables, and Hom. 43. in Act. when the assembly was ended, after communion of the Sacraments, they went to eat and drink together. And hence it was, as Chrysostom thinks, that they Acts 20. 7. met to break common bread: because when the communi­on was celebrated, the common table fol­lowed: and Chrysostom affirms, in the be­ginning of that Hom. that the day on which they met was the Lords, and that all things that there were done were joyned to preach­ing; But the breaking of bread in the fore­said place, is to be expounded of the Holy Eucharist: for there were sundry there, and Paul took bread, not at Supper time, but mid-night. In that Text therefore the du­ties of a Christian Sabbath (such are an holy assembly, breaking of bread, or admi­stration of the Lords Supper, preaching of the Word, devout Prayers, &c.) are read to be performed of the Church on that day: which holy duties were not performed of them on another day, otherwise Paul having stayed there the space of seven dayes, could not have deserred them to this day, especi­ally when he was to depart the day follow­ing: neither doth Luke affirm the Apostle to have proclaimed this meeting of the [Page 23] Church as extraordinary, because he was to depart the day after: but he teacheth that the Church met (namely, as it was wont) to break bread, and not to take leave of the Apostle: and St. Augustine consesses thatEp. 86. Pauls departure was the express cause of con­tinuing his speech, because he desired sufficient­ly to instruct them. The received custome therefore of the Church, and not the blessed Apostles departure from Troas, gave occasi­on to this assembly. For he stayed there seven dayes, not so much for the Eucharist, as waiting for the Lords Day. Whence it appears, that that Text shews that the Apo­stolical Church kept solemnly the Lords Day in the publick exercises of Religion. But upon what authority the Christians met on that day, we will afterwards examine, here it's enough for me only to demonstrate that they did meet on that day.

The second Text, out of which the cele­bration1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. of the Lords Day is shown, is, 1 Cor. 16. 1. 2. Now concerning the collecti­on for the Saints, as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye, [...]. i. upon the first day of the week, &c. The former place taught us, that the Apo­stle Paul did celebrate the Lords Day with the Church: this, that he commands it to be celebrated by the Church. And his pra­ctise [Page 24] is not here only recorded, but here is mention made of his Apostolical ordina­tion about that thing. Where [...] must be taken distributively for, upon the first day of every week. In which Aposto­lical command, nothing is commanded the Church of Corinth, which is not also requi­red of the whole Church of Christ, accor­ding to the golden rule of Tertullian, very profitable for understanding of the Scrip­ture, Some things, saith he, uttered speci­ally De specta. cap. 3. are to be understood generally: which rule cannot but have place in this Text: because what things the Apostle writ to the Church of Corinth, the same belong to all that call upon the name of Christ in eve­ry place, he himself being witness, 1 Cor. 1. 2. Moreover, who will deny that all who have given their name to Christ, are bound to relieve their necessities? For you must not think, sayes Chrysostom, that these Hom. 2. [...]. 6. things were written to the Corinthians alone, but to every one of us, and all that shall be after us. Let us do therefore as Paul prescribes us, and let every one of us lay by him at home on the Lords Day, the Lords riches (i. to be em­ployed for such use as the Lord hath prescri­bed) and hereupon let it become a low and im­mutable custome, &c. Therefore in Chry­sostoms judgment, the Apostle applies the [Page 25] manner of the Church in collecting almes on the Lords Dayes, for the benefit of afflicted brethren, which were then at Hierusalem, which office of Christian Charity, although no brethren liv'd in that place, ought not to be omitted of Christians: but in Chry­sostoms opinion is to be established by an in­violable law for ever, as it was done (even as it appears by Justin Martyr, and Ter­tullians Apologies) in the succeeding Church. I only add this; Although a ge­neral law for making collections on that day to the use of the poor, be set down by the Apostle, yet they that at this day do it at other times, must not be judged trans­gressors of the Apostles law. That kind of collection was not so affixed to the Lords Day, as it could not be done on other dayes; although a peculiar reason was in it, why they did rather on that, than ano­ther day; namely, for the Church-assem­blies held at that time: and no time, as Chrysostom witnesseth, which we shall see afterwards, is more fit to perform that office on than the Lords Day.

Others again, set to another Engine, by which they oppose the usual interpretati­on of the Apostles foresaid phrase, and contend that [...] doth signifie eve­ry day of the week, (singulam Sabbatum) [...] [Page 24] [...] [Page 25] [Page 26] This they assert, not because it's the proba­ble construction of the Apostles words, but that they might elude, if they could, the genuine interpretation received every where of the Church. But whoever shall weigh with himself the blessed Apostles purpose, (who did studiously provide that his ordinances should not be a burden to the Churches of Christ, which in those dayes for most what consisted of men of an inferi­our condition) will not easily admit, that the Apostle did so ordain, that collections should be made daily: neither is it like that he should ordain, that these should be ga­thered on every Sabbath, properly so cal­led: since when the Apostle was present at Corinth, the Christians could not meet in one place: much less after his de­parture from them, was it safe for them to frequent the Jewes Synagogues on the Sabbath day. Let that place, Act. 18. 17. be consulted. Lastly, neither must we be­lieve that the Christian Corinthians did hold their publick meetings on the Sab­bath day amongst themselves: since they were held on the Lords dayes in every place: neither is there extant any testi­mony in the whole Volume of the Scrip­tures, by which it can be shown, that the Christians kept Sabbath-day meetings [Page 27] among themselves, or apart from the Jews. Therefore the received Exposition of the Apostles words, is to be retained; name­ly, that the Apostle did ordain in the Church of Corinth, yet when they met for Religion, weekly, as the Lords dayes re­turned, almes should be collected for the poors use: and they seem privately to have laid aside what their condition per­mitted to bestow for the comfort and re­lief of the poor: and that which was thus laid aside, they kept with themselves till the first day in the week, at what time they deposited it with the Rulers of the Church for the poors use. He that shall more considerately weigh the Apostles phrase, may well enough see this was his meaning: for he saith, [...] &c. i. against the first day in every week, or when the first of every week comes; so as is said amongst the Grecians Suidas., [...] i. Water ready for washing ones hands. In like manner, the Almes which were privately laid aside of every one, were deposited on the first day of the week for the help of the needy, and then, when the Church met, are said to be gathered, be­cause their collection was made of those who privately had laid them aside, on the Lords day, or or first day of the week. Le [...] [Page 28] admonished his hearers,Baron. An. 44. n. 68. because on the Lords day there should be a Collection, to­prepare themselves for a voluntary devotion, and that every one according to his ability, might have fellowship in that most sacred ob­lation: from which testimony one may easily gather, that the Christians laid aside by themselves their Collections against the Lords day, which then they deposited with the Rulers of the Church, to be be­stow'd. Although Chrysostom Hom. 43. in 1 Cor. thinks that the people reserved their almes, laid aside on the Lords day, till the Apostle himself came, to whom they should be brought in; but the former exposition doth more agree with the custom of the Church.

The third place is Rev. 1. 10. whereRev. 1. 10. there is had express mention of the Lords day; out of which, almost all Writers fetch the custome of the Lords day solemnity, from the very Apostles time. For the Lords day, as we see, is expounded by as well an­cient, as late Interpreters of Scripture, to be the first day in the week: and some new expositions of that phrase (which cannot stand with the signification of the Lords day in the Evangelists themselves, and some fa­mousWallaeus de 4. Praec. c. 7. doth learnedly confute some of the foolish ex­positions which some make of the name of this day. Writers next the Apostles age) are so­lidly resuted by divers; and therefore omit­ting them, we set it down for a certain, that [Page 29] in the Apostles age (that I may use Ribe­ra's words, on Rev. 1.) the solemnity of the Sabbath was changed into the Lords Day, be­ing consecrated by the Resurrection of our Lord. For it's not once that it appears from Scrip­ture, that the Apostolical Church kept so­lemn the Lords Day, by celebrating the Supper, preaching the Word, and collect­ing of Alms, in which the true manner of solemnizing it doth consist. Yea, the histo­ry of the Apostles travels lets us know, that the Christians of that time held not their ordinary meetings but upon the Lords day. He that shall teach the contrary, confiding in Scripture authority, I will freely hear, although after the Apostles death, the suc­ceeding Church in some places, as after­wards we shall see, kept their meeting on the Sabbath dayes. In the mean time we find that the Lords day in the Apostles age, the sacred records attesting the same, was solemnly observed. Which thing was first to be proved by us.

CHAP. III.

NOne who will diligently look into the gravest writers of the following ages shall be ignorant, that after the Apostles were dead, the Church did in all Nations celebrate the Lords Day: which that it may more plainly be known to all, we must know; as I said in the first Chapter, when the Apostles were translated to Heaven, the number of dayes (on which ordinarily the Church-meetings were had) received an increase. For while the Apostles were alive, the Christians ordinarily held their meet­ings on the Lords dayes only, but afterwards the ordinary time for performing the exer­cises of publick worship was not only week­ly, [Page 31] but anniversary; that came every week, this but once every year. But here we will not speak of the extraordinary, and anni­versary festivals, that were used by the suc­ceeding Church; but of the ordinary time returning every week, destined for Religious exercises. Where, in the first place, it will be for the Readers profit to consider, that although the use of the Lords day spreadThe Chri­stians met on the Sab­bath. abroad through the world in the Church of God, yet in some places the Church had weekly her publick meetings on other dayes besides the Lords. Socrates acknowledges the Sabbath and Lords Day for feasts re­turning every week, on which meetings were wont to be kept. Hist. 6. c. 8. And else­where, when he treats of the sundry rites of Churches, l. 5. c. 22. he tells us, that the Presbyters and Bishops of Cappadocia▪ Cesa­ria and Cyprus, did interpret the Scriptures on the Sabbath and Lords Day. When l. 7. c. 19. Sozo­men noteth the time of calling the Church together, he sayes, some met on the Sab­bath, and the day after the Sabbath. Epi­phanius in Panario contr. Heresi. lib. 3. T. 2. acknowledgeth, that the Church met upon the Wednesday, instead of the Sabbath, andFeria▪ Lords Day. When St. Epist. ad Jan. 11. 8. cap. 2. Austin shews what Christians must do when they see the cu­stomes of Churches to vary, he confesses [Page 32] that some do daily partake of [the Lords] blood and body on the Lords day (which all the ancients do witness was done in the Church-assembly) and others only on the Sabbath and Lords day and in other places on­ly on the Lords day. Lib. 2. in Gal. c. 4. Hierom acknowledges the Christians did observe Quartam Sabbati, Parasceven, and the Lords day: although he shews they differed from the Jews in the ob­servation of those dayes.

The testimonies of the Fathers hitherto mentioned, do shew, that although the use of the Lords day grew every where, yet the Church had in some places oftener, in others more rarely, their weekly meetings, where­upon it seemed equal and just to some to or­dain other dayes (which the succeeding Church proclaimed for publick meetings) to be equallized with the Lords day: and that chiefly for three causes; first, the pub­lick meetings of the Church were held on other dayes besides the Lords. Secondly, the Christians were bound to the same duties of Religion on other dayes, appointed by the Church for meetings, which were re­quired by the Church on the Lords day. Lastly, some Feasts, the Anniversary name­ly, were more esteemed in the Church than the Lords: and these things are confidently enough affirmed, that they might shew, if [Page 33] by any means they could, that the original and obligation of the Lords day and other Festivals is the same, both which they set forth to the world for humane: but let them look to it, to whom they affirm it, lest they be twit with that of Ezek. 43. 8.

But that the prerogatives of the Lords Day above others, may more clearly appear, let us by Gods help weigh of what value the reasons are, with which they contend for other feasts to be equallized with the Lords day: which, that it may be done with plainness, we will first clearly distinguish the Church-assemblies held on the Sabbath dayes, from others which were held on the Lords day, relying upon the gravest testi­monies of the ancients; then by Gods as­sistance, we will shew the peculiar excellen­cy of the Lords Day; for the dignity where­of it is superiour to other dayes, while others contend against it in vain.

First, we affirm, that, excepting theThe anci­ents cele­brated the Sabbath▪ not as an holy day. Lords, there was no other weekly (we speak of stated and ordinary) holy day, with the whole Church next the Apostles. We have heard in the first Chapter, that the Christians met on the first day of the week: and for the allegations in this chapter out of the Fathers and Historians, for the observation of the Sabbath, they cannot de­monstrate, [Page 34] that the Sabbath was observed by the Christian Church as an holy day: which, unless it be first explicated, they that peruse the records of the Ancients, will hap­ly fall into a troublous matter. After the Apostles death, Socrates, Sozomen, Epipha­nius, Hieronymus, Augustine, and if there be any more, say, that the Church in the pub­lick assembly did perform the duties of pie­ty as the Sabbaths came about: yet whoever shall say that the Sabbath was neither ac­counted holy, nor equalled to the Lords day, will do no wrong to the truth. Who will say the Sabbath is holy? when in the holy Re­cords a tittle cannot be read of its instituti­on, or observation in the Christian Church, as is of the Lords day: but that the Lords day was instituted of the Apostles, indued with extraordinary power, and moved by the Holy Ghosts inspiration, we will after­wards by the Grace of God inform you. Yea, let him tell who can, that the Christians in the Apostles age met by themselves on Sab­bath dayes, which thing yet they did on the Lords dayes, is apparent enough from the Scriptures: but after the Apostles death I deny not that the Christians met together on Sabbath dayes, (although they account­ed not the Sabbath holy) and those assem­blies were chiefly in use with the Oriental [Page 35] people, according to some; because the Jews dispersed in the Orient, and accustomed to the Sabbatical solemnity, could not easily be contented to be plucked from it, although they observed the Lords Day (which what is it else to do, but brand them with Eus. 3. 21. Ebionism?) or as An. 57. n. 202. 203. Baronius thinks, because certain Hereticks reproached the Sabbath, that the God of the Hebrews, whom they called Evil, rested on that day, therefore they fasted on the Sabbath: Con­trariwise, the Catholicks not Judaizing, but that they might worship him as God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth, with a solemn ce­lebrity, said, that in honour of him the Sabbath, as well as the Lords day to the glory of Christ, ought to be celebrated. Thus they. To whom Vedelius in his notes on Ignatius's tenth Epistle, numb. 6. doth answer Learnedly and Orthodoxly enough. Or because the Sabbath hath [...] i. a regard of creation, as is defined in the l. 8. c. [...]. Constituti­ons which they call the Apostles. But how much these kind of conjectures are to be va­lued, that are supported with no reasons of any authority, or genuine testimonies of the Fathers, let others judge. It's without con­troversie, that the Oriental Christians and others, did at that time hold assemblies on the Sabbath day, although upon what rea­sons [Page 36] they were chiefly moved to this, it is not well enough known by the Writers of that age. Yet did they not hold the Sabbath day holy.

The difference of the Eastern from theThe anci­ents fasted on the Sab­bath. Western Church in observing the Sabbath, teacheth this: while the Oriental people kept holy day on the Sabbath, most in the West fasted: I say the most of them, be­cause they of Millain, though in the West,Aug. Ep. 86. and divers others of the West, were not at­tentive to fast on Sabbath dayes, but dined soberly. Ambrose had a custome to dine on the Sabbath. Paul. de vit. Am­bros. Witness Paulinus. Ambrose confesseth this of himself in Augustine: Augustine Ep. 86. acknowledgeth he dined on the Sabbath, without superstitious vacation, Ep. 86. Yet the Roman Church, and some Bar. 57. n. 204. 205. Conc. Eli­ber. can. 26. Conc. Agatheus. can. 12. others, and at length every where, even they of the East fasted on the Sabbath. These things about those who fasted on the Sabbath, do not declare that they acknow­ledged it for a Feast, or holy day, on which fasting was altogether to be forborn (accor­ding to the custome of the Church. Aug. Ep. 86. and other Authors being witnesses) yet that the Lords day was accounted holy at that time, is granted of all.

Moreover, the Sabbath was not everyThe differ­ence be­tween ob­serving. the Sab­bath and Lords day. where amongst the Christians observed with [Page 37] that solemnity of the Church, as the Lords day. For the meetings were not held in the same manner on Sabbaths, as on the Lords dayes. Some things touching both, observed out of the Fathers, will shew this.

1. What things are reported of Histori­ans1. The Sab­bath was not obser­ved every where. and others, about observing the Sab­bath, touching gathering assemblies, were not used in every Church every where. For in the Churches of Rome and Alexandria the manner of meeting on the Sabbath held not. Witness Sozom. Hist. l. 7. c. 19. and after­wards in other Churches it grew out of use. Athanasius Hom. de semente, glorieth, that he never medled with the Sabbath (after the Jews manner, namely.) Tertul. de Idol. cap. 14. saith, the Sabbaths are extraneous to Christians, and that Holy dayes were sometime time beloved of God. The Nazaraei observing the Sabbath, are branded for Heresie by Epi­phanius, l. 1. num. 30. and likewise the Ebionites. If it had been the Christians duty to observe Sabbaths, why had the Catho­licks imputed its observation as a fault to the Hereticks? which yet they have done more than once, as sure as sure can be. But Chri­stians have celebrated their Lords day every where without brand of heresie, or any other crime: and therefore since the festivity of [Page] the Sabbath was not every where in use with the Christian Church; nor doth any where occurr any Apostolical ordination for continuing it in the Church, we do by good right affirm, that Christians are not obli­ged to its celebration: which to affirm of the Lords day, that was observed in the Apostles age, and ever after, is an heirrous thing.

2. When meetings were held on Sab­bath2. They met not every Sabbath. dayes, they met not weekly on all Sabbaths, as they came about; for on one Sabbath publick Conventions were to be omitted, if we may believe the foresaid Constitutions: so it's ordained Constit. Ap. lib. 5. cap. 19. and what that is they ex­plain the Sabbath in the great week, Constit. Ap. c. 24. lib. 7. [The Sabbath] of the Lords burial, on which it's fit we should fast, but not celebrate a festival. So also August. to Casulanus, Ep. 86. but for the omitting Church­assemblies on the Lords day (as often as it came about, and were safe for the Church for the Persecution of the Tyrants) we read nothing was ever ordained of the anci­ents. There is a sanction in the same Constitutions that the Lords day should be celebrated without intermission. Lib. 7. cap. 31.

[Page]3. In populous Cities, where without3. All ex­ercises of Religion were not performed on the Sab­bath. dammage to their Estates, they could be pre­sent at reading of Scripture, and their inter­pretation, meetings were more frequently kept. Therefore the Council of Laodicea de­crees, that the Gospels should be read on the Sabbath. Can. 16. Ambrose treated of Prayer the same day. de Sacram. lib. 4. c. 6. But all the exercises of piety were not every where performed in those assemblies, that yet were not omitted on the Lords day. Ep. 118. c. 2. Augustine saith in another place, On the Lords day only the Communion of the Lords Bo­dy and Blood is used. Hist. lib. 5. c. 22. Socrates doth not re­cord, that they of Alexandria and Rome did celebrate those mysteries on the Sabbath. While Chrysostom requireth it of the rich Lords of Villages, that they build Churches in them, Hom. 18. in Act. he distinguisheth those congregations that were on other days from those that were held upon the Lords day. Upon those Synaxes. Congregations, Prayers and hymns were had, in these an oblation was made on every Lords day: and for that cause the Lords day is in Chrysostom called dies pa­nis, i. the day of bread. Apol. 2. Athanasius purgeth himself of a calumny imputed to him; for breaking the cup, because it was not the time of administring the holy mysteries: for it is not, saith he, the Lords day. Whence it [Page 40] is evident, that the Lords Supper was admi­nistred on the Lords dayes: otherwise the argument wherewith Athanasius purgeth himself, were of no weight. Although there­fore they met upon the Sabbath day, yet did they not every where observe it equally to the Lords day, on which they celebrated all the mysteries of Religion.

4. The people were free to be present or4. Meet­ings on the Sabbath were free. absent from Sabbath-day meetings, as they saw good: that is, they were not obliged by any necessity of law to meet on that day: for the Sabbatarii contending for a necessary observation of the seventh day, were of the whole Christian Church condemned of he­resie, in this behalf, as I have briefly shewn before. I confess Hom. 10. in Gen. Origen reproves his hear­ers which came seldom to hear the Word of God, that scarce did come to the Church on Feast dayes. Gregory Nyssen, in that Oration which he made against those that would scarce endure reproofs, nips the peo­ple that met not on the Sabbath. With what eyes, saith he, lookest thou on the Lords Day, that despisest the Sabbath? Dost thou not know that these dayes are Sisters? that if thou reproach the one, thou offendest the other? But he speaks of those who had oftener li­berty to meet for hearing the Word, which they regarded not to embrace, out of a cer­tain [Page 41] supine negligence, or being puffed up with pride, despised the Church-meetings on Sabbath-dayes. Whether it was the sluggishness or arrogance of these men, it was deservedly blameable: whenas they might divers dayes meet at Church, without dammage of their worldly affairs, which yet to do, they were not easily moved, although the duties of their calling would bear it. In the old Testament, some hours in a week were consecrated to Gods Worship, Numb. 28. 3. but yet all the day long the whole people of Israel should not attend on the ho­ly duties of piety; this was only enjoyned to them that could commodiously do it. So in the Churches planted by the Apostles, they met on other dayes as often as they could, besides the Lords dayes: but on the Lords dayes, appointed for this end, they were bound to be present at the publick as­semblies, and their absence for a certain time from these on the Lords day, was to be reprehended by the sentence of the first Concil. Eliberitan. Can. 21. Item Concil. Trull. Can. 80. Concil. Sard. Can. 11. And yet where are any Canons established for punishing their absence from Sabbath­day-meetings? Although the Fathers do often reprove those that come seldome on the Sabbath, and other dayes to hear the Word.

[Page 42]5. Although on the Sabbath dayes they5. Though they met on the Sab­bath, yet they ab­stained not from la­bour on that day. might meet to hear the holy Oracles of God, yet when that dayes meetings were ended, they might not be idle: but an Anathema is denounced to them that work not on that day. Conc. Laodic. Can. 29. Ignatius in an Epistle to the Magnesians, exhorts them to spend the Sabbath in labours without rest: and therefore the Sabbath had not its vaca­tion from labours. So Athan. de semente. Ambros. Ep. 72. which we never read was ordained of the Lords day, (on which it's a sin to give our selves to labour.)

And let these things suffice for the Lords dayes prerogatives above the Sabbath; by which we find that the Sabbath day was not kept holy of the Church, (i. e. the ancients did not separate it from common use and la­bour, nor consecrate it wholly to God in an holy rest, that on it the acts of Divine Worship, and those things that pertain to a spiritual life, should only be exercised) neither were the conventions on that day to be compared with those held on the Lords day: which things surely once to de­fine, had been much to our profit. For the Institution of other dayes to hold meetings on, it's not needful to take much pains, since we have nothing writ of it in the Word of God, as of the Lords day; and many [Page 33] things which were not instituted of the Apo­stles, but first arose in particular Churches, were introduced by little and little into other, which at length in process of time, are made more common: which Socrates ascribes to the Bishops of divers ChurchesHist. l. 5. c. 22.: and those that received such rites from the Bi­shops, transmitted them as a law to Posteri­ty: as in other things, so in the meetings of the Church, it's to be observed, whose original was not used by the Church in the Apostles age. Epiphanius in Panario tells us of Synaxes Ecclesiae quarta, Prosabbato, & Do­minico fartas. Ens. de vit. Const. l. 4. c. 18. Constantine the Great ordain­ed by Law, the Parasceve to be celebrated: of which nothing is yet extant in Scripture, butHist. l. 1. c. 8. Sozomen seems to touch upon the cause of its institution, who sayes that Con­stantine gave great honour to the holy Cross, both for the help that was brought him in man­aging his wars against his enemies, through its vertūe, and also for the heavenly Vision that was offered him about it; which things teach us, that Constantine (if we may say so of so godly an Emperour) did very super­stitiously worship the Cross: whence it happened that he attributed more to the Cross than was fitting: and for that cause instituted that day to be set a part for meet­ings in memorial of Christs Passion on that [Page 44] day accomplished. Yet who will from that sanction compare the observation of that day, ordained of Constantine, and not of the Apostles, with the Lords day? which was long before Constantines dayes observed of the Church, which we must take for cer­tain did so often meet to hear the word of God, as it fitly could. Afterwards we shall see, that the Fathers did treat to their peo­ple out of the Scriptures, almost every day; yet I trust none will equallize every day, on which these assemblies were holden, to the Lords day. But these assemblies were free, neither was the universal Church ob­liged by any law to keep them, which yet we acknowledge of the Lords day: there­fore I will add no more of them. And from what hath been said, the attentive Reader will easily perceive, that no day was obser­ved of the whole Catholick Church, with that solemnity that the Lords day was: and that on the Sabbath day the Christi­ans did not intermit their ordinary la­bours.

Now having gotten out of a very trou­blesomeAnniver­sary Feusts were not equalled to the Lords day. disputation, I hasten to that which in the third place I thought to enquire a­bout; namely, Whether Anniversary Feasts were observed of the Church with greater solemnity than the Lords day, as some [Page 45] think? especially because amongst the an­cients they were sometimes equalled to the Lords day, and sometimes far preferred to it. From the Passover-holy-dayes until Pente­cost, being intentive on Prayers, they did no more bend the knees, than on the Lords dayes: yea, the answer inJust. Mart. qu­ad orth. 115. Justin affirms the same things, that Pentecost was in equal power with the Lords day. The same is or­dained in the twentieth Canon Conc. Nic. 1. Mention also is made of this custome in other Fathers, Basil. de S. Sancto, cap. 27. Tertul. de corona milit. cap. 3. Hieron. ad­vers. Luciferianos. Aug. Epist. 118. cap. 15, 17, &c.

From their freedom from kneeling, some conclude the equality of these dayes: which I acknowledge was interdicted on those dayes; and they were glad for their immu­nity at that time from their Fasts; and yet I do not think that those dayes are to be compared with the Lords. Verily, if these prerogatives had constituted an holy day, they that for this cause judge the dayes of Pentecost to be equalled to the Lords, had said something: but if they so think, I doubt not at all but they are mistaken: and what St. Austin sometime answered Urbicus disputing against those that dined on the Lords day, is hither to be referred. Au­stin [Page 36]Ep. 86.concludes the Lords day must be prefer­red to the Sabbath for the faith of the Resur­rection, not for custom of refection, that is, they prefer not the Lords day to the Sab­bath, because they remit fasting on it; which yet they do not on the Sabbaths; but becauseAug. Epist. 119. it was declared to the Christians to be the Lords day by the Resurrection of the Lord, and thereupon began to have its own festivity. So we say here, the dayes of Pen­tecost are not to be compared with the Lords Day, although as well on those as on this, the time was passed without bowing and fastings: because the ordination, whereby bowing and fasting were interdicted them, was merely humane. Austin thinks it is notEp. 86. defined by the Lords command, or the Apostles on what dayes to fast: and not many ages since, while the Lords solemnity re­mained in the Church, that ordination was vanisht. No body therefore that's alwaies one, can by right compare the solemnity of Pentecost with the Lords: (whose insti­tution afterwards we will prove Divine;) neither is there in the places cited, made any comparison of that with this amongst the Fathers; but only in regard of that im­munity.in Luc. l. 8. c. 17. Ambrose saith, For these fifty dayes the Church knoweth not fasting, as the Lords day: Afterwards he addeth, they are [Page 47] all as the Lords day: because upon them, as he said, as on the Lords day, there was a re­laxation of fasting. After the same manner are Justin Martyr and Tertullian de cor. mil. to be understood. That I may therefore dis­patch in a word; if the Lords day had not been celebrated in the Apostles age, and if it had been honoured with no other prero­gatives than immunity from bowing and fasting, then certainly they would have equallized them to this day: but that this is false, even, as the Proverb is, the blear­cyed, and barbers know: and so they con­clude, arguing like Sophisters from that which is [...] ad [...].

And thus far of the equality of someAnniver­sary feasts not to be preferred to the Lords d [...]. dayes with the Lords, which some men dream of: It will farther also be worthy our consideration, [to know] whether some Feasts, which they call anniversary, were preferred of the Church to the Lords day. To those that think thus, it is enough to answer them once after this manner; Whereas we cannot read that the Holy Ghost in Scripture affords a testimony to the institution or observation of these, they are to be received as humane institutions: which, omitting others, may be cleared by this one argument: If those feasts had been instituted of the Apostles, then they had [Page 48] been observed every where by the Church, in the same manner and time, according to the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis: yet the contrary doth plainly appear by Ecclesia­stical Writers and Fathers: which it will not be irksome to demonstrate in some of them. If the Feast of the Passover had been ordained by the law of Christ or his Apo­stles, (sayes the learned Chamier) then that law had unanimously been propounded of the Apostles, and accordingly celebrated of all Churches, in the same manner, at least at the beginning. But that is not to be found, which the unhappy controversie a­bout this matter (whereby the concord of divers Churches hath wonderfully been in­terrupted) sheweth, They of Asia contend it must be celebrated on the fourteenth day, they of the West on the Lords day only: and which is more, those acknowledge their Sozom. l. 7. c. 19. opinion received by tradition from John, these from Peter and Paul. This controversie, Eusebius Hist. l. 5. explains more at large. Who therefore can be brought to believe, if the festivity of the Passover was ordained by the Apostles authority, that so soon di­vers Churches, that were governed of the very Apostles Scholars, would make a de­parture from so holy a precept? and that in celebrating the Lords day, all the Churches [Page 49] of Christ through the whole world should follow one and the same rule? Why had they not also done the like in the Feast of the Passover, if it had been instituted by Apostolical authority? It is not likely there­fore it was ordained of the Apostles. And yet I cannot but wonder at the wit of some men, who hold the Passovers festivity, which the Scriptures are silent in, for di­vine; and yet they repute the Lords day, whose observation we meet with in Scrip­ture, for Ecclesiastical and humane. If therefore the Passovers festivity was institu­ted of the Apostles, no man can justly pre­fer it to the Lords day, ordained of Christ by his Apostles.

Nor must we judge otherwise of the Feast of the happy Nativity of Christ, whose solemnity was anniversary, but on what day of the year to be celebrated, it's uncertain.

Chrysostom (although he conjecturesDe Na­tio. Bapti­stae. Hom. 27. Christ was born on the eighth before the Ca­lends of January in December, recites di­vers opinions about this matter, but fol­lows his own opinion, without condemn­ing of others, and permitsDe Nat. Dom. Hom. 34. every one to a­bound in his own sense, till such time as the Lord shall reveal to every one of us what must be holden for certain.

[Page 50]St. Hierom (if so be that Sermon de Na­tivitate Domini, which goes commonly un­der his name, be Hieroms) saith, Whether the Lord Jesus was born to day, or baptized to day, a different opinion is carried about in the world, and according to the variety of tradi­tions, is the sentence diverse. In this authors judgement, whoever he was, it was uncer­tain what day the blessed Nativity of Christ fell out on. The Learned Casaubon Exercit. ad apparat. Bar. annal. num. 68. tells us, there were of old divers opinions in the Church about Christs Nativity. Some wri­ting, that he was born on the sixth of Janu­ary, others, on the nineteenth of April, others, on the nineteenth of May, some in the month of September, most on the twen­ty fifth of December. Now these divers opi­nions about these feasts, which are taken for chief ones, do teach us, that they were or­dained by no law of the Apostles: other­wise in their writings without doubt we should have met with a direct assigning of the time to be set aside for keeping them in Memory, as it is observed of the Lords day, which yet it's plain no where can be found.

Moreover, if their ordination had beenIt is uncer­tain which of the An­niversary derived from the Apostles, they had either all been equal among themselves, or it had [Page 51] been known some way to the Church,Feasts do excell. which amongst them had been of greater au­thority and right. But the contrary ap­peareth from the most grave Fathers, which differ from one another about this thing: and therefore one is sometimes pre­ferred before another of them. Chrysostom calls the Feast of Christs Nativity the Mo­ther of all Feasts. Orat. de Philognio. Orat. pro Basi­lio. Gre­gory Nyssen calls it, the holy of holies, and feast of feasts Orat. 42. in Pasch. Gregory Nazianzen judgeth it to be preferred far before all others that are Christs, and are celebrated in honour of him. Since therefore it is not agreed on amongst the Fathers of the Church of the first institution of these Festivals, and their prerogatives, none will doubt that their in­stitution was not received from the Apo­stles: Which things being supposed, it can be inferred by no necessary consequence, that these are to be compared, much less to be preferred to the Lords day.

From all which, it appeareth, that the observation of the Lords day was far diffe­rent from that of the Sabbath, and other dayes: because the Sabbath day amongst Christians had on it no cessation from worldly labours, neither was it observed with such solemnity of the whole Church, as was the Lords day: yea, the Sabbath is [Page 52] not read to be observed of the whole Church: whenas yet the premises do evince that the Lords day was ever solemnized from the very Apostles age in the Church dispersed through all Nations, and we have observed that other Festivals of Christs are not to be compared with, much less to be equallized, or preferred to the Lords Day.

CHAP. IV.

BEtter to manifest the celebrity of the Lords Festival, I will moreoverMention of obser­ving the Lords day may be me [...] with in the chief of the Fathers bend my mind to two things: by which, in the first place, I will demonstrate, that the Lords Day all along in the Church, from the very Apostles age, was consecrated to perform religious exer­cises [Page 53] on: Secondly, that on all that day the Church was wont to be vacant from all worldly matters: which two things will clearly enough shew its solemnity above all other dayes (to which these things agree not) amongst men that relish the truth.

In demonstrating the fi [...]st of these, we will prove that the Lords day was alwayes celebrated, and will briefly open both the reasons of its solemnity, and its names, which we meet with amongst the ancients. Let it be sufficient to illustrate the first, that there is none of any note in the ancient Church, who doth not give an ample testi­mony to this its solemnity. Amongst the renowned witnesses of this truth, let St. Ig­natius Epist. ad Magnes. an. 111. come forth, who thus charges us: Let every lover of Christ celebrate the Lords day, which was consecrated to the Lords Re­surrection, as the Qneen and Prince (i. the chief day, as Constantine the Great in Euseb. de vit. ejus, lib. 4. cap. 18.) of all other dayes.

Justin Martyr in the end of his secondAn. 150. Apology confesseth, that on that day which they call Sunday, were holden solemn assem­blies of all that lived both in villages and ci­ties: and he tells us more at large what wasAn. 170. done in those assemblies, of which after­wards we shall hear more▪ Dionysius Bishop [Page 54] of Corinth, when he mentions Clements Epi­stle to the Corinthians in Eus. Hist. l. 4. c. 22. Eusebius, saith, he kept holy the Lords day. Tertullian Ann. 200 de Idol. c. 14. rec­koneth the Lords day (which he calls the eighth, namely from the Creation) amongst the Christians solemnities. The same doth An. 261. an. 320. Origen (although otherwise he was not at one with himself about the times for per­forming Religious exercises) lib. 8. contra Celsum. Eusebius, Hist. l. 3. c. 21. an. [...]492. when he speaks of the Ebionites, whom he reports did observe the Lords dayes, after the same manner as the Church did, in remembrance of the Lords Resurrection, doth make mention of this day: whence it is collected, that the Church did celebrate the Lords day, otherwise Euse­bius had not affirmed that the Ebionites had done it after the same manner as the Church did. And the testimonies which follow teach us the same.

Epist. 59. an. 380. Cyprian mentions this day, which he calls the first after the Sabbath. Basilius M. saith, the Church standing up, made their supplications on the first day of the week, which he calls, the beginning of dayes. De Sp. Sanct. c. 27. Serm. de [...]leemasyn. an. 380. Chrysostom saith, on the first day of the week, or the Lords day, the Christians ceased from all labour: that by their relaxation, and holy dayes, the minds of the offerers might become more cheerful. l. 5. Ep. 33. Am­brose [Page 55] on the Lords day, after the readings, and treating of the Creed, communicated [Bap­tism] to the Competentes (i. to those, who being instructed in the Christian faith, sought Baptism. Aug. Retract. lib. 1. ch. 17. & libro de Fide & operibus cap. 6.) at the Fonts of the Church. We meet with frequent mention of this day in St. Austin Ep. 119.An. 430. c. 13. and in the end of those Books, De Civit. Dei, lib. 22. c. 30. also Serm. 15. de verbis Apostoli, and many times elsewhere. Hilary saith, the Church doth joyfully cele­brate a Festival on the eighth day, which is also it self the first of a perfect week. Prol. in Psalmos. Amongst the Holy-dayes confirm­ed by the laws of the Emperours, Valens, Theodosius, and Arcadius, the Sundayes, which An. 440. their Ancestors rightly called the Lords-dayes, were reckoned.

Leo also and Athenius ordain, the Lords Cod. l. 3. Tit 12. de feriis lege [...] septima. a Leo Con­stit. 54. day to be alwayes venerable and honoured. a Leo in the same place, by his eleventh law, ordains, that all should cease from their la­bours on the Lords dayes.

I can also bring forth many more testi­monies for confirming the truth of this so­lemnity, yea, of all that have flourish'd in the Church of Christ to this very day. But I will add no more, lest I should seem to lend light to the Sun: and those that have been [Page 56] cited hitherto do abundantly enough de­clare, that the Lords day was alwayes so­lemnly kept of the Church: because the holy Fathers acknowledge it for the chief, yea, for an holy day. On it the Church ceased from their labours, on it solemn assemblies were kept, or they rejoyced in the festival of the Sabbath perfected; on it the Scriptures were handled, the Sacraments were administred, on it the Church made supplications: and therefore it is numbred amongst the chief solemnities of the Chri­stians, and is provided for by the laws of godly Emperours, that studied all they could to promote the Worship of God, that the holy solemnity of that day should not be defiled by labours, or any pleasures.

But although those most Religious Em­peroursThe autho­rity of the Lords day depends not on the de­terminati­on of Em­perours. ordained the Lords day, as was fit­ting, to be celebrated, it would be ridiculous from thence to conclude that the Lords Fe­stival was not celebrated in the Church be­fore they came to the Empire. The Chri­stians, as hath appeared from the premises, attended to celebrate this Festival, when as yet there were no Magistrates Christian (on whose authority the ordination of the Lords day doth not depend) even over the whole world, when the preaching of the Gospel came. For which cause, as we shall by and [Page 57] by hear, divers under Dioclesians Reign were punished: But when the Emperours became Christian, they ordained that the solemnity which was before observed of the Christians by Christs authority, should also by their own laws be celebrated, and took care that others should not defile it by world­ly businesses, or the pleasures of the Flesh; but they did not institute it at the first. Con­stantine the Great, the first of the Christian Emperours, having got the whole Roman Empire, by publick Edict commanded his Subjects, that they should observe the Chri­stian Religion, as witnesseth l. 1. c. 7. Sozomen: yet no man well in his wits will thence in­se [...]r, that the Christian Religion was then first known to the world: although the free exercise of it was not safe, before he was set happily over the Government of the Em­pire: So must we think of the Lords so­lemnity, which the Church of God obser­ved not without great danger, before the Emperours embraced the Christian Faith: but after that the Emperours became nur­sing-fathers of the Christian Religion, they did it freely, a Law being made of the Em­perours for this end.

Moreover, let none be offended, that be­fore [...] Law­suits on the Lords day. the times of Constantine, publick Judges did attend the hearing of Law-suits on the [Page 58] Lords day, which to do, was [declared] unlawful in his Reign: as though if the Lords day had been formerly known to the World, Magistrates had been forbidden the exercise of publick judicatures on that day: that most godly Emperour greatly contended by all means that he could to pro­mote our Religion, and for the greater so­lemnity of this Festival, provided that all Court clamour should on that day cease. Before his most auspicious Government, the publick Magistrates did attend Judica­tures, even on the Lords day: and no won­der; for before he got the stern of Govern­ment, the Judges were not Christian, but under his Reign the Christians began to bear almost all the Offices of the Roman Empire: Sozom. 1. c. 8. most whereof he dignified with authority, some with the Senators office, many also with the Consular dignity. Euseb. de vit. Constant. l. 4. c. 1. But after the Judges embraced the Christian truth, they submitted themselves to this law of celebrating the Lords day with great­est good will: and did rest the parties from their controversies in honour of that day. I might also add this. It was needful, that one law being made for observing the Lords day, by another he should interdict the Judges from the cognizance of causes on that day. For it was provided by the Roman Laws, [Page 59] [...]od. de feriis, l. 4. tit. 12. That no Judge should presume on his own authority to make any holy dayes. He there­fore made this Law in favour of the Judges, who might know on what dayes they should attend the Office which the Emperour committed to them, and on what they should keep holy dayes [free] from the same. These things thus being weighed in an equal scale▪ it appeareth, that the Law for not hearing Law-suits on the Lords day doth detract nothing from the honour of its so­lemnity, but rather much conduce to fa­vour it.

That I may at length put an end to thisChristians were pu­nished for observing the Lords day. Chapter, We have seen how the Fathers have piously admonished the Church to ce­lebrate the Lords day, and the Emperours by their Laws made for this purpose, very carefully provided, that the Christian peo­ple should obey their admonitions: so also we may find it observable, from the Writers of those times, that the Christians did cele­brate this day's solemnity, with as much de­votion of Religion as they could: and therefore while they prayed on that day to­wards the East, they fell into a suspicion of wor­shipping the Sun Tertul. ap. advers. gen. c. 16., with the Heathen, amongst whom they lived, that hated the Christian name. Yet could they by no punishments be deterred from celebrating the same: but [Page 60] when they were by the Heathens carried to punishment, they demanded of the Christi­ans, whether they had kept the Lords day? as we may see in the Acts of the Martyrs, by Baronius. An. 303. n. 35, &c. As sometimes the bloudy Pa­pists, when other arguments failed, where­with they might stop the Protestants mouths, who with singular dexterity, and great acuteness of wit, being happily illu­minated with a notable light of the Scrip­ture, did refute their dotages, at length set­ting upon them with this Question, would fish out what their opinion was of the Sacra­ment of the Altar (as they speak incongru­ously) whereupon then as they desired they might have a pretence to pronounce them guilty of death, according to the cruel laws enacted by them: so the Heathens asked of the Christians, whether [they had been at their] Collect, and kept the Lords day? and when they confessed they had been at the Collect, and celebrated the Lords day, with a congruous devotion of Religion, (as St. Dativus) then had they whereupon to threaten the sentence of cruel death against them, inasmuch as having done against the Emperours command. Yet the Martyrs answered to this Question, with an unanimous consent, that they could not inter­mit the Lords day, because they were Christi­ans; [Page 61] and the Law (namely of God, as the Martyrs themselves expound it, num. 51. not of the Church, as is noted by Baronius, in the margin, num. 48.) had warned them to keep it. So the Martyrs.

But it will be for the Readers profit hereWhat it is Domini­cum agere. more throughly to weigh what it is Domi­nicum agere, or celebrare: especially for the sake of Baronius's candor in rehearsing theAn. 303. num. 39. Acts of these Martyrs: he contendeth, that by Collecta, Collectio, and Dominicus, in the Acts of the Martyrs, must alwayes be under­stood the sacrifice of the Mass: but who­ever shall look more narrowly into their acts, will easily perceive that Baronius's Gloss deceives the Reader. Dominicum age­re, and Dominicum celebrare, in the acts of the Martyrs, are both one: and this is, that I may use Hieroms words, the same, as if they should say, they celebrate the Lords day, having received the Lords body: lib. 2. [...] Gal. or accor­ding to Tertullian; it is to celebrate the Lords solemnities: which by the succeeding Church De fuge [...] vet. were called Solemnities appointed by God. So in Concil. Tarraconensi, Can. 4. And those were celebrated of the Church, being gathered together (Tertullian witnes­sing it in the place fore-cited) and were all the exercises of Religion (which Baronius foolishly following the use of his age, com­prehendeth [Page 62] under the name of the Mass, altogether unknown to the Church of that age) dedicated to Divine Worship, and performed on the Lords day; in whose number the administration of the Lords Supper is reckoned: which in those first times was oftentimes celebrated every Lords day, but never without other publick du­ties of Christian Religion: of which so­lemnities more hereafter, by the Grace of God, when we treat of the Sanctification of this day. Let this for the present suffice the Reader, that the Martyrs being asked by the Proconsul de Dominico, answer, se Do­minicum egisse; and we meet with Domini­cum in the African Writers, for the Lords day. Cyprian, Ep. 33. saith of Aurelius, an ordained Reader, Dominico legit, where without doubt, he meaneth the Lords day. It is sometimes put for the place that's set aside for the Church to meet in: comest thou in Dominicum without a sacrifice? saith Cyprian, de opere & eleemosynis Sect. 14.. Sometimes also for the Symboles of the Lords Supper; Numquid, saith Cyprian, Dominicum post coe­nam celebrare debemus? [...]. 63. In the foresaid Acts of the Martyrs, the word Dominicum is taken in all its significations: whenas there­fore they answer, se Collectam Dominicam egisse, what can it be else, but as they add, [Page 63] that se ad Scripturas Dominicas legendas in Dominicum. (i. e. there was a publick meeting for the Church, although, for the Persecution they met in private houses, be­cause, as they answer, they were all pre­sent & aderat prebyter) convenisse, or ex more Dominica Sacramenta celebrasse? Num. 36. Bar. an. 303. n. 36. that is, all the Mysteries of Christian Religion at that time prohibited of the Heathen Emperours, were faithfully per­formed on the Lords Dayes in the assem­blies of the Christians. For when any thing is opposed to a negative command, we must consider it from the nature of the thing forbidden; therefore the genuine sense of this phrase, Dominicum agere, Do­minicum celebrare, in Dominicum conveni­re, &c. in the Acts of the Martyrs, cannot better be demonstrated, than from the very words of the Emperours edict; in which Bar. an. 303. n. 35. charge is given for burning the Scriptures, destroying the Temples, and prohibiting the Christians meetings which they celebrated on the Lords day. Saturninus, because he ga­thered together the Martyrs against the Emperours Mandates, was brought to pu­nishment n. 45.. When therefore the Pro­consul demands of them, Why Domini­cum egissent, &c? it is the same as if he should ask, Why they kept their meet­ings, [Page 64] (as the Proconsul himself expresseth it) or Dominicam Collectam egissent n. 51. & 45. n. 39.? in which the duties of piety were observed. And when were such sort of meetings kept, but at that time whereon the congregations of the common people were made? (as Austin of the same Martyrs, in breviculo Collationis tert. diei, cap. 4.) that is, but upon the Lords dayes, according to the command of Christ, and the custome of the Church founded up­on this command; and in those meetings of the Martyrs, they did perform all the rites and offices of their Religion entirely: for which cause, as I said, they were aceused; namely, because [...]. 39.Collectam Dominciam cele­brarunt (i. e. they met, or synaxes egerunt, in the Lords name, to celebrate the Lord on the Lords day) Dominicum, (i. e. the offi­ces of the Christian Liturgy, which were prohibited by the Imperial edict, under the name of a meeting, as they expound it af­ter [...]d) cum fratribus celebrarunt, [...] 43.; namely, ad Scripturas Dominicas legendas in Dominicum convenerunt, [...] 51.& Dominica Sa­cramenta ex more celebranda, [...] [...]6.idque ex au­thoritate legis Dei [...] 51.. These are the ex­cellent offices of Piety, which were perfor­med of them with the greatest devotion [...] Religion, although they were interdict­ed by the Emperour; for whose sake as [Page 65] I said, they were complained of by the Pro­consul. From which things, it's plain to any, that Dominicum agere, or celebrare, is the same amongst the Martyrs, that Domi­nica solemnia celebrare, was to their Coun­trey-man Tertullian, (whose Phrase doth in a Parallel answer to this of the Martyrs) or to perform solemnities for the honour of God, on the Lords day. By what hath been said it is also manifest, that the au­thority of the Lords Day was great in the Church, because the Christians would not intermit the celebrating of it according to the law prescribed them by God (al­though they were straitly forbidden of the Emperours, upon great danger of life.)

CHAP. V.

THe things that are observed thus far have taught us, that the Lords day was alwaies solemnized in the Church of Christ, from his Resurrection: now let us enter both upon opening the reasons for which the Primitive Christians were induced to this, and also the names by which they usually called this day.

First, one and the same reason of this days solemnity, is assigned every where in the Fa­thers: then it's pointed out by the self-same names of them all, though far remote from one another: and the testimonies observed in the former Chapter do witness both these. The Fathers plainly affirm, that the Lords [Page 67] day was sacred with the Christians, by rea­sonChrists Resurre­ction the cause of this solem­nity. of the Lords Resurrection, and that he had a festival ever since that time,. So Ig­natius, Justin Martyr, Constant. Mag. Au­gustine, &c. in the places fore-cited. But we meet with the reason of this Festival no where more accurately, and to the life, as they say, painted out, than in Athanasius de Sabb. & Circumcis. Of which place this is the summ, (to which, because it is large, I referr the Reader.) There Athanasius mentions a double world, to the former whereof, he tells us the saving Passion of Christ, at which the Sun appeared not, put an end, and the beginning of a new creation came after it, which took its beginning in our Saviour.

The Church relying on this reason (which all the other Fathers acknowledge) hath hitherto alwaies from the Resurrecti­on of Christ, had in reverence the Lords day, namely, because of the Lords Resurrection: now the Resurrection presupposeth Christs Nativity and Death, or the Resurrection is as it were the consummation of our Re­demption: therefore when the Apostles office is described of Luke, Acts 1. 22. they are called witnesses of the Resurrection; not because they testified of the Resurrection alone; but since the Resurrection (with­out [Page 68] which, the Faith of Christians would be vain, the great Apostle being witness, 1 Cor. 15.) is the chief article of the Go­spel, when they are said to give testimony of the Resurrection, iqis as much as if they bore witness of the whole Gospel. Hence it was that the ancients preferred the Passovers solemnity to all other Festivals. Greg. Na­zianzen calls it, the festival of festivals, a solemnity of solemnities, which, saith he, doth so far excell all the other, not only the hu­mane and earthly, but those also of Christ him­self, and are celebrated for his sake, as the Sun excelleth the Stars: because if he had not ri­sen again, neither had his Nativity, nor Baptism, nor the other Mysteries of Christ been confirmed, nor made us believe them. Therefore Gregory Nazianzen thinks the honour of that festival is far to be preferred to the solemnities of others, as his inter­preter Nicetas thinks. Therefore, while the Fathers consess, that the Lords day was consecrated in memory of the Resurrection, it's the same as if they had said, in memory of our Redemption: which Resurrection is the chief point of the Gospel; to hear and handle which, on that day, the Church is sequestred from Worldly af­faires.

Some assign other reasons, but this for­mer [Page 69] is omitted by none, although to it other are added by others.

Nor is there less harmonious consentLords day is prima Sabbati. amongst the ancient Fathers of the Church, in the Name of this Festival, than in assign­ing its reason: and in its appellation they follow the Evangelists, agreeing amongst themselves, who were the Holy Ghosts amanuenses: in whom it's called by two names. First, it's called by the Evange­lists [...], Mat. 28. Mar. 16. Luk. 24. Joh. 20. So Acts 20. 7. and 1 Cor. 16. 2. as we have observed in the second Chapter. In which places una Sabbatoruni must be expounded by the Lords day, saith Chrysostom Hom. 4 [...]. in 1 Cor.. Whose interpretation Hierom follows, and expounds the reason thereof, Ad Hebidam, Quest. 4. Because, saith he, every week is divided into the Sabbath, and into the first, and second, and third, and fourth, and fifth, and sixth day; which the Heathens called by the names of their Idols and Ele­ments: and therefore in those Fathers opi­nion una Sabbatorum (by Enallage of the plural number for the singular; for its sel­dome read in the singular number in the Old Testament, which manner the Writers of the New Testament do imitate) and pri­ma Sabbatorum are all one: for the name of Sabbath among the ancients denoteth not [Page 70] only the last day in the week, but the whole week also, which from finishing [the crea­tion] and the day of rest, is called the Sab­bath, for its excellent dignity, as Theophylact in Luc. 18. 2. that is to say, for the reve­rence of this day, the Hebrews called the whole week the Sabbath. And in this sense is the Pharisee to be understood about the Sabbath, when, being puffed up with ex­tream Pride, amongst other things, he glo­ries of Fasting Luk. 18. 12., [...], quasi, twice a Sabbath. There by Sabbath we must of necessity understand the whole Week by an Hebraism, and not the last day thereof. For the Pharisees, (as the most learned searchers of Hebrew antiquity, have often observed, which thing also Epiphanius puts us in mind of) instituted two Fasts every week, namely, on Munday and Thurs­day Contr. Haer. l. 1. c. 10.: therefore the Lords day was called [...], or una Sabbatorum, as in the Evangelists and Apostles, so in the Wri­ters of the following age: he that will look into their writings, shall find exam­ples enow.

And this for the first name of this day in the Scriptures. The second is extant in Rev. 1. 10. where, that which was be­foreWhy called the Lords day. called of all the Evangelists [...], John calls it denominative, with an arti­cle, [Page 71] [...], or the Lords Day; and is hitherto called by that agno­mination amongst the most ancient Fathers, both Greek and Latine, since the Apostles age: which he that will consult them, shall not deny. So Ignatius Epist. ad Magnes. Eusebius when he speaks of the Ebionites, Hist. l. 3. c. 21. & de Dionysio Corinthiaco, Hist. l. 4. c. 22. Cyp. Ep. 59, &c. after the name of our Saviour, Constantine the Great saith, it's called Dominicum Euseb. de vit. Const. l. 4. c. 18.: because, as Austin, the Lord made it q. ex u­troque, q. 106.: This reason perhaps will be of no great weight with some, since the Lord made all other dayes: but he seems to have made this day after a special manner; namely, by his Resurre­ction (the commemoration of which bene­fit succeedeth the memory of the Creation) from the dead, whereby he perfected our Salvation: or else because it was then desti­nated for worshipping our Lord Jesus Christ, Austin assigneth both these reasons, when he saith, De ver­bis Apostoli Serm 15.the Lords Resurrection hath consecra­ted for us the Lords day, and it seems properly to belong to the Lord. It is therefore called the Lords, because the Lord hath instituted its solemnity, as the Lords Prayer is so cal­led, because the Lord endited it, or the Lords Supper, because Christ instituted it: or else because it was chiefly instituted for [Page 72] the Lord, and his worship, while the Lord Christ is worshipped upon it: but some others contend it is so called, because that by the Lords Resurrection a way is opened to an eternal Sabbath: but the former is more common, and received of most.

Justin Martyr calls it [...],It's called Sunday. or Sunday, about the beginning of his se­cond Apology: and his follower, Tertulli­an, Ap. adv. Gent. c. 16. writes, that he and the Church gave themselves to rejoyce on the Sunday. But in this they agree with the Heathen, who use this word; to whom they both directed their Apologies, in which it is so named, and to whom the names used by the Church were unknown. For they distinguished the names of the seven dayes in the week by the names of the Planets; yet in the Church it was called the Lords day (so Justin dispu­ting against Dial. ad Tryphon. Trypho a Jew, useth a name accommodated to the man, and calleth the Lords day [...]. Tertullian also when he deals with the Christians, useth the name Lords day, as in his Book de Co­rona, cap. 3. and lib. de Idol. c. 14.) and ve­ry seldome Sunday. Hierom, although spu­rious, yet very Hieron. in Ps. 117. T. 4. willingly confesseth, that it may be called Sunday, because on it light arose to the world, and the Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings. A speech also which is [Page 73] reckoned amongst Ambros. Serm. 61. Ambrose's, saith, that the day which is called the Lords day in the Church, by the men of the world is called Sun­day: where the name is set down by which it was called both by the Church and others. In other Authors it is also called Sunday, but Austin shews us, that the Manichees rather than the Christians called it so Aug. contra Faust. Man. l. 18. c. 5.. Ye, saith he to the Manichees, worship the Sun on that day which they call Sunday: as we call the same the Lords day, because on it we reverence not the Sun, but the Lords Resurrection: And elsewhere he is earnest that Christians should not call dayes by Heathen names Aug. imp. in e [...]rr. in Ps. 93.. for the Church manner of speaking comes better from a Christian mouth.

Moreover also, I am not ignorant, that other of the Fathers do sometime express this day otherwise, Ep. 59. de Idol. cap. Conc. 1. de Lazaro. 1. 5. p. 257. Cyprian sometimes calleth it the eighth, because it is the eighth from the beginning of the Creation, sometimes the first after the Sabbath, So Tertullian. Of Basil it is called the onely, the first, the eighth, de Sp. Sanct. c. 27. By Hilary the eighth, and first; in his Prol. to the Expos. of the Psalms. So Aug. Epist. 119. c. 13. While Chrysostom nippeth the Jews for abusing the Sabbath to idleness, he sharply taxeth others also that indulged their vices on festival dayes (un­der the name of the Sabbath.) The Feasts [Page 74] of Christians are called Sabbaths by in Ps. 47. Ruffi­nus: the enemies, saith he, do deride our Sabbaths. Ruffinus speaks there of the Chri­stian, not Jewish Sabbaths. Athanasius says, that he observed the Sabbath day, not as itAthan. de Sab. & circum. Hom. 23. in num. was prima aetate, in the beginning of the world. The Lords day with Origen is the Sabbath, and the Christian Sabbath. Where, without doubt, Origen speaks of the Lords day, other­wise men must cease all the dayes of their life from worldly affairs, which is required on the Christian Sabbath, ibidem. In the Coun­cil of Friuli Can. 13. the Sabbath is called Dedicatum Domini, i. e. Dedicated to the Lord.

But although the ancients have some­timesWhy the Lords day is seldome called the Sabbath by the anci­ents. called the Lords day the Sabbath, from its parent, as it were the Jewish Sab­bath, as in the Scriptures the Holy Ghost calls Baptism Circumcision: yet it's certain they very rarely do note this day by the name of the Sabbath: especially because they opposed the Jews that gloried in the Sabbaths solemnity (whose observation they judged necessary to obtain eternal life, as ap­pears from Trypho in Justin Martyr) andDial. cum [...] Tryphone. that contemned the Gospel. And like as the Christians had nothing to do with the Jews in celebrating the Feast of the Passover, be­cause they abhorred to keep it with them at [Page 75] the same time, as witnesseth Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 22. so they abstained from names of Feasts in use with the Jews, lest (as St. Au­stin, Ep. 200. when he enquires, whether a true Chri­stian be to be called a Jew or Israelite?) for the ambiguity of the word, which usual speech discerneth not, that might seem to be uttered which is an enemy to the Christian name: we ought not to confound the custome of mans speech by foolish loquacity; for this reason we meet with the name of Sabbath rarely amongst the ancients. This is also to be added, because while the first Fathers were alive, both the Sabbath and Lords day were observed of the Church, although not in the same manner, as we have before shew­ed out of the Fathers. While therefore they spake of the Lords day, they were forced to abstain from the word Sabbath, that they might distinguish the Lords day from it: and that difference they have also observed strictly in other things. Like as what Col­lecta is with the Latines, with the Greeks it is Synaxis, namely, a meeting of the Church, as the word means. And although it be de­rived [...], whence also the word Synagogue; yet the first Christians (which the learned Exercit. 16. ad Bar. Casaubon observeth) for the nonce have abstained from the word Synagogue, that they might discriminate [Page 76] the Christian meetings from the Jewish Sy­nagogues: therefore they called their assem­blies Synaxes, not Synagogues: & by Synaxin is meant the meeting of the Church it's plain from l. 5. c. 22. Socrates, speaking of the Alexandrians administring all things pertaining ad Synaxin [...], i. e. besides the celebration of the Mysteries; where he plainly distinguisheth between Synaxin and Eucharistiae administrationem. So not once in Chrysostom, the name of Synaxis is gene­ral, which comprizeth all things that were wont to be done in the Christian assem­blies, and is distinguished from their obla­tion, Hom. 18. in Act. Ap. where he teach­es, that in the Churches of Villages and Towns, the Sacrament was wont to be celebra­ted only on Lords dayes, but Prayers, and hymns, and Synaxes every day. But this by the bye, that it may appear to us, how it was ordinary with Christians to abstain from words in use with the Jews; therefore they are read seldome to have used the word Sab­bath: but as once part. 3. qu. 32. Alexander Hales, be­cause the Sabbath day taken in determinately, is called the day of rest, or vacation to God, after this manner the Lords day may be called the Sabbath day, without any prejudice of the Christian name, or scandal of Christi­ans.

[Page 77]More names of this day do also occurr in other of the Fathers, who only obiter, & ex re nata, have so named that day: but when they speak of it properly, then they call it the Lords day, which cannot but appear to him that vieweth their writings. And thus far of the reason of observing this solemnity, and of its names.

CHAP. VI.

THus far these notes, although scribled with an hasty pen, have told us, that Christians must keep holy the Lords day, and that they largely enough shew was done from the very Apostles age. The second Question which I have propounded fol­lows; namely, Whether the Church must keep the whole Lords day holy? Some there are who grant, that the Lords day must be sanctified, yet contend that the whole and entire day is not to be celebrated [Page 78] in the religious devotion of Piety: in whose judgment, as much as this solemnity requires is done, if onely some, although but some small part thereof be dedicated to Divine Worship; neither do they judge otherwise of the Lords day, (alwayes to be counted dear amongst Christians) than the Hea­thens anciently did of those dayes amongst them called Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 16. intercisi; which were common to the Gods and men: for at some hours of them it was lawful to sit in judgement, and in some not. But who, well in his wits, shall judge, that a day in this manner is to be dedicated to the Good and Great God? The Lord hath not reckoned the other dayes of the week thus for our use: neither will he suf­fer willingly his day to be sanctified of us by halves.

It was provided under the Law, that if any had by vow Lev. 27. consecrated a thing to God, and he afterwards repented of his vow, and would not suffer that thing to be sold, or prized openly but determined to keep it to himself; then was he to be fined in a fifth part over and besides the ordinary estimation of the thing, for his levities sake. If nothing must be diminished of those things that are dedicated to God, although once they were in our own power; much less will it be safe to detract any thing from the [Page 79] time consecrated to God, but rather add something to it of our own: for what is consecrated to God, must not be be convert­ed to another use. Therefore they that compare the Jews inhabiting Tiberias, with others that dwell in the Mountains, do judge those, and deservedly, far to be preferred to these: for it was a familiar thing with them who had the shorter day, to add some­thing of the profane to the sacred; but these that were sited in the Mountains, who had the longer day, added to the profane, taking something from the sacred. If it be better in those mens judgment, to add of the profane to the sacred, than to take from the sacred and add to the profane? in what case are they to be reckoned, who are not afraid to steal a great part of time from the Lords day, consecrated of the Lord by his Apostles to sacred uses, and apply it to pro­fane? Yet although some here impatient of true Piety, do seek a knot in a bulrush, as the Proverb is, yet by these mens leave I will say, He that will follow the wholsome counsel of Irenaeus, shall indeed find it is no Gordian Knot. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. gives pious coun­sel; in any question, when a disputation doth arise, we must have recourse to the most ancient Churches, from whom may be learned what we must judge of the present question. [Page 80] Indeed if we would but here follow the ad­vice of this Reverend Prelate, it will be an easie thing to untie that knot by the authori­ties of the ancients.

In the first place, when the Fathers speakThe whole day to be sanctified to God. of sanctifying a day, they make mention, not of some small portion thereof, but of a whole day: and to what end should not a day consist of the same termes with us, as it did with the ancients? Since Austin piouslyDe Civit. Dei. l. 15. c. 13. teacheth us, that in the equality of all mo­dern years and dayes (which have termi­nated in the same space of time in former ages, as have now) being determined with­in the diurnal and nocturnal course of twenty four hours, there is the same space of time with the former. And for what he ad­deth of the forty dayes, (whereon continu­al great rain is mentioned) which were not determined in the space of two hours or little more; the same we may safely conclude of the Sanctification of the Lords day; since it consists of the same term of hours, that o­ther dayes in the week do, the manner of its solemnity is not to be judged by the space of two or three houres.

Nor doth Austin think otherwise, (if that Sermon may be reckoned among his ge­nuineSerm. de Temp. 251. writings) who judgeth, that on the Lords dayes we must attend Divine worship on­ly, [Page 81] and exhorts, to celebrate the Lords day with a religious solemnity, as the ancients were commanded about the Sabbath; yea, and not without indignation, doth he reprove those that refused to follow the custom of the Church in this thing, who, as he speaketh,Ibid. reckon one point of this day to the service of God, and the remaining space of the day, toge­ther with the night, to their pleasures. Accor­ding to the grave judgment of this Author, (whoever he was) the entire day, and not some small part of it, is to be assigned to the service of God, and that according to the custom of the Church: and though he differ from some others in defining the period of time, at which the sanctification of this day should begin, (namely, from Evening) yet hath he others agreeing with him in the continuance of this sanctification: for be­fore him, Hom. 2. in numer. Origen upbraids some that reckon­ed one or two hours of the whole day to God, and came to Church to Prayer, or heard the word of God in transitu: but spent their chief care about this world, and their belly. The same thing doth St. Chrysostom require, who thinks that the whole day must be sanctified. I think, saith he, that one of these seven dayes, and that of right, is to be spent in the worship and service of the God of us all. Hom. 3. in Joh. Chrysostom shews, that a day must be [Page 82] sanctified; and he, his own best interpre­ter, will teach us, what he understands by the name of a day. From the beginning, sayes he, God insinuated this Doctrine to us, teaching us, that in the compass of a week one whole day is to be set apart, and reserved for our spiritual work. Hom. 10. in Genes. From his authority it also appeareth, that a whole day, and not some small portion thereof, is to be set apart from other affairs, to per­form the duties of piety thereon, in a spiritual manner. The same author more plainly, doth seriously contend with his Au­ditors in another place, for sanctifying the whole day. Hom. 5. in Math.

The Sabbaths (according to l. 4. c. 30. Irenaeus) did teach persevering to serve God the whole day; what other thing doth perseverantiam totius diei mean, but that a whole day must be reserved (as Chrysostom before) to spiri­tual work? As afterwards the Fathers in an. 813. cap. 40. Conc. Turonensi, do speak; being sequestred from servile work, to persevere in praising God, and giving of thanks. No otherwise then as anciently among the Romans Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 3., the daily sacrifices were continued from the begin­ning of the day, to the middle of the following night. But I will not weary the Reader, by rehearsing apart the testimonies of the se­veral Fathers, in a matter so clear, whose [Page 83] writings he that will but lightly look into, shall grant, that a whole day, according to their opinion, must be assigned to perform religious exercises upon: which will better appear from those rules that occurr in their writings, for the sanctification of this day: three whereof I will not refuse to reckon.

First, they exhort the Church to regard on that day the things that pertain to their souls salvation: where Hierom in Is. 56. Hierom accommo­dates, as he shews in the following words, what the Prophet speaks of the Sabbath to those whom Christ hath made free. And if any have a mind to see what it is to regard the things that pertain to the souls salvation, the fourth Canon Conc. Tarraconensis, willAn. 517. inform him: namely, that men on the Lords day only perform to God the appoint­ed solemnities: and what should be done on them, we have formerly heard ex Turonensi Concil. namely, that they should abstain from servile work, and persevere to the evening in giving of thanks. An. 40. Conc. Tur. 3 Nothing but the works of piety is to be done on the Lords day.

But lest any one should grant, that those exercises of Piety are to be done on that day, whenas yet he might deny that the whole day were to be spent in them, therefore the Fathers add,

Secondly, That excepting those things [Page 84] that pertain to the fouls salvation, nothing else at all must be done on that day. So Hie­rom, Austin, Conc. Tarracon. in the fore-citedCon. Foro. ejuti. Can. 13. An. 791. An. 829. places: with whom agree also the Fathers in the Council of Friuli, who ordain, that on the Lords day the vacation must be to no other purpose, but for Prayer, and other offices of piety. And in the Coun­cil of Paris, it is ordained, that it's conveni­ent Can. 50. for those that are redeemed by the grace of Christ, to abstain on that day whereon the Author of Life rose again, and gave them hope of a Resurrection, from these things that are fore-mentioned (i. e. from this worlds plea­sures and their own, and rural works, as there they speak) and be filled onely with spiritual joyes, and busily vacant with all their heart in restless praises. The same particle of restriction is added in Conc. Triburiensi, An. 895. Can. 35. where they ordain, that it's the peoples part on the Lords dayes only to labour in the holy service of God. And afterwards they add, that they must only attend on God on the Lords dayes. Greg. Mag. shews alsoEp. l. 11. c. 3. indict. 6. they were wholly to be employed in prayers on the Lords dayes.

Thirdly, they do not only think that this [...] must be religiously kept, and wholly [...]ployed in the worship of God on it; but [...]hey farther do define the term of time [Page 85] which they must spend in the work thereof, namely, a whole day; So Chrysost. Hom. 10. in Gen. and Hom. 5. in Math. Let your eyes An. 558. and hands be spread out to God all that whole day. Concil. Maliscon. 2. cap. 1. apud Ze­noad. This is to persevere in performing its services until the evening. Concil. Turon. 3. cap. 40. Or as in Conc. Trull. cap. 90. From the evenings ingress to the Altar on the Sab­bath, till the following evening on the Lords day.

Now if in the mouth of two or three wit­nesses2 Cor▪ 13. 1 [...] every word shall be established, the premises do evidently enough shew, that the sanctification of all the day is required; since that not only the Fathers do determi­nate, that we must cease from our worldly matters, and attend on God, but moreover, that nothing must be done but a work of Piety on all that day, that is, from the be­ginning to the end thereof.

Neither do I think good to confirm the truth in this matter by reasons, over and be­sides these testimonies, that are not to be con­temned: although they be not to seek wherewith to stop the mouths of dissenters, if they be angry: and the entire sanctifica­tion of the whole day, may be vindicated against the too earnest seekers of a profane liberty.

First, As, if the day be commanded to be1. [Page 86] held holy, by common sense it follows, that a day, not some hours, is to be sanctified. So Aug. Serm. 251. de Temp.

Secondly, Moreover, if there were any2. term of that dayes holiness, before the day it self were determined, then such a term would appear either from the Scriptures, or from some of the Fathers, piously interpret­ing them, but what no where is extant, he that can shew it,

The Ancients, who thought good to fast on the Sabbath, sometimes continued their fasts to the ninth hour, which being past, they were not afraid to relaxe their fast, and refresh their strength with meat. Socrat. Hist. l. 5. c. 22. And sometimes till the Cock-crow of the Lords day, growing light, as in the Sabbath of the great week, as Epi­phanius teaches in Panario. When therefore they judged that they must simply fast on the Sabbath, then they added nothing of the termes of the fast, before the Sabbath it self ended: but because some judged that they must not abstain on all Sabbaths, for a whole day from meats, therefore they signified how long their fast was to last. We may say the same of the Lords day's duration: if the Church must not keep holy day by a Religious solemnity, from worldly affairs, [Page 87] for a whole day, then the term (without whose knowledge the Church-would be ig­norant how long the day were to be sancti­fied, and the minds of men would stick pen­dulous) of this solemnity would some way be known to us from the Scriptures; nor would the Holy Ghost have passed it by un­touched; and formerly we have observed from their writings, that the Fathers would determine nothing to be done on this whole day, that is, from the Sun-rising to the set­ting, but what relates to Piety: who being excited with an holy zeal, have explo­ded the half sanctification of the Lords Day.

Thirdly, If the glory of the Jewish Sab­bath3. be translated to the Lords day, (which is not denied of the Fathers) I do not see why we should not interpret this day in the same manner, as it was prescribed about the Sabbath, to the worshippers of God in old time: for to the Jews, and that by Divine authoritie, it was given in command, that they, being sequestred from all worldly bu­siness, through the whole Sabbath should attend Divine Worship alone. With what face therefore, and upon what authoritie re­lying, can Christians bestow their Lords day, or any part thereof in worldly affairs, setting aside the worship of God, let them [Page 88] look to't, that have a care of their salvation. This reason hath the most pious Leo appro­vedLeo Const. 54. with his judgement and authority; for, saith he, if they that did observe a certain shadow and figure, did so greatly reverence the Sabbath Day, that they wholly abstained from all work: how is it not fitting that those should reverence that day, that is honoured of God, who love the light of grace, and the truth it self?

4. Lastly, the rule of equity and justice4. requires the same, if we look at what time the Lord hath indulged us for our uses: whose large benevolence hath allowed us six whole dayes, to overcome the labours of this world, and dispatch our own business with. Why should it therefore be tedious to us, weighing this in an equal ballance, for to set apart one whole day for his praise, and sincere worship: Neither can any one think this an absurd form of arguing, who shall but observe Chrysostom arguing inHom. 2. in Joan. this matter from the duty of servants to­wards us, to our observance towards God: he judgeth it ridiculous, if we would have our servants alwayes employed in our business, and and we give no service to God. And we like­wise, contending for the sanctifying of the whole day, do say, that it is much more ri­diculous, if we should reckon those dayes for [Page 89] whole ones, which are allowed us to dis­patch the affairs of this life in for our use, and interpret a day set aside for Gods wor­ship, by Divine authority, not an entire one, but a small part thereof to be dedicated to Divine worship. It would be ridiculous, yea, plainly impious, to arrogate to our selves, and our affairs, what we refuse to be­stow on God. Chrysostom judgeth it an ir­religiousHom. 5. in Matth. thing to consume six dayes in carnal, and be unwilling to spend one in spiritual mat­ters. So also Leo in the foresaid place, How is it not the part of a wholly dissolute Religion, whereas one of the seven dayes is consecrated to the honour of God, not to preserve it inviolate to God, but to make it common?

But we must not contend with reasons, but testimonies (for the prejudices of some men who condemn the truth in this mat­ter as novelty) and he that shall underva­lue the foresaid testimonies of greatest au­thority, will esteem at little reasons, al­though every way valid (like the Leviathan Job 41▪ 27. that esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood▪) And therefore I will put an end to this labour.

And thus far being furnished with the authorities of the ancients, I have taught you, that they have stood for sanctifying of the whole day, which they have judged [Page 90] necessary for the Church: How the sacred Exercises of Divine worship performed on that day, were so disposed, that in perfor­ming thereof, the whole day was spent by the ancients, when I shall speak of the san­ctifying of the Lords Day, then by the grace of God shall be made manifest.

CHAP. VII.

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 [Page 91] 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 [Page 92] 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 onely 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, [Page 93] 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, Epist. 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 Ofi [...]. 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. Serm. 20. Chrysostom also confesses, that he is far from the Apo­stles dignity; neither doth he account him­self worthy to be called their shadow: Hom [...] 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, Ad [...]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 [...].whose foundations belong to [Page 94] 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 [Page 95] 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 [Page 96] 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 [Page 97] 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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 [Page 100] 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. De 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 onely their saying, or wri­tings are of Divine right cannot be denied. The Apostle shews it necessary, that he that [Page 101] 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 [Page 102] 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.

[Page 103]But, as I have said, this is the onely 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 Hom. 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 [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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 p. 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?

[Page 106]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.

CHAP. VIII.

AS to the first Question, namely, That in the compass of seven dayes, one is to be set apart for spiritual operation (as saith Chrysostom) why should I fear to affirm it?Hom. 10. in Gen. Especially, since this opinion is approved by the suffrage of the greatest Divines, and clearly enough taught by the manifest testi­monies of the ancients. We shall see that the Church of God, since the History of the Creation was known, did alwaies set apart one day of the weekly systeme, for his wor­ship: the verity of which thing may be ob­served [Page 108] in the three Epocha's, or junctures of years; the first whereof is from the Creati­on to Moses: the second from Moses till the Gospel was preached by the Apostles: the third follows to be considered from that time, till the end of the world: in all which we shall find, that one of the seven was al­wayes set apart for the publick worshipping of God. We read, it was so done from the beginning of the world till Moses; from Moses till the Resurrection of Christ; from thence to this very day. The controversie at this day, is chiefly about the first and last Epocha, none doubts of the second.

In demonstrating the first, that the Sab­bathThe Sab­bath was observed from the beginning of the world. was observed before Moses, yea, from the first beginning of the world, both the Holy Scriptures, and the Reverend Fathers, their faithful Interpreters, do attest it: to prove the truth whereof, we will first bring the authority of Moses, which is had Gen. 2. 2, 3. of which places, divers have given the genuine sense, and especially the Learned Rivet, in Gen. and doth Orthodoxly enough defend his Exposition against those that think otherwise, in his dissertation de Sab­bato, chap. 2. and removes a Prolepsis that is devised by the modern, in commenting up­on Moses's Text: for Moses in the foresaid place, doth not relate what God did, when [Page 109] he writ the History of the Creation; but what God did, after that the stupendious work of Creation was finished: namely, that he ceased from creating any new work, and ordained by a Law promulgated, that the seventh day should be set apart by men, to his worship, in memorial of the Creation. This is related by Moses. Neither was that fore mentioned prolepsis, which the best amongst the Christians allow not, known to the Jews. And if we follow the simple and literal sense of Moses his words, they all make for us. For, how unjust is it, when all the Verbs are of the same Mood and Tense, Vajecol, Vaijsboth, Vajebarech; and be finish­ed, and ceased, and blessed, to restrain the two former to the present, and to extend the latter, as some do, to a time to come two thousand years after; this would be too harsh a construction of the words.

But let us see how the Jews understood this place. Tertullian tells us of them, that [...] Jud. c. 4. they affirm, that God from the beginning did sanctifie the seventh day, by resting on it from all the works that he made: and thereupon Moses said to the People, Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day, &c. Where Tertulli­an delivers the Jews opinion of the Sabbaths observation from the beginning of the world: and then he affirms, that according [Page 110] to the Jews, the Command in the Deca­logue for keeping it, respects the original observation of the Sabbath; namely, be­cause God at the Creation sanctified the se­venth day. This was the opinion retained amongst the Jews in Tertullians age, which he produces, when he disputes against them: and no where doth Tertullian deny that the seventh day was sanctified from the beginning.

Neither do the Jews themselves deny this. The title of Ps. 92. apud Jonath. who translated the Bible into the Chaldee, is thus; A Praise and Song which the first man spoke for the Sabbath day. From which inscripti­on it appears, that the ancient Jews, even before the first coming of Christ, thought that Adam observed the Sabbath. For. Jo­nathan lived, according to Galatinus, forty two years before Christs Nativity. Josephus, l. 1. [...]. 3. a very learned Jew, acknowledgeth, that God rested on the seventh day, and ceased from his works, and for that cause do the Jews ce­lebrate a vacation on this day, which they call the Sabbath. Josephus therefore confesses, that the Jews ceased from their works on the Sabbath, because the Lord ceased from the Creation on the seventh day. Of the same opinion is Philo, the Apostles contemporary,De mundi [...]pificio. After, saith he, that nature was perfected in [Page 111] six dayes, the Father added honour to the se­venth day following; which, when he praised, he vouchsafed to call it holy. Also, de vita Mosis, lib. 3. he confesses, that the Sabbath day had a priviledge by nature, since the birth day of the world. And a little before, in the same book, he saith, Moses thought it sitting that all those who were enrolled in this City, should, following the law of Nature, ce­lebrate the Sabbath. He grants then, that the Sabbaths observation was according to the law of Nature, that is, that it was con­stituted by God at the Creation of Nature. St. Austin sayes also, that the Jews acknow­ledge,Tr [...]ct. 20. in Joh. that God sanctified a day, since which he began as it were to rest from his labours. So Solomon Iarchi, in Gen. 26. By whom is ci­ted R. Simson, in Is. 58. Aben Ezra in Exod. 20. Da. Kimchi. Manasses Ben-Israel, in Deut. 5. and all the Doctors of the Jews, excepting Maimonides.

These things shew, that the Jews had knowledge that the Sabbath was observed from the Creation, from whom the obser­vation of the Sabbath was very well known to the inhabitants of the whole World.

Of the Christians also, divers, both antient and modern, were of this opinion; a few of whose testimonies we will lightly touch.

[Page 112] Theophilus Antiochenus, lib. 2. ad Antoli­cum, saith, An. 170. Biblioth. Pal. T. 2. l. 2. That God finished the work that he made, on the seventh day, and blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because on it he rested from every work he made, &c. He saith not, that God did consecrate the se­venth day, that afterwards only it might be sanctified of the Israelitish Church; but so soon as the work of Creation was consum­mate, the seventh day was of God both blessed and sanctified. Afterwards he ac­knowledges, that the seventh day was solem­nized amongst all men, which the Hebrews call the Sabbath, and Greeks the seventh day, although most know not the cause of that name. And what cause was unknown to the most? namely, the holy resting of God on that day, and its sanctification, whereof Theophilus made mention a little before An. 200. Contr. Marcion. l. 4. c. 12. An. 250..

Tertullian saith, that Christ fulfilled the Law, while he made the Sabbath day, which was holy from the beginning, by the blessing of the Father, more holy by his own doing good on it.

Cyprian De Spi­ritu S. sect. 8. an. 309. confesseth, that the Seventh day Holy day from the Creation of the world, ob­tained authority, because in six dayes Gods works were finished, and the seventh consecra­ted to rest, as holy, and sanctifying, honoured with a solemnity of vacation, and entitled to the sanctifying Spirit.

[Page 113] Lactantius is of the same opinion, l. 7. de div. praem. c. 14. an. 180. God finished the world, and this admirable work of the Creation, in six dayes space, and then or­dained the seventh day, whereon he rested from his works. This is the Sabbath day. Lactantius therefore fetcheth the sanctificati­on of the Sabbath from the Creation, and not from the History of Manna.

St. Athanasius D [...] Sab. & [...]ircum. saith, that God rested when he had finished the former Creation, and there­fore the men of that generation observed the Sabbath on the seventh day. Where he ac­knowledges, that the Sabbath was observed from the Creation till Christ; for he saith, that all men of that generation did observe the Sabbath; where he speaketh of the whole time, from the beginning of the world till Christ.

Greg. Nyssen, De Re­sur. Ch [...]i­sti, o [...]at. 1. Lo▪ here is for thee, the Sab­hath blessed from the beginning of the world: mark it by that Sabbath, this Sabbath, the day of rest, which God hath blessed above other dayes.

Chrysost. Hom 10. in Gen. God hath blessed and sanctified that day. What is it that he hath sanctified it? he hath set it apart from other dayes. After, when he tells us the cause why he hath sanctified it, he addeth, because on that he rested from all his works, which God began to make. Now God intimateth to us this Do­ctrine [Page 114] from the beginning, teaching us, that within the compass of a week, one whole day is to be set apart, and spent in spiritual work. Therefore, according to Chrysostom, the Sab­bath Day, since the Creation, was set apart from other dayes, and plainly it appears, that for that ordination the world is bound to dedicate one whole day of the week to the worship of God.

Aug. ult. cap. postrem. lib. de Civitate Dei, An. 410. while he is describing that everlasting Sab­bath which the Saints shall enjoy in heaven, he referrs the institution of the Sabbath to the resting of God from the work of cre­ation.

He doth the like in Epist. ad Casulanum, Ep. 86. where he saith, that God sanctified the se­venth day, when he rested on it from all his works, and afterwards gave command about its observation to the Hebrew people. Augu­stine therefore doth acknowledge, that the use of the Sabbath was amongst the anci­ents, before it grew common amongst the Hebrews; namely, first, at the beginning, before Moses, and afterwards in the Church of the Jews.

Theodoret. Quaest. 21. in Gen. He hath bestowed a blessing An. 430. on the seventh day, instead of creating, les [...] that day only, above others, should want its ho [...] nour: and he hath put [Hallowed it] fo [...] [Page 115] [set it apart.] And afterwards; In blessing the seventh day, he hath shown, that he thought it not an unprofitable and superfluous day, but hath ordained it to be applied to rest. Who doth not see, that in Theodorets opinion, from the beginning the Sabbath was set apart for the worship of God from other dayes? So when he answers the question, why he com­mandedQuest. 43: in Exod. not the Sabbath to be celebrated on another day? because the God of all hath cre­ated every thing in six dayes; but on the se­venth day he made nothing, but honoured this day with a blessing: as it is added, in six dayes the Lord thy God made Heaven and Earth, and rested the seventh: wherein he teaches us, that even then this day was consecrated of God to rest and sanctification from the be­ginning of the world.

Alexander Hales Part. 3. quast. 39. fol. 128. affirmes, that the Sab­bathAn. 1240. before the Law, was observed of the Fathers; and of the same opinion are divers of the Schoolmen.

Now if any have a mind to reckon up the grave opinions of the aforesaid Fathers, he will not deny, that the Sabbath day was solemnly kept from the very beginning of the world: because, by the judgment of them all, the Sabbath was sanctified by God; nor do the Fathers speak of the purpose of God, as though it was not then really set [Page 116] apart for the worship of God: but accord­ing to his purpose, it was only destined for this, that after two thousand years it should be set apart for this end: for, say they, when God had finished his work of Creation, the Sab­bath was sanctified, from the beginning, or from the creation of the world, when he had rested from his works, from the Creation till Christ, &c.—and therefore they acknow­ledge, that the Sabbath day was solemnized amongst all men or all men of the former ge­neration, that is, from the beginning of the world till Christ, a long time before its use was established amongst the Jews. All these things are affirmed in round words by the Fathers. Out of which it clearly ap­pears, that one day of the week was alwayes set apart to the worshipping of God pub­lickly.

And as the best of the ancients were of this opinion; so the chief of our late wri­ters, that have flourished in the Reformed Churches, do affirm, that God did from the beginning of the world, sanctifie the seventh day for his worship amongst men.

Wallaeus and Rivet have clearly taught this; The former whereof, in his third Chapter of the fourth Command, doth teach this: proving it by the grave testimonies of Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Peter Mar­tyr, [Page 117] Bullinger, Zanchy, Ursin, Gualter, Are­tius, Bonaventure, Bertram, Merrer, Antonius Faius, Junius, Paraeus, Zepperus, Martinius, and Alstedius. To which the famous Rivet, in his Dissertation de Sabbatho, cap 1. adds, the authorities of Lambertus Danaeus, Rod. Hospinianus, Martinus Chemnitius, [...]oh. Ger­hardus, Conradus P [...]eilen, Henricus Butingus, Bartasius, Gonlartius, Tilenus (while yet he warred with us in our tents) Marloratus, and Fequernehianus.

Th [...]se two very learned Divines having deserved well of the Christian Common­wealth, being compassed about with such a cloud of witnesses of great authority, have made it evident to all, that the observation of the Sabbath hath alwayes been used in the Church of God, before Moses; from whose judgment, no man of reason will ea­sily suffer himself to be perswaded to recede, although one or two of the modern writers go contrary thereunto.

Touching which opinion, after these men to say any more, although it may be thought the part of a man that's diligent in vain, yet since this opinion, being supported by the testimonies of so many famous Divines, is weakened both by some reasons, and also by the authorities of the ancients, a few things more ar [...] to be added. These which follow [Page 118] are the chief of those reasons wherewith they do oppose the truth received of so many learned men. In the first place, Be­fore the lamentable fall of Adam, there was no need of the Sabbath, on which his strength, being spent with labours, it was to be repaired. Secondly, Nothing is read in Scripture of the Patriarchs keeping the Sabbath. Thirdly, If the Sabbath had been observed from the Creation, the Heathens had been obliged to observe it, & somewhere in the Scriptures they would have been ac­cused by God for the neglect of the Sabbath, w^ch yet is no where read in H. Records. These are the reasons which bear the greatest shew of probability, for which they assert, there was no use of the Sabbath before Moses in the world. To the two first whereof, the famous Wallaeus answers solidly. To whoseUbi supra Adam had need of the Sabbath. answer, I only add this. Since Adam could not conveniently attend at one and the same time, two businesses of a diverse nature, it seemeth not unreasonable, that God assign­ed him a stated time for doing both in con­veniently; to the end he might both till the1. Garden freely, and also solemnly celebrate the publick worship of God. Moreover,2. since we believe that the night was assigned to him in his happy condition of innocency, wherein he might rest; why should not also3. the day be appointed for a Divine contem­plation [Page 119] of the works of God? Lastly, where­as the Saints themselves in that blessed Kingdome of Heaven, do enjoy a perpetual Sabbath, it will not be thought incongru­ous, or disagreeable to the condition of A­dam, if the Sabbath were assigned to him in Paradice, to worship God on; although weT [...] Sab­bath obser­ved, though no mention of its ob­servation occurr. read not that he did keep the Sabbath. Some institutions are expressed in Scripture, whose observation doth not constantly oc­curr in the same. Neh. 18. 8. Those that returned from the captivity are read to make themselves tabernacles, in which they abode: which was not done before, even from the times of Joshua, to that very day; although it was provided for in the Law, Lev. 23. 40. And after the Law given by Moses, about the Sabbath, there is made no mention of its observation in the whole book of Judges, &c. yet none will thence conclude, that the Sabbath was not institu­ted at that time, because we meet with no footsteps of its festivity being observed.

Nor do we read that Sampson, Deborah, or Joshua did keep the Sabbath: yet do we not deny upon that account, that the Sab­bath was instituted. So also might it happen before the Law was given in the Mount. And what if we say, that the Aegyptians would not suffer the Israelites, while they were their slaves, to be idle on the seventh [Page 120] day? Perhaps they gave place to necessity; which Josephus tells us, fell out also in theDe bello Juda c [...], l. 7. c. [...]1. time of Antiochus. When, saith he, the Jews were interdicted upon most severe punishments the observation of the seventh day, within a very short time, not only in Antioch, but in the neighbouring regions, the Sabbath was neg­lected. Moreover, it is read no where, that Adam worshipped God publickly, which yet we must conclude for certain he did. We may judge the like of the Sabbath's not be­ing observed of him: because if he had the mode of worship prescribed him of God, surely, that a time was defined of God to exercise it in, cannot rightly be denied: al­though we read nothing of the express time: for it is most agreeable to natural equity, that as well the time for performance of the worship, as the worship it self should be defined.

As to the third reason, brought from the Heathens; Some think, if the Sabbath had been observed from the Creation, then the Gentiles had been bound to celebrate its so­lemnity. But this they deny for a double reason. First, because no footsteps of the seventh day's observation are found amongst them. Secondly, they are not reproved of God for neglecting the Sabbath.

To the first, the learned VVallaeus answers, [Page 121] loc. praedicto: that though it should be grant­ed, that the mentioning of it was oblitera­ted amongst the Heathens, it doth not thence follow, that the use of the Sabbath remained not amongst the posterity of Adam, or Noah: so VVallaeus. The searchers out of Hebrew antiquities, tell us out of Maimonides, that a corrupt religion grew up from the beginning of the world, and so far received augmenta­tions, till at length the Divine Religion was almost turned upside down; yet that great Rabbi hath excepted Enoch, Melchisedech, Noah, Shem, &c. who worshipped the true God, with a pure heart: the truth of whose relation, being bottomed on Scripture au­thority, who will question? If therefore the true Religion, and that which was instituted of God, and put into the minds of men, hath ceased amongst the posterity of the Heathen in other chief points, what wonder if amongst them also the observation of the Sabbath was not continued: which yet was alwayes observed by the Church of God?

That the seventh day was celebratedThe 7th day cele­brated a­mongst the Heathens. amongst the Gentiles, and that they obser­ved it with a certain solemn devotion, (ei­ther from the instinct of nature, or by a tra­dition received from the Ancestours, from whom they descended, or from a general knowledge of the Creation it self) their [Page 122] very writings in express words do shew: in which, whoever will look into them, he may easily find clear footsteps of a Sabbati­cal solemnity. That the seventh day is sa­cred, not only the Hebrews, but also the Greeks know; on which the universe of things animate and inanimate is turned about,—saith Clemens Alexandrinus Stroncat lib. 5., which he proveth by the testimonies of Hesiod, Homer, Callimachus, and other Heathens, which I think needless to rehearse here, because if any will not believe my relation, the afore­said testimonies of the Poets in Clemens, may make the incredulous to believe l. 13. c. 7.. Euseb. de praepar. Erang. saith, that God having finish­ed his works, allowed us a day for rest from our labours. This he confirms by the authori­ties of divers Poets. And the learned Rivet, in dissertat. de Sabbato, cap. 5. proves, that these testimonies are to be understood of the seventh day of every week.

While Suetonius describes the modera­tionSueton. in Tiber. of Tiberius, exhibited even towards his inferiours, he tells us, amongst other things, that Diogenes, a certain Grammarian, being wont to dispute on the Sabbath dayes at Rhodes, would not admit Tiberius to hear him, out of his order, but by his servant put him off till the seventh day. Whence it ap­pears, that the seventh day was known to [Page 123] Diogenes, although the learned Casaubon, on that place of Suetonius, thinketh, that the observation of weeks, which holds at this day, used among the Greeks, was not com­monly received before the times of Tiberius. Yet the learned Rivet, loc. citato, proves by divers testimonies, that it was in use amongst the Latines, so to distinguish their dayes. Lampridius in Alexand. Severo, tells us, that when he was in the City, he went up to the Capitol on the seventh day, and fre­quented the Temples.

We meet with more testimonies to this purpose in the learned Amesius, of pious memory, in Medul. Theolog. lib. 2. cap. 15. sect. 10. And now I will conclude with the testimony of Josephus against Appion, l. 2. That there is no nation, either of Greeks, or Barbarians, or any where else, amongst whom the custome of the seventh day, which the Jews used to keep holy, was not grown com­mon. With whom, as we have seen, agreeth Clemens Alexandrinus.

That the custome therefore of celebra­ting the seventh day, was common amongst the Heathens, can be doubted by none; whether, as I said, from the instinct of na­ture, or by the ordination of God, which came by tradition to the posterity of Adam. However, if we may credit the fore-menti­oned [Page 124] Authors, it is certain, that the Festival of this solemnity was known to the whole world, although most know not the cause of this solemnity: which Philo de vita Mo­sis, lib. 3. observes, and Theophilus Antioche­nus in the fore-cited place. Theophilus saith, that all men call the seventh day the Sabbath, but most know not the cause of its appellation. Now that cause which most knew not, was Gods resting on it, when he had finished in six dayes that stupendious work of Creation; which was obliterated amongst the Hea­thens, by a long tract of time, although they observed the day, as appeareth by the mentioned testimonies. This Irenaeus teach­eth more at large, in the end of the thirtieth chapter of his fourth book, whither I send the Reader.

In the last place, I will satisfie the secondWhy the beathen are not upbraided with the abuse of the Sab­bath. Question, viz▪ If the Gentiles were obli­ged to observe the Sabbath, and the custom of observing it was grown common amongst them, why are they never in Scripture re­proved of God for profaning the Sabbath? who can deny that the Gentiles as well as the Jews, were obliged by the instinct of na­ture, to worship God their great Creatour? Besides, divers of the Heathen had got the knowledge of God, the Creation, and Sab­bath, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, &c.Ubi supra [Page 125] have plainly taught us. Furthermore, let him tell us who can, why they, as well as other men, should not be obliged to observe the Sabbath, by the Divine Law: for we know, that a determined time to perform a certain worship, is no less necessary to them than others. But many reasons there were for which God might reprove the Heathen, and yet move no controversie against them, about the Sabbath; either because its insti­tution was grown obsolete amongst many of the Gentiles, (though not all) or because they had violated the whole worship of God: for which cause he reprehends them: yet he reproves them not for the Sabbath by name, as being the time of worship: because the Sabbath was onely ordained for performing the true worship of the true God: now the Gentiles worshipped not God, but Idols; therefore God accuseth them of Idolatry, and not for neglecting the Sabbath: and in vain would they have had regard of the Sabbath, while on the Sabbath they wor­shipped Idols, and not God, the author of the Sabbath. I might also add here, that it's not manifest, that all the sins commit­ted by the Heathens were reprehended in Scripture particularly. But the famous Ri­vet doth answer this objection more at large:Dissert. de Sab. c. 9. in whose learned answers, they that do not [Page 126] abhorr the truth, cannot but acquiesce. And thus much for the reasons against the opinion of the Sabbath being observed from the beginning of the world.

Now to the authorities by which othersThe autho­rities are weighed which deny that the Patriarchs kept the Sabbath. busie themselves, to infringe this opinion: these are in number three. The first whereof is that of Irenaeus, who lib. 4. cap. 30. tells us, that Abraham believed God without Circum­cision, and without the Sabbath. The second is, of Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in whom it's read, that A­bel and Enoch were just, without the obser­vation of the Sabbath; and after them, Abra­ham and his posterity, untill Moses pleased God. And after he adds, Before Moses there was no need of celebrating the Sabbath. In the third place, Advers. Jud. c. 2. &c. 4. Tertullian is produced, in whom they read, that neither Adam nor his off-spring, Abel, or Noah, or Enoch, did keep the Sabbath. These are the chief pla­ces which are brought against the contrary opinion; to which, before I answer, I might say, that the Judgments of other Fathers that affirm it, might be opposed to the au­thorities of them that deny it. But, lest by so saying, I should seem to set together the grave Fathers amongst themselves, I an­swer, first, He that equally weigheth the foresaid testimonies, shall easily observe, that [Page 127] the Fathers intention in the foresaid places, was this; that they might teach, that men were not justified by observing of the Jewish Sabbath. This at the first blush will appear to him that views the places.

Irenaeus he speaks of the multitude ofUbi prius. them that were just before Abraham, the Pa­triarchs, and Moses, and were justified with­out these, (namely, without Circumcision and the Sabbath.) It was therefore Irenaeus his purpose, to prove that the Sabbath, or Circumcision were not the perfecting of righteousness: neither doth Irenaeus simply speak of the observation of the Sabbath, but of its observation in order to justification; which thing his words do declare And Justin Martyr had the same meaning, who disputed against Trypho the Jew, propound­ing to himself means by which mercy might befall him from God, (as Trypho speaks) amongst which he reckons the Sabbath and Circumcision, that he might have some hope of salvation. Whilst the blessed Martyr op­poseth himself to this mans purpose, he af­firmeth, that all the foresaid Fathers who kept the Sabbath, pleased not God. Yet doth he not affirm, that the observation of the Sabbath was unknown to them: but he grants, that the Fathers were not justified by it: which they also confess, who hold fast the fore­said [Page 128] opinion, confirmed to be true by a long series of authorities.

It was not therefore the purpose of the Reverend Fathers, to define, whether the Sabbath was simply observed of the Patri­archs, or not? Onely they affirm, that by its observation they obtained not righteous­ness before God, nor for that cause did they observe it: as the Jews did contend in this question, with whom the Fathers had to do.

And Tertullian is not to be expounded otherwise, who attended this also, that he might shew against the Jews, that the Fa­thers were not justified by Circumcision, the Sabbath, or the works of the Law. His words do testifie this. For he sayes, advers. Jud. c. 2. He that contendeth, that the Sab­bath is yet to be observed, as a medicine of sal­vation, must teach, that those who observed the Sabbath formerly are just, &c. and there­upon what were formerly objected do fol­low: which in this manner being un­derstood, according to the scope of the Author, without any injury to the words, do make nothing against the ob­servation of the Sabbath from the Crea­tion: especially whereas Tertullian him­self, as formerly we observed, hath as­serted, that the Jews do confess, Adv. Jud. c. 4. that Gods [Page 129] resting on it, did from the beginning san­ctifie the seventh day. The truth of which assertion, Tertullian no where calls into question: for if he had not taken it for true, then he would not have granted it without a reproof in any wise, for their sakes; but would have used one or o­ther interpretation, either to avoid, or clear that place, out of Genesis 2. 2, 3. which yet he no where does. The san­ctification therefore of the seventh day from the Creation, for which the Jewes stood, is granted by Tertullian: out of whom it is fetch'd, that there was the use of the Sabbath before the Mosaical Law, which also Tertullian granteth must conti­nue when that ceaseth.

Therefore, in the second place, I answer, that these, and the like places, if any be, amongst the Fathers, which seem to inti­mate, that the Sabbath was not observed before Moses, are not so much to be under­stood of the Sabbath it self, or the obser­vation of the seventh day, as of the Jew­ish observation thereof, and its abuse to Justification before God: for they contend, either that for its observation eternal life befell not the Patriarchs, or that it was not observed before Moses, according to the Ceremonies, wherewith it was after­wards [Page 130] celebrated of the Jews; neither ought it to be observed after the coming of Christ: which things are affirmed by none at all.

Thirdly, In the foresaid testimonies, the Fathers had to do with the Jews, who ob­truded the Jewish Sabbath on the Chri­stians: for which cause, when the Fa­thers mention the Sabbath, they speak of it somewhat dishonourably, if we look at the Name and Ceremonies of the Sab­bath: but if we understand the thing it self, i. e. the Lords day, they have extolled the Sabbath with wonderful praises: there­fore, when they plead against the Jewish Sabbath, they altogether reject it, but when they appoint it to be celebrated in the Christian manner, they greatly ho­nour it.

Fourthly, The Criticks, which are well exercised in the writings of the Fathers, teach us, that it is an usual thing with the Fathers, while with all their might they decline one errour, they oftentimes do ei­ther fall into another, or seem in a cer­tain sort to fall into it: like Husband­men, (as prettily the learned Rivet, in Prolegom. in Crit. sa [...]r. cap. 11.) who labou­ring to straiten a crooked stick, do some­times exceed measure, and bend the plant [Page 131] into a contrary and diverse form: so they know it very often falls out with the most grave Fathers, who peruse their disputa­tions with their adversaries: for while they contend with their enemies, out of an earnest desire to smite them, they have sometimes even struck their own compani­ons. St. Austins heat against the Mani­chees, carried him from the explication of the Text, and those things which he purposed to assert. This thing, Austin himself, when he had finished his Trea­tise, signified to Possidonius, and others that dined with him. So Possidonius relateth it in the Life of Austin, chapter 15. And as the truth of this thing hath appeared in other questions, so in this of the Sabbath. For while Tertullian, and before him, Ju­stin Martyr, have declared the foresaid opi­nions about the Sabbath, their work was with the Jews, who, as we said, obtruded the Sabbath on the Christians, as though without its observation, none could obtain eternal life. Which errour, while the grave Fathers studied to shun, they de­clare this opinion of the Sabbath, (if in the testimonies cited this was their mean­ing) being observed all that time, from the Creation until Moses: in expound­ing of which opinion, although they [Page 132] thought to smite the Jews, yet considered they not, how unwarily they wounded their own companions, who, to their pow­er, were diligent to defend the contrary: whose opinions we have formerly recited in this Chapter.

Lastly, None that is but meanly conver­sant in the writings of the Fathers, can be ignorant, that some more hard sayings do often occurr in them; which, unless they be expounded by other places in them, are not easily to be admitted. Chrysostom saith, in his later Sermon De utilitate ex obscurita­te prophetiarum, in Savils Edition, Before Christs coming, faith in Christ was not re­quired of the Jews: which words, without a candid interpretation, are not to be ad­mitted: for if they be taken absolutely, they agree not with the Holy Scriptures, as appears from Hebr. 11. in which it is re­lated, that the Saints before the former co­ming of Christ, did rely upon him by Faith, and for their Faith are commended: there­fore the genuine sense of this place is to be found out of another place in his former Sermon, pag. 652. where, of the Jews, he saith, they looked for the Lamb of God to come; that should take away the sins of the world: of which the later place affordeth no small light to the Interpretation of the for­mer. [Page 133] In like manner are we to judge in ex­amining the foresaid testimonies of the Fa­thers, wherein the Sabbath is denied to be observed from the beginning of the world: whose meaning is to be expounded from those Fathers in other places, or from others that were their contemporaries. If any there­fore have a mind to find out Tertullians mind Adv. Jud. cap. 2. let him compare him with Tertullian adv. Mercion. lib. 4. cap. 12. where he shall find him acknowledging, that the Sabbath was holy from the begin­ning. We may judge the same of the other authorities which are cited, whose sense is to be sought out either by other places of those authors, or by other writers that were contemporaries with them. The words of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, do roundly enough expound their scope, as before we have heard by them, both which do only contend for this, that they may teach, that the ancient Fathers were not justified by the Sabbath and Circumcision, and add no more.

CHAP. IX.

THus far of the first Epocha, in which we have found, that from the begin­ning of the world, one day in the weekly compass was to be set apart for the solemn performing of the worship of God: and for the second, from Moses to Christs resurre­ction, none doubteth, therefore I'le add no­thing of it: and will come to the third Epo­cha, of which is the greatest controversie, namely, Whether under the Gospel, in the compass of a week, one day be to be sancti­fied? Some men of great name do deny this, and some do strongly affirm it: which later opinion being grounded upon so many testi­monies and reasons of the ancients, and the continual practise of the Christian Church, I freely embrace: for this is neither a new, [Page 135] nor an unheard of assertion, but by several Divines of a well exercised judgment, is suf­ficiently manifested to all pious souls, and prone to the fear of God: in demonstrating whereof, they have recourse to the morality of the fourth Command in the Decalogue, whose moral part is perpetual: for it is one of the ten words of God, engraven by his own hand in Tables of Stone, Exod. 35. 28. Deut. 4. 13. out of which number, if the Sab­bath should be expunged, there would only nine remain. Now the Moral part of the Decalogue (which remaineth also in the new Law, Bonavent. l. 3. q. 37. p. 781.) as Alexander Hales qu. 32. fol. 134. once wittily, is said to be so two manner of wayes, one way which is of the very essence of the Decalogue, according to the primary intention, and so vacation to a time indeterminately is moral in the Decalogue: another way it's said to be moral, in the Deca­logue, which is to determine the Decalogue, and according to this vacation on the Lords day, is moral in the Decalogue, in the time of grace, as the seventh day in the time of the Law, and that is moral by discipline, i. e. by Divine in­stitution: and therefore, even by the sole instinct of nature, it must needs be granted, that man at some time must attend upon God: yea, nature it self dictates, that suffi­cient dayes be set apart to perform his wor­ship. [Page 136] And who is to determine those dayes, but him, whose the day and night are? Psal. 74. 15. So Alexander Hales. The observance of a day indeterminately, that at some time we should attend on God, is moral in nature, and immutable; but the observance of a determi­nate time, is moral by discipline, by the adding of Divine institution. Afterwards he saith, when that time ought to be, is not for man to determine, but God: because it is his part to define the certain time for worship, whose it is to prescribe the worship it self: it per­taineth not to inferiours, whose part it is to perform offices to others, to determine of a fit time to perform them in: Superiours, to whom they are to be exhibited, do pre­scribe others, when, ex officio, they ought to attend these.

Nor can it be otherwise, because if the way of setting apart the time for worship­ping God in should not depend upon Di­vine institution, the mind of man would hang pendulous in this business: neither would it appear to us, what dayes would be sufficient: since, if we look at Gods bene­fits conferred upon us, it would not be suffi­cient to consecrate the whole course of our life to this work: and if we look at our covetousness, and sloth, how many of us would suffer the very least part of our time [Page 137] (saith the famous Mr. D. G.) to be cut off either from our labour or rest? A certain time is therefore to be defined of God, at least for their sakes▪ who attend more▪ upon this world than God, in Gal. 4. as Hierom: and left the conscience of men should stick in doubt, or God be defrauded of his due worship, very reason it self seemeth to require, that a cer­tain day should be assigned by the most Blessed and Almighty God; especially, when, as in sent. 3▪ distinc. 37: q. unica. Scotus saith, in Gal. 4. man is bound to no act pro tempore indeterminato, to which he is not bound pro aliquo signato: because, if then worship be not to be exhibited to God, by like reason not now, and by the same reason of every other time.

Besides, he that will not think much to compare the reason of the present age, with the times of Adam, the Patriarchs, and the Jews, he shall see it equal and just to set apart in every seven dayes, one whole one for the worship of God. For why should the Lord indulge a further liberty to the men of our age, in his service, than he granted them? especially when God, since he hath repealed his Gospel, is more propi­tious to us, than to them. Farther, if we weigh the nature of our present men, we shall find for certain, that no less time is required to the instructing of them, than of [Page 138] the ancients. And to conclude, relaxation from labour is no less necessary in this age, to servants, and those that live under other mens government, than to men in former ages. He that without prejudice weigh­eth these things, cannot deny, that one day in seven is as well to be set apart for the publick worship of God by Chri­stians, as men of the former age. I will add nothing of the nature of the Deca­logue, never abrogated by the blessed co­ming of Christ. Faith in Christ makes not void the Law, the matter of which, all men acknowledge to be written in mens hearts from the Creation, the great Apo­stle being witness: although we acknow­ledge with the same Apostle, Gal. 4. and Col. 2. that the ceremonial and typical ob­servation thereof, being fulfilled by Christs coming in the flesh, be now ceased. This doth also Irenaeus witness, adv. haeres. l. 4. c. 31. who affirmeth, that God spoke the words of the Decalogue immediately by himself, and thereupon they remain perma­nent, and fixed with us, admitting of exten­sion and augmentation, but no dissolution by the coming of Christ in the flesh. So St. Austin in Psalm 32. Fulfill the Law, saith he, which the Lord thy God came not to dis­solve, but to fulfill.

[Page 139]And certainly, no body that throughly weighs with himself the morality of that precept, will doubt, that the solemnity of the Lords day grew up by vertue of the fourth Command in the Decalogue: For it is granted of all, that the substance of the Command, included in these words, (Re­member to keep holy the Sabbath day, i. e. the day of rest, not as the seventh day) is mo­ral, and to be continued for ever. But if the Lords day festivity be not bottomed up­on the authority of this command, then that morality doth plainly perish: when now there is not any other weekly Sabbath, be­sides the Lords day; without which, as I said, the Moral part of the Sabbath in the New Testament would not remain. By right therefore, as Alexander Hales hath it, the vacation of the Lords day is the Moral part of the Decalogue in the time of grace, as the seventh day in the time of the Law.

Moreover, some may with great rea­son doubt, why the Jewish Sabbath should be translated to the Lords day, (which yet we see hath been done for above one thou­sand six hundred years) if so be that Chri­stians be not obliged to observe the fourth Command, as it is moral: whenas other­wise there would be no need of any festi­val to succeed in place of the ancient Sab­bath: [Page 140] But because that Law doth perpetu­ally bind all the worshippers of God to the observation of the Sabbath, it necessa­rily follows, that the day on which the Sabbath is to be observed, must be deter­mined by some positive Law, and is de­signed by God for this purpose, to be the seventh day in the Old Covenant, and the the first in the New. For it's not for man, saith Alexander Hales, quaest. 32. fol. 128. to determine, but God, when that time is, &c. It's in Gods power only, to define a fit time for performing his worship.

But we read this question of the Morality of the fourth Command, discussed at large by divers: amongst whom, the famous Wallaeus doth it most excellently, who, to the great fruit of the Church, hath copi­ously taught us, what is Ceremonial, and what Moral, in writing of that Com­mand of the Sabbath. I will not therefore add any more about this question, but do send the Reader to the learned labours of others, in which this question is exa­mined. I will only add this one thing for a conclusion, out of the observations of this Learned Divine, namely an explicati­on of the Sabbath's being a sign between God and men.

[Page 141]Since, saith he, it is in bred by na­ture,How the Sabbath is a sign be­tween God and the Church. in all Nations, that in the external worship of that Deity which they take for supreme, they should have some Symbole of Document, which may shew to others, whom they take for God: as may be ob­served in the sacrifices of Bacchus: and there­fore in the Revelation, they that worship­ped God and the Lamb, are read to have the mark of God in their foreheads, Rev. 14. 1. and they that worshipped the Beast, received his mark in their forehead, or hand, Rev. 14. 9. which were nothing else but external to­kens, by which they would plainly signi­fie, that they worshipped either God or the Beast: So of old we read that the Sabbath was instituted of God, that it might be a symbole or sign, to manifest to all the world who was the God of the Jews. So Ezek. 20. 20. the Sabbaths are said to be signs between God and them, that it might be known that the Lord was their God. Now what it was that was shewn by that sign, Moses tells us in divers places; especially in Exod. ch. 31. 16, 17. Therefore the children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, throughout their generations, for a perpetual Covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever; (he speaks of the Sabbath) for in six dayes [Page 142] the Lord made Heaven and Earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refresh­ed. As if he should say, the pious obser­vation of the Sabbath amongst them, when every seventh day returns, doth intimate, that the Almighty Creatour of Heaven and Earth is their God. In this sense, Athanasius de Sabbatho & Circumcisione, saith, The Sabbath is a sign, whereby the day might be known on which the Creati­on was finished: which being known, they might ascend to the knowledge of the Creatour. And by observing the Sabbath, they attained unto that two man­ner of wayes. First, inasmuch as one day of the seven was solemn, or because after they had ended their labours in the six dayes, they must rest on the se­venth. Secondly, by determining that rest on the last day of the weekly com­pass: both wayes the Jewes signified, that they worshipped none other, than God the Creatour of Heaven and Earth: because, whereas they sanctified the se­venth day, after the six dayes labours were ended, they openly professed, that they were worshippers of that God, who created Heaven and Earth, and having finished his labour, in beautifying that stupendious work, on the seventh day he [Page 143] ceased from working: for which cause, he enjoyned them the observation of the seventh day; that they might follow his fore-going example, both in working and in resting. He hath commanded, saith Philo, de Decalogo, that whosoever recei­ved these Institutions, as in other things, so in this also, they should follow God, in working six dayes, and resting the se­venth, and attending on the contempla­tion of things, and study of VVisdome, &c. Afterwards, Follow God, thou hast Gods ex­ample and prescript in working six dayes.

And farther, they set apart no other day in the weekly course, but the se­venth, for the exercises of piety, that they might profess they were the ser­vants of that God, which redeemed the Israelites out of the Land of Egypt, and brought them out of the house of bon­dage: which is collected from the repe­tition of the Decalogue, Deuteronom. 5. 15. where Moses, omitting the argument ta­ken from the Creation, which he had used in the Decalogue, doth excite them to sanctifie the Sabbath, from their be­ing freed out of the Land of Egypt; name­ly, because whenas they served in the Land of Egypt, the Lord their God brought them out thence, with a strong hand, and [Page 144] stretched out arm: and therefore he com­manded them, that they should observe the very day of the Sabbath, (in whose mor­ning watch they came out of Egypt, as the Learned Junius observes in his notes on Deuteronom. 5. out of Exod. 12. 15.) This seems to have been the cause of ap­pointing this day, rather than any other. And thus much of the Jews Sabbath, whereby, as by a manifest document, they professed to worship the Lord, the Crea­tor of this universe, and their mighty Re­deemer out of Egypt, for which cause the Sabbath was had for a sign between God and them.

CHAP. X.

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 [Page 146] controversie, 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. it, believes in hin [...] that raised up Christ from the dead. Hence it easily appears, that both Jews and Christians (though the same day [Page 147] be 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 lib. [...] c. [...] Austin against [Page 148] Faustus 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 [Page 149] the 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. 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 [Page 150] their 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. hath 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.

[Page 151]The 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; [Page 152] as 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 [Page 153] teach, that the observation of the Jewish Sabbath, is not to be imposed on Christians. So Athanas. Hom. de semente, & Homil. de Sab. & Circumcis. Ep. 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. Ep. adv. Jud. c. 6. Tertullian 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, Hil. pro­log. in Psalm. ex­posit. saith Hilary, do rejoyce on the eighth [Page 154] which 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 [...]. 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 [Page 155] the same foundations of Doctrine, though the same consideration of time be had amongst both. Yea, in Tract. 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, Hom. 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 [Page 156] under 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.

De 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?

Ep. 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.

in Ps. 32. Ruffinus 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 [Page 157] tells 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 [Page 158] alwayes 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 [Page 159] abolisheth 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. saith, 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 [...], 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 [...], 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 [Page 160] was 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. 16. 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 [Page 161] labours, 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. 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, [Page 162] to 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. [Page 163] 1. 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, [Page 164] that 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 onely who is▪ Lord of the Sabbath, can change the Sabbath day, Mar. 2. 28. Besides this, all [Page 165] men 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 [Page 166] all 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 [Page 167] of 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. day, 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: [Page 168] for, 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, [...], as God hath commanded; but when he men­tions the Lords day▪ he only saith, [...], 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 [Page 169] they 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 Hom. 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 Eus. 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 Constit. 54. Leo ac­knowledges [Page 170] this solemnity to be received from the Holy Ghost, and Apostles ordain­ed by him.

Augustine Decivit. 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, Aug. 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? Ep. 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 [Page 171] look 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, quast. 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 Can. 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, Hom. 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 [Page 172] thus 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 [Page 173] arises 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.

[Page 174]We 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 [Page 175] authority 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 [Page 176] Bishoprick 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 [Page 177] occasions 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.

CHAP. XI.

WE have seen by the judgment of the Fathers, that the Lords Day is to be sanctified, and that by Divine authority. Now it remaineth, (which we undertook in the third place to be proved) to find out in what the solemn observation thereof con­sisteth. The Fathers think, that to Christi­ans the Lords day succeeded in place of the old Sabbath, and therefore, as Hilary speak­eth, is to be celebrated with the Prolog▪ in Psalmos. festivity of the Sabbath, that is, as August. Serm. de Temp. 251. even as the ancients observed the Sabbath. Now it appeareth by the Scrip­tures of the Old Testament, that the obser­vation of the Jewish Sabbath consisted first [Page 179] in the rest, and secondly, in the sanctification of this rest: and in the observation of these things, their records will inform us, that the Lords day was solemnized by the an­cients.

As for the rest, the Church of Christ hathHow far we must rest from labour on the Lords day. used it, not as necessary of it self to the wor­ship of God, but only as an help thereto; without which, the worship commanded of God could not conveniently be performed of the people For, while men are intangled in the affairs of this world, they cannot re­ligiously attend, as is fitting, on the things that pertain to God, and his worship. The Sabbath was not allowed for idleness, but that men being withdrawn from the cares of tem­poral things, its rest should be spent in spiri­tuals: as Chrisostom. Hom. 1. de Lazaro. Athanasius of the same judgment, de Sabbat. & Circumcis. for he saith, the end of the Sab­bath was the knowledge of the creation, and not idleness: that men keeping holy that day, they might know God, who rested on that day, having finished the work of Creation. In the third Council of Orleans. it's provided, that men abstain from rural labour, Can. 27. and they shew the end of this abstinence, that they might go more easily to Church to pray. There­fore, by the very dictates of nature, Macrob. Saturn. l. 2. c. 16. the Priests affirmed, that Holy dayes were polluted [Page 180] if any work was done upon their proclaimed and moveable Feasts. Numa Pompilius or­dained, Plut. in Num. Pom. that alwayes on the Priests Festivals the Cryers should go before them through the city, who should give charge, that men should rest, and cease from their works. He thought it was fit, that he who worshipped the Gods should be freed from other things: and in worshipping of the Gods,▪ to apply the mind, as to a thing greatly conducing to piety. Therefore the minds of men, with­out a cessation from worldly things, cannot be applied in a holy devotion to Divine Worship. Handy labour, saith Cyril, Lib. 8. c. 1. in Joan. is forbidden on a Feast day, that you may ex­ercise your selves more entirely in Divine matters.

The ancients thus ordained, that we must cease on a Festival day, from all secular works, and no worldly thing is to be done on that day, which may hinder its sanctifi­cation. Now in worldly matters men are intent either upon gain or pleasure, but here must be a cessation from both.

First and foremost, the observation ofWe must rest from gainful labour. the Lords day is not to be profaned by gain­ful labour: for which cause it was provided for by the ancients, that Christians should wholly abstain from all things whereby the body is either wearied, or the mind aliena­ted [Page 181] from divine, to humane things. Which clearly enough shews, that they were not of that opinion, which De Ci­vit. Dei. [...]. 6. c. 11. Austin reports Se­neca sometimes was. Seneca derided the Jews, especially for their Sabbaths, that lost the seventh part of their life time in idleness, and did not many urgent affairs in their sea­son. Christians were not so intent upon their labour for profit, as not to be pulled from it, to attend Religion. They would not give themselves up to their commodities, when the season called for obedience. A [...] ▪ cont. gen­tes l. [...].

When Hom 23. in Num. Origen describes how a Christian ought to observe the Sabbath, he concludes, nothing of worldly actions must be done, and he must abstain from all secular works, as we have observed before in Chap. 10. where we cited a place, in which there is a truly golden and pious image of the Chri­stian Sabbath, which Origen, divinely in­spired, hath happily drawn to the life, as they say, and in which are elegantly de­scribed what things are on that day by Christians to be followed, and what to be fled: while he teacheth us, that leaving earthly works on the Lords day, we must attend on Divine: which, that it may be done with greater advantage, we must go to the Church, in which he exhorts us to attend on the things of Religion: and if [Page 182] men shall faithfully do this, they will make it evident to all, that they have a greater care of their hope for the future inheritance reserved in Heaven, than of the profits of this present life.

Chrysostom Hom. 43. in 1 Cor. Tom. 5. hom. 14. confesses, that the Lords day is free from business and labours, and hath a rest appointed for it; and elsewhere, (Hom. against those that run to playes) he accu­seth those that meddle with worldly cares on that day, although they may pretend poverty, necessity of getting food, and other urgent occasions.

But although Chrysostom seems manifestly [...]o think, that gainful labour is not on the Lords day to be undertaken by Christians: yet some make a question, whether, accor­ding to Chrysostom, all the day, or only so long as the publick assemblies of the Church are held, there ought to be an abstinence from labours? especially whenas he doth indulge his hearers, when they are return­ed from the Church-assembly, if they shall repeat the Scriptures, and discourse of that which they have once heard, then go to look after the things which are necessary for this life. But I will set down the very wordsA place of Chryso­stom in hom. 5. [...] Matth. [...]. of the Father, lest I should either keep in suspense the well-minded Reader, or seem to darken the truth. You must not, saith he, [Page 183] when you are returned from the Church-meet­ing, intangle your selves in businesses contrary to this exercise: but returning home straightway repeat the holy Scriptures, and call▪ your wife and children together to confer of those things that have been spoken; and these things being fixed more deeply and thoroughly in their mind, than to go and look after the things which are necessary for this life, &c. it never came into St. Chrysostom's mind (who asserts that the Lords day should be free from labour, and doth not so much as grant any on the Lords day to labour for getting food, or avoiding poverty) to give any liberty, that they should freely attend any worldly affairs, which hin­der piety. And he that sayes thus, will do Chrysostom no wrong; but rather he who af­firms, that he indulges men to use these kind of labours on that day, (which he often finds fault with) will fasten the lye on him. And I fear not to say this of them that so assert, that by their crooked interpretation they do ap­ply the words of that grave Father, to quite another sense than Chrysostom thought of. This will be evident with a small adoe, to him that observes the cited place, and com­pares him with other places that do occurr in him: in which it is Chrysostoms purpose to check them, who though in the Church they did attentively enough hear what was [Page 184] said, yet being departed, and forth with ming­ling themselves with their secular affairs, do extinguish the fire of devotion, which the Word praeach'd had kindled in them. For this evil he prescribes this remedy, that so soon as they are returned home, they read the holy Scripture, and commune amongst them­selves about those things that were spoken: which things being deeply fixed in their mind, then to go and look after those things that they judge necessary for this life, they may freely for him; (as afterwards Centur. Magdeb. 8. c. 6. de Cerem. Bed [...] re­lates; after the exercises of piety are finished, there was liberty to take care to refresh the flesh) but to care for any other secular busi­nesses, than those that pertained to their su­stenance, he gave them no liberty. Which also we read was done by Gunteramnus, Ba­ron. 588. 26. Because first the very phrase of Chrysostom [ [...]] may in a sense commodious enough be expounded of things pertaining to life; (so Arrianus translates the words of Chrysostom, even Trapezuntius, one of Greece approving it) for [...] doth properly signifie life, to which death is opposed, or sustenance: and [...] in its native signifi­cation, doth plainly signifie any thing be­longing to sustain life, and getting sustenance, or any thing for the use of this life; whence Strom. 1. 7. Clem. Alexand. [...], is [Page 185] administring necessaries for this life: also in the same man it occurrs, [...].Pag. 500. all necessity pertaining to life. But amongst Divines (as Stephanus observes) when it is spoken of a man, then [...] is secular, or one that is addicted to the affairs of this secu­lar life. And so it often occurrs in Chrysostom, as Hom. 9. in Col. [...], &c. and Hom. 3. de Lazaro, &c. In the same sense, in Justin Martyr, [...] Resp. ad qu. 19. is opposed [...], where he that lives in common life, is distinguished from him that lives in solitariness, [a Monk.] Therefore, according to the na­tive signification of Chrysostoms words, by [...] are denoted things that per­tain to life and sustenance: from the sober use whereof, no Christian is debarred on the Lords day.

How little those things conduce to the defence of secular businesses being undertaken on that day, they know who look into Chry­sostom. We will omit any disputation about the propriety and use of the word, because it pertains to the Grammarian, and ought to be left to others: we will produce the rest, which Chrysostom himself helpeth us to.

Secondly, we intreat the Reader to consider that Chrys. in the aforesaid place is displeased with those that after they are returned from [Page 186] the Church-meeting, are intangled in busi­nesses which are contrary to the exercise (as he speaks) which is held in the Church-as­sembly. Surely, if in Chrysostoms judgment worldly matters might safely be medled with on the Lords day, he would never have re­proved those that looked after them: which yet his very words shew that he sharply did.

Thirdly, he thinks it is too much, yea, alto­gether extreme indevotion, to spend five or 6 days in wordly matters, & not to employ one in spirituals. He that weighs this, will easily grant, that Chrysostom would never have any part of that day consecrated to affairs that smell not of piety. And he that abuses the authority of this holy Father, to palliate the using of labour on that day, although I scru­ple to accuse him of too much indevotion, yet I am troubled that he hath no more reli­gious a care of the Lords festival.

Fourthly, this he layes as a law upon hisUbi supra. Auditors in the same place, that they bestow that onely day of the whole week, on which they meet to hear, all of it in the meditation of those things that are delivered. He that requireth that the rest of the day, which remaineth af­ter hearing the Word in the publick Church meetings, should be spent about meditation & conference of the things they have heard, will allow no liberty after the aforesaid mee­tings [Page 187] are ended, to dispatch worldly affairs, by which pious meditation may be hindred. If therefore, Chrysost. being judge, no other exercises be to be medled with on the Lords day out of the Church-assembly, which are contrary to the duties of piety, performed in those assemblies: if by his grave judgment it be thought a very irreligious thing not to spend one whole day in the exercises of pie­ty; yea, if he earnestly require it from his Auditors, that they consecrate that whole day to their devotion; of all which he tells us his judgment in these very words, then surely it was far from Chrysostoms mind, to give liber­ty for ordinary labours on the Lords Day. Lastly, if his words, which make mention of [...], be stretched to that sense, (because sometimes in Chrysostom [...] is a secular person) Chrysost. did that which Gre­gory the Great in an other sense did, whom the custom of the Laityes seasting on the Lords day usually vexed, yet thought they were not to be punished by law, lest that being made against them, they should become worse; andDistinct. 5. cap deni (que) therefore to avoid the danger of schisme, left them to themselves, so that what he appro­ved not, being constrained through the ne­cessity of the time, he permitted; So here, whatever Chrysostom indulged the people in, he did it against his will, for their sakes, [Page 188] whose minds were not so easily called back from earthly things; to whom yielding in some things, he did gradually bring them on to higher exercises of piety; and indulged them that, which he did not approve, lest any thing worse should happen, he, as it were un­willing, willed it. But as for his part, he judg­ed, that a whole day should be consecrated to the exercises of Religion, any part whareof, as we have seen, he would not have employ­ed in worldly affairs. And thus we have seen St. Chrysostom vindicating himself from some mens foolish gloss: nor is there any body, whose senses either stupour or phlegmatick­ness hath not dulled, which will think other­wise.

Origen also takes it ill, that some do but as­sign Hom. 2. in Num. an hour or two of the whole day to God, and come to prayer in the Church, while they spend the rest of the day about the world and their bel­ly: but if Christians were at liberty when their assemblies are ended, to betake them­selves to their worldly occasions, then this reproof of his had been unjust; against which they might truly answer, that the custom of the Church was to define the sanctification of the day within the terms of two or three houres.

Gregory the Great's Ep. lib. 11. c. 3. judgment is also forThe place of Grego­ry weigh­ed. ceasing from earthly labour, on the Lords [Page 189] day. Indeed in the beginning of that Epistle, he tells us, that Antichrist will make both the Sabbath and Lords day to be kept free from all labour. But lest any one should unwarily de­ceive himself, by not well considering the phrase, as if Gregory had judged that Anti­christ would forbid labour on the Lords day, it is to be noted, that he intimates this, that Antichrist will have an equal regard of the Sabbath, as of the Lords day, because, as Gregory thinketh, Antichrist would call back the observation of the Sabbath; and directs the stile of the former part of his Epistle against those that forbid the working of any thing on the Sabbath day. Nor can the sense of those words of his be otherwise expounded, who thought that labour was to be underta­ken on the Sabbath, from which yet we ought to abstain on the Lords day; but i [...] never came into Gregory's mind, to reckon rest from la­bour on the Lords day, for an interdiction of Antichrist, since Gregory himself doth plainly condemn labour undertaken on that day.

Augustine, Serm. de Temp. 251. It is therefore called the Lords day, that we abstaining on it from earthly works, and worldly pleasures, should onely at­tend on Divine worship; giving honour and re­verence to this day, for the hope of our resurre­ction, which we have in it. Augustin, or who­ever was the author of that Sermon, doth [Page 190] plainly prohibit Christians attending their labours on that day, and thinks it is to be honoured with Divine Worship: for the day which is called the Lords day, is by right to be dedicated to the Lord.

Constantine the Great, about the year 300,Eus. de vit. Const. l. 4. c. 10. ordained, that all the Subjects of the Ro­man Empire should on those dayes cal­led by our Saviours name, [...], i. e. rest from all work. So Sozomen, lib. 1. cap. 8.

Divers passages occurr amongst the anci­ents, which shew, that no earthly labour for the sake of gain, is to be undertaken on that day; which would be needless to run over severally, since the premises demonstrate the truth to all, that reject it not.

But lest any should be deceived in Can. The sense of 29 Can. of the Counc. of Laodi­cea consi­dered. 29. of the Council of Laodicea, held be­fore Constantines time, I will add some­thing to illustrate the true meaning there­of. In which Christians are commanded [...]. i. e. that honouring the Lords day, they should rest (if they can) as Christians. By which exception (if they can) Zona­ras, on Can. 29. Conc. Laodic. thinks, that labour on the Lords day was prohi­bited all Christians, [...], ex­cept the Husbandmans works, to whom [Page 191] the civil Law grants an indulgence. Whose opinion the patrons of labouring on that day do follow; But in this doubtless Zo­naras derives them, and they others, who adhere to his gloss.

For first, the very words of the Canon shew, that Christians, as Christians, ought on that day [...], to rest: whence it appears, that labour on the Lords day is unlawful to Christians. Now the exception which the Canon mentions ( [...]) if they can, ought rather to be understood with a respect had to the time in which the Council was gathered, than to performing (namely of har­vest) labours. For the Council was assem­bled before Constantine the Great entred upon the Empire, at what time the inseriour sort of Christians were compelled by their hea­then Lords, to whom they were subject, and not of their own minds, to perform worldly works on that day, as on others: as a long time after that Council was congregated, the Christians were forced to sit and see the playes: for remedy whereof, the Africans Carthag. Concil. Can. 67. ap. Zonar. ordain, [...], that no Christian should be forced to those playes. For their sakes therefore, who were forced to labour by others, was that exception added by the Laodicean Fathers: not that labours used on that day were ap­proved [Page 192] by them, but because of those that were in bondage to others, and by their se­vere authority or impetuousness, compelled to undergo them on the Lords dayes; I say, for the comfort of these, they put in this ex­ception, if any contrary to their minds were forced by others to do so. Although divers that were stronger in the faith, rather died for it, than that they would any wayes vio­late the Lords day: as formerly we heard out of Baronius, under the reign of Dioclesian. And that this, which we have brought, is the genuine sense of the Laodicean Canon, di­vers authorities of Fathers before the Coun­cil of Laodicea (wherein Christians are pro­hibited earthly labours) do shew: neither can there from thence any in this our age (in which all, God be thanked, have given up their name to Christ) take a pretence to defend the using of worldly labour on the Lords day, since now it is the fashion as well of Masters, as servants, to rest from their la­bours on that day.

And secondly, that Civil Law, on whose authority Zonaras exposition de­pends, was made by Constantine (of which briefly anon) wherein the countrey men had liberty freely to attend their coun­trey labours on the Lords day. Now the [Page 193] Laodicean Fathers being gathered before the first Council of Nice, could have no respect unto a law made some time after the meeting of their Council: but are to be understood, as I said, according to the condition of that age, in which the Christians, although they of themselves rested from labours, were by others compelled, that had not yet embraced the Christian faith, to undergo them.

In the second Council of Matiscon, Can. 1.Conc. Ma­tisc. 2. Can. 1. is explain­ed. about the year 588. it is ordained, that none give themselves to labours, as on private dayes, as they speak; for this is in a rash manner to give up the Lords day to contempt. But the words of the Canon come a little more nar­rowly to be examined, lest, at the first sight, the Reader be imposed upon through some mens perverse interpretation of them.

First, the Fathers ordain, that if any have a Church near him, that he betake himself thither: These words are not so to be ex­pounded, as if none were bound to be present at Church-meetings, but those that had neighbouring Churches at hand, from which, they that lived farther off, might at their pleasure be absent. He that will atten­tively read the beginning of that Canon, will not say, that this was the sense of the Bishops in that Council: who had it put upon them by King Guntheramnus's command, that by [Page 194] all means they could, they look to, that the Christian people should not in a rash manner give up the Lords day to contempt: and therefore the Bishops admonished all Chri­stians in this matter, from which admonition they neither exempt Lawyers nor Countrey men, nor the Clergy, or Monks, as the words of the Canon do shew. And when Gunthe­ramnus Gunt. Ep. ad Episc. p. 704. required it of them, that the body of all the people should assemble on that day, to ex­ercise their devotion, he decrees, that those who set at nought this admonition, should by right be corrected with canonical severi­ty, or the punishment of the Law. If there­fore he, by his own authority, according to the vigor of the Bishops decree, allowed none a liberty to be absent from Church assemblies, none can interpret the aforesaid words of the Canon, as if only those that are near to Churches, were bound to be present at them; since all, as well near as far off, are bound by one and the same law: when therefore they say, if any have a Church near him, it is the same with, Let all go to the Church: as after­wards in Concil. Foroju. Can. 13.

Secondly, Let none wonder, that the Mati­scon Fathers, reciting the exercises of the L. Day, in that Canon, do there only make men­tion of Prayers & Hymns, as if there were no other exercises of piety, besides Prayers and [Page 195] singing of Psalms, to attend on that day: for afterwards, in the same Council, they have ordained something of the Sacraments, Can. 6. And Guntheramnus doth faithfully charge his Bishops, that by frequent preaching they stu­dy to amend the people, by Gods providence committed to their charge. Therefore they de­clare, that no offices of piety be pretermitted on that day. Nor do they define those things only for the exercises of Hymns or Prayers, but peradventure they mention hymns and prayers, because they direct the Canon to the people, whose part it was, to attend these offices, and celebrate the same, and not to preach the Word.

Thirdly, The Fathers in the same place, say, The Lord doth not require of us to celebrate the Lords day by corporal abstinence; Nor are these words so to be taken, as if we were not by virtue of a Divine precept, obliged to rest from worldly affairs, and that vacation from worldly labours on that day were not a Di­vine, but humane ordinance. For the Fathers are intent on this, to teach them, that corpo­ral abstinence, as they speak, is not on the Lords day only required of us, but that God also seeks for that obedience, through which treading under foot all earthly actions, he may in his mercy advance us to Heaven. In that phrase therefore, there is an Ellipsis, as [Page 196] appears from the premises, which the Holy Ghost often uses in both the Testaments. As Gen. 32. 28. Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; that is, thou shalt not only be called Jacob, but also Israel. 1. Sam. 8. 7. They have not despised thee, but me; that is, not only thee. 1 Cor. 1. 17. Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; that is, he was not only, or chiefly intent on baptizing those that had embraced the Christian faith. So here, they grant, that God requires the body to rest from labour, but they affirm, that he doth not only require that: and they certifie all, if they disesteem their wholesome counsel, that they should be pu­nished of God; yet no vengeance of God would pursue them, where they transgressed a command prescribed of him. It appears therefore, from the punishment, with which, according to these Fathers, the violation of this rest is attended by God, that God re­quires of all to rest on the Lords day: other­wise his anger would not wax hot against those that pollute the holiness of this Festi­val, by worldly labours, or slothful idleness. And now these things do evidently enough shew, that gainful labour is to be avoided on the Lords day.

CHAP. XII.

ALthough the Ancients thought that labour tending to gain, was on the Lords day by no means to be undertaken of Christians: yet do they not require a cessation from all labour generally; but ac­cording to the Scriptures, do permit that, which men moved by necessity do under­take. Mat. 12. 11. where Christ teaches us, that a sheep which is on the Sabbath day fallen into a pit, may lawfully be laid hold on, lift up, and drawn out: for no laws are ap­pointed to necessity, which defendeth what­ever it enforceth.

[Page 198]It is ordained in the Council of Narbo, that every man, as well free-born, as servant, Goth, Roman, Syrian, Greek, or Jew, should do no work on the Lords day, nor yoke oxen, except there be a necessity [murando] for walling [otherwise in metendo] for fetch­ing in corn. Can. 4. They therefore allow labour undertaken for necessity. Of which nature there are divers reserved cases, of which frequent mention is made in the De­cretals. In which number, is the taking of Fishes, which, unless they be then taken, cannot be taken at another time. This ap­pears in the catching of Herrings, which do appear seldome, or but upon certain dayes, to catch which (although some think it no case of present necessity) there is liber­ty granted whenever they appear. Decret. Greg. l. 2. de feriis, Tit. 9. cap. licet. & Grego­rius Ep. l. 11. cap. 3. Although he denies that the body is to be washed on the Lords day, out of luxury of mind, or for pleasure­sake, yet he condemns it not, necessity so requiring: whereby it appears, that under the name of baths, all things done out of necessity to the body are allowed.

Neither doth any one find fault with that bour that is bestowed in the exercises of pie­ty: as being that which directly tends to the worship and glory of God, and doth [Page 199] promote Maetth. 12. 5. it. Of ancient time saith Tertul­lian, the law of the Sabbath forbad humane labours, not divine Ad [...] ▪ [...]. 2. c. 21. The Heathens allow­ed a liberty to labour about both these. Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 16. in whose judg­ment, works undertaken for religious devo­tion sake, or any necessity, were lawful amongst them, even on a Festival day.

In another case also, there is by some a certain indulging of labour yielded. By Constantine the Great the Countrey men were permitted to attend on the tilling their ground on that day: But I will set down the words of that indulgence. Cod. li. 3. Tit. 12. de feriis, leg. 3. [...] Let all Judg­es and people in cities, and all crafts-men rest upon the honourable Sunday. Yet let those that live in the countrey, freely, and at their liber­ty, serve husbandry: because it frequently falls out, that on another day the corn and vines cannot so conveniently be committed to the furrows; and so by missing of that ad­vantage, the profit yielded by the heavenly providence perish.

Now if any one, because of that indul­genceCountrey men are bound to sanctifie the Lords Day. granted to to countrey men, to work on the Lords day, think, that they are not at all obliged to sanctifie this solemnity; especially whereas the Fathers of the Church about the year 305. in 1 Eliber. Concil. appointing a Canon about celebra­ting [Page 200] the Lords day, do only make mention of those that live in Cities, when they say, Can. 21. If any dwelling in the Cities shall not for three Lords dayes come to the Church, let him abstain for a while, that he may be thought as one rebuked. If, I say, any will interpret these words so, as if attending this Festivals solemnity, belonged only to Citizens, and that Countrey men were left at liberty on that, to bestow their labour in their trades and affairs, setting aside all care of Religion: as if the Lords day were like those Holy dayes which among the Romans were proper to some Families, which they observed accor­ding to the use of their houshold celebrity: or like those Feriae Imperativae, Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 16. which the Consuls or Praetors proclaimed by the freedome of their power: as if it were for Princes and Magistrates to determine by their power to whom it belongs to celebrate the Lords day: they that so think, neither do reach the sense of the Law made by Constantine, nor of the Eliberitan Canon: because a long while before Constantine of blessed memory, by the grace of God came to the Empire, there was meeting of all in the same place, on the Sunday, whether they lived in City or Country, as Just. Martyr witnesses, Ap. 2. And Hom. 29. in Num. Origen perswades all, that on the Christian Sabbath, they would come to [Page 201] Church, and there hearken to holy Le­ctures and Treatises. These are the duties which Christians are to attend, from which none, no not Countrey men are exempted; but as well they in the Countrey, as they in City, were obliged to be present at Church­assemblies. Which things being consider­ed, I see not to what purpose any should conclude out of the Elib. Council. that they which live in the Countrey are not to at­tend on the Lords Festival: although in the Canon there be express mention of those who live in Cities: because the Bishops and Presbyters (to whom it belonged to go be­fore the other members of the Church in celebrating the Lords day) did dwell in the Cities; and in that age, there was not every where a supply of them afforded for the Villages: therefore the Fathers of that Synod, by name did express these, who were supplied with them that laboured in the Word. And a long time after the Eli­beritan Council was gathered, divers Villa­ges were not furnished with Churches: wit­ness Chrysostom, Hom. 18. in Act.

Besides, when it's plain, that the unlearn­ed, and unbelievers were admitted into the Church-assembly in the Apostles dayes, 1 Cor. 14. 23. why should not the Countrey men, after the Apostles death, be bound to [Page 202] be present at the assemblies of the Church, as if they who had bestowed their pains in tilling the earth, had forthwith forsworn their barbarity? And because they who live in the Countrey, are as well Members of Christ as Citizens; why should not Christ impart his communion as well to these as those in the exercises of Religion, on the Lords dayes? It is expresly commanded in l. 8. c. 33. the Constitutions which they call the Apostles, that on the Lords day servants at­tend in the Church to hear the Doctrine of Re­ligion. And l. 7. c. 19. Sozomen tells us, that amongst the Arabians and Cyprians he found ordain­ed Bishops in Villages. If at that time Bi­shops were set over some Villages, then certes, they who inhabited them were in­structed by the Bishops in the Doctrine of Christ, on all, especially the Lords dayes, as the custome of the Church was. De prae­par. Evan. l. 1. c. 13. Euse­bius also confesseth, that men and women, old men and children, bond and free, noble and ignoble, learned, and unlearned, did almost daily assemble together in every place, where­ever the men lived, to receive the discipline of Christ, from the rising of the Sun to the set­ting thereof. If all men of whatever conditi­on or quality, were daily intent upon the Doctrine of Christ, then they that lived in the Countrey did not refuse it on the Lords [Page 203] day. Yea, the same Author, Orat. de laud. Const. as former­ly we have seen, affirmeth, that Christ hath prescribed all the inhabitants of the world, whether at land or sea, to celebrate the Lords day. Eusebius therefore acknow­ledges not that it's only for Noble men, and others of great name, to be present at Church-assemblies, from which, servants, and those of inferiour condition, should be excluded; but saith, that the Lord himself hath otherwise commanded. Also in Theo­doret Hist. l. 5. c. 17. that pious Emperour Theodosius wit­nesseth, that the doors into the holy Temple are open for servants and beggars: and there­fore in this age, they were present with other Christians in the Church-assembly, and were not excluded from the same.

But let us return to examine that indul­genceThe indul­gence granted by Constan­tine the Great, is examined, granted by the Emperour Constantine to Countrey men, for working their labours on the Lords day. Where first, we may make a question, with the learned Divine, Mr. S. A. Whether any such was ever granted of him for the countrey mens sakes or no? since Eusebius (who was Constantius's contempo­rary, and who well enough knew all things that the Emperour did) speaking of the Law he made about observing the Lords day, makes no mention of this indulgence, Euseb. de vita Constantin. l. 4. c. 18. but only re­lates, [Page 204] how the Emperour commanded that all should rest from their works. In the same manner, Sozomen recites the same law, al­though lib. 1. c. 18. and in both there be a deep silence about excepting country la­bours. Which things being considered, it may justly be doubted, whether ever such an indulgence were granted by that Empe­rour of blessed memory: But come on: and granting this indulgence for the authority of the Book relating it, let us seek out the reason and sense thereof. This was the true reason of that liberty, if there was any grant­ed: Because Constantine subjected all the subjects of the Roman Empire, (whether they had embraced the Christian faith, or had not yet tasted it) to the law of obser­ving the Lords day; De vita Const. l. 4. c. 19. witness Eusebius. Which, though it could be known by no other argument, might be judged of by this, that he calls not that day in the Church man­ner (as An. 321. n. 12. Baronius) The Lords day, but by the Heathen manner, Sunday. Thence, I say, may it be gathered, that the same Law was not prescribed by him to Christians on­ly, but Heathens also, for whose sake he uses an appellation peculiar to them. Since therefore the Gentiles also were to rest from their labours, by virtue of the Law made by [...]stantine; therefore he granted them a [Page 205] liberty to look after their countrey labours. Whereas he knew that those who were not turned Christians, could not easily be brought in to be bound by the Christians lawes, he yielded something for these mens sakes: and Constantine was sufficiently ha­ted by them, for neglecting their idolatry: and therefore by little and little he studied to draw them to the true worship of God; as Euse­bius, ubi supra.

Moreover, the liberty of medling with countrey labours on the Lords day, was granted to countrey men only in case of ne­cessity, which thing the very words of the indulgence do declare: lest through occasion of a moment, the profit yielded by the heavenly providence perish: by the occasion of one moment, the profit of fruits might perish; therefore, in gathering in the fruits, some­times a regard of a moment may be had; no labours are therefore permitted, but to undergo which, they were induced by a certain necessity, lest the fruits should perish; in which case also we have observed world­ly labour is permitted.

That exception therefore of Constantine, This indul­gence revo­ked. cannot be brought to patronize labour used upon no necessity: because he indulged this liberty for the sake of the Heathen only, whom he with all lenity studied as far as he [Page 206] could to perswade them to embrace the Christian faith, and in case of necessity: which being afterwards continued a while, Leo declares void, by a new law set forth to the contrary, and calls that indulgence a decree differing from the Apostles.

But because Leo doth very aptly answer the reason of this indulgence assigned by Constantine, I will set down his very words for the Readers sake. Because, saith he, it is apparent that another law doth contradict that law which commands all to reverence the day of the Lords Resurrection, by a cessation from labours, which determines, that all gene­rally are not prohibited working, & others have a liberty to work, (for it saith, Let all Judg­es, &c. as above in the Law of Constantine) the cause of which profaning that day is ground­ed on no reason; (for although the preserva­tion of fruits may be pretended, yet that is of no weight, and in very deed is foolish: since not the diligence of husbandry, but the virtue of the Sun, when it seems good to the bestower of fruits, doth afford the abundance of fruits;) because, I say, such a law is come forth, as vi­lisies the Lords worship, and is a decree differ­ing from those that by the Holy Ghost have got­ten the victory against all their adversaries; we ordain also, which seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles instituted of him, [Page 207] that all persons cease from labour that day, whereon our innocency was restored (he speaks of the Lords day) and let neither husband­men, nor any others, go about any unlawful work on that day. For if they who observed but a certain shadow and figure, did so greatly reverence the Sabbath day, that they wholly abstained from all labour; how is it not rea­sonable for those who honour the light of grace, and the truth it self, to reverence that day, which is of God enriched with honour, and on which deliverance from shameful destruction was wrought for us? Thus Leo, Novel. 54. Leon. And so (according to that common Proverb, The later day is scholar to the for­mer) what by too much facility, which suited not with the Lords solemnity, was formerly granted by them that followed, who saw the inconvenience of the former liberty, was afterwards amended.

In divers Councils also it was ordained, that no rural labours should be exercised on that day: as about the year 413. in oneAn. 413. and the same year, all servile and rural la­bours, and markets are forbidden, Concil. Aceratensi 14. Can. 16. in Turonensi, Can. 40. in Moguntino, Can. 37. in Rhemensi, Can. 35. & in Conc. Aurelianensi, 3. where theyAn. 540. think fit to determine of rural work, that is, concerning husbandry, or the vineyard, or [Page 208] pruning, or reaping, winnowing, or cutting hedge, that coming to the Church, they moght more easily attend upon prayer. Can. 27. Also in Conc. Narbonensi, cap. 4. it's ordained,An. 589. that they should not yoke oxen. In Concil. Antisiodorensi, Can. 16. It is not lawful to An. 590. yoke oxen on the Lords day, or to exercise other labours. Also in Concil. Calibonen­si, An. 664. Can. 18. We define that none at all pre­sume to work any rural labours on the Lords day; that is, to plow, to reap, make sale, or any thing that pertains to hus­bandry.

But although these things do very abun­dantlyPaula her fact in Hie­rom is ex­amined. shew, that on the Lords dayes we are not to employ our work for gainful labour, since as well they were to be punished by the supreme authority of the Prince, as by the censure of the Church, who did the contrary: yet there are some, who (having no respect either to the worship of God, or to the promoting mens salvation) do affirm, that Christians may on the Lords day safely attend any labours, when the duties of the publick service are ended: to establish which opinion, they first wrest the authori­ty of Hierom, and them of the third Council of Orleans. Hierom. in Epitaphio Paulae ad Eustochium, tells us, that the women return­ing from the Church, on the Lords day, with [Page 209] Paula, were busie about their task, and either made clothes for themselves or others. In the Council of Orleans they determine, that on Can. 27. the Lords day that to be lawful, which was lawful before to be done: only rural labours excepted. Hence some gather, that men are to cease from their labours no lo [...]r on the Lords dayes, than while Make Prayer. collectam faciunt, (as Hierom there speaks.)

But first let the Reader well weigh, whe­ther Hierom in that place may seem to speak of womens labour, which they bestowed about their works on other than the Lords dayes, and whether revertentes ab Ecclesia, in him, be the same as if he had said, when they are not present at Church, they are bu­sie at work. Nor doth this sense of Hierom's words want reason▪ especially because Hie­rom sayes, they went only to the Church on the Lords day. And in another place, Hierom Hier. in Tes. 50. contends, that on the Sabbath (he speaks to those whom Christ had made free, not the Jews) men should only do those things which pertain to the salvation of the soul. Now if those women had on that day plied their labours, they would have done somewhat that had not pertained to the souls salvation: which, by Hierom's judgment, they should not have done. And of others Hierom speaks, who on the Lords dayes did only attend [Page 210] on Prayer and reading. Epist. ad Eustochium de custodia virginit. But Hierom sayes not this, as if on the Lords day to attend the duties of piety, had been only appropriated to the They that lived in a Monastery together. Coenobitae, (of whom he speaks: and other Christians on that day had employed their work o [...]daily labours, from which the Coenobitae ceased: No, by no means. But the Holy Father doth distinguish the works undertaken by the Coenobitae, on the Lords day, from others which they undertook on the other dayes of the week: on which they fell about stated works, (as he speaks) and those being ended, they attended on Prayer, and reading also: which thing they also did every day when they had ended their labours: but on the Lords day they were intent on nothing else but the duties of piety.

Secondly, If it should be granted, that those women did attend their ordinary works on the Lords day, it was proper to them onely: and then what we must think of that fact appears out of St. Cyprian; who,Epst. 63. while he affirms that the Aquarians did bottom on no author or will of Christ, in­sinuateth this Doctrine to us, namely, that the custome of some men is not to be followed, un­less first we enquire whom they followed: whose grave authority we may very fitly accom­modate to the aforesaid women. We are to [Page 211] consider not only what those women did, but upon what authority they did it. If they attended on the Lords day their daily works and labours, they were invited thereunto neither by the authorities of Christ, nor his holy Apostles, nor the lawful practise of the Church (which restrained Christians from those works.) And I believe no body of a sound mind will impose as a law on other mens shoulders, a certain singular cu­stome, confirmed by no law, or authority, but contrary to the general practice of the whole Church: especially when Hierom himself, and other grave Fathers do conclude that nothing but the works of piety, or of some emergent necessity is to be done on that day, as formerly from their writings hath been observed. We do with St. Austin, com­mend Epist. ad [...] Casula­num▪ a custom, which is known to usurp nothing against the Catholick faith.

Thirdly, Charles the Great in his Consti­tutionsCent. 8. c. 6. de mo­ribus Chri­stianorum▪ ordains, that on the Lords day women sow not their clothes. Now we prefer justly the religious ordinance of a pious Empe­rour, depending upon various authorities of Ecclesiastical Canons, to a custome of wo­men, confirmed by no antiquity.

Lastly, I'le only add this, What if those silly women believed it to be a work of cha­rity by the example of Dorcas?

[Page 212]Now I must answer to the authority ofCanon Conc. Au­rel. is con­sidered. the Council of Orleans (which was but a Provincial, and consisted onely of twenty five Bishops) for performing all labours on that day, excepting rural, in the same man­ner as sometimes Hierom Ep. ad Euagr. Hierom to Euagrius, while he was shewing what difference there was between a Bishop, Elder, and Deacon, he would not have the custom (in some sort con­trary to his opinion) of one City (namely Rome) to be brought out against him, for, he being judge, the authority of the world was greater than the Citie's. And so I must say here. If an indulgence for them had grown into use with the rest of the Church, or had been supported by reason, or any authority; then the sentence of this (though Provin­cial) Council had been of some weight: but in this their custome being rejected of the Church up and down dispersed, is not to be obtruded as a law upon all.

Then secondly, the Bishops being con­gregated in that Council, purposed to ob­viate (as they speak) the Jewish observa­tion of the Sabbath. And they yield these things, lest they should rather seem to set up a Jewish institution, than Christian li­berty: and the very words of the Canon do intimate, that the people were perswaded that these things ought not to be done. I'le [Page 213] add nothing of the corrupting that place (which Binius judges to be depraved) only let others judge what authority is to be given to it: it suffices us, that the Fathers with one consent do interdict all Christians earth­ly affairs, and worldly works on Lords days, although some, abounding in their sense, do seem to think otherwise.

Lastly, that I may put an end to this Chapter, two things now remain to be con­sidered in the Emperours Laws, made about the Lords Day, which, according to some, do mightily prejudice its solemnity: the first of these is considered in their Manu­missions, and the second in some certain transactions to be done on the Lords day: and since both of these are a civil office, some think that certain worldly things for that cause were to be done on that day, which were not works of piety. To add somewhat of both these offices, will not be far from our purpose.

The indulgence for making free and ma­numitting,Manumis­sions per­formed on the Lords day. granted by the Christian Empe­rours, and to be done on the Lords day, could not hinder its religious solemnity; which, that it may appear, the reason of that institution is a little better to be enqui­red into. Constantine, of blessed memory, studied by laws, and all other means to [Page 214] promote the worship of God: amongst other things, he granted liberty to the Church, by law, that whoever were made free, the Priests being witnesses, they should be inrolled into the number of the Roman Ci­tizens: So Nicephorus Hist. l. 7. c. 46. and Sozomen Hist. l. 1. c. 8. And if any desire to see the form of these Manumissions, it is extant in the fragments Conc. Toleran. andConc. T. 3. p. 566. in the learned Instellus his notes in Canones Africanos, Can. 64. whither I refer the Reader: because it is only my purpose to touch something of the time wherein these Manumissions were done; which, by Histo­rians, and the Emperours laws, we see fall out to be on the Lords day: and that espe­cially for the honour of the Church, and increase of Christian Religion: while they by the Bishops were performed in the Church, the Bishops were had in greater esteem among the people: till (as the learn­ed Instellus very well observeth) as former­ly servants were manumitted in the Temple of the Goddess Feronia, so afterwards, by the Emperours Constitutions, together with their liberty, they obtained to be Roman De­nizens in the Church: No otherwise then as among the Egyptians, the cubit wherewith the inundation of Nilus was wont to be marked, was no more brought, as the cu­stome [Page 215] was, to the Temples of the Heathen, but from that time to the Churches of the Christians, Sozomen 1. c. 8. After this man­ner the Emperour did earnestly regard the worship of God in making his laws; to en­crease which, he also established that about Manumissions to be made on the Lords day in the Church.

Moreover, servants, those for the most part whom their Masters discharged against their will, obtained their freedome, not with­out great difficulty, as Sozom. therefore the servants (as saith Zonaras in Can. 88. Cartha­gin.) fled to the Church; and if the Bishop determined equally, they were manumitted. Thereupon the Emperour ordains, Soz. l. 9. that all who were by the Priests testimony set at liberty in Churches, should be made Denizons of the Roman Commonwealth. And after­wards, in process of time, the Fathers of the Synod thought good to advise the Emperour that this might be done, Conc. Carth. Can. 88.Ap. Zon [...] ­ram. Now the benefit of liberty (of which the Emperour was desirous, as tending to the glory of God) was very acceptable to God; and for charity sake on that day (whose ho­liness works of charity do not dishonour) was also to be performed.

I could also name another cause, assign­ed in the fragments Conc. Toletan. Some [Page 216] thought that they did a thing very accepta­ble to God, and profitable▪ to their own souls, if in the Church of some Saint, in the presence of the Bishop, or the Priests there standing, or the noble Laity, before the horn of the Altar of that Church, send out their servants free by a charter of absolution and freedom from all bonds of servitude: But these superstitious Manumissions for reme­dy of the soul, as they speak, were observed about the four hundredth year after Christ: but that formerly mentioned by Zonaras, Sozomen, and Nicephorus, was the true cause why first the pious Emperours lookt to that these Manumissions were performed on the Lords day: which we do not see hindred the Lords solemnity.

As Manumissions do not obscure this so­lemnity, so certain transactions are lawful on the Lords day. Nor can this hinder it, that Leo, a most earnest defender of the Lords festival, did indulge those that were at odds Cod. l. 3, tit. 12. leg. 11. amongst themselves, leave to meet on the Lords day, vicaria poenitudine, whereon they might conferr of their bargains, & speak of their trans­actions. These which were offices of chari­ty could not destroy the Lords solemnity. For that holy man Leo would have adversaries freely, and without fear, to meet together, & vicaria poenitudine, (which the interpreter [Page 217] of the Law expounds by repentance, which ought to return by course, that is, on the Lords dayes: or vicaria poenitudo is that which one expecteth from the other by turn) be reconciled to one another; to effect which reconciliation, they might be at their liberty to confer of their bargains, and speak of their transactions. But all these things were granted by the Emperour, not for any worldly end, but for renewing their lost friendship, which could not obscure the honour of the festival, on which the things that pertained to peace and concord were permitted; for they then, as it were leaving their gift before the Altar, went their way, that they first might be reconciled to one another, and then come and offer their gift;Mat. 5. 24. which reconciliation could not be made without mention of their bargains and trans­actions, upon whose account they were at difference. And thus much for avoiding worldly affairs, and especially gainful la­bours, on the Lords day.

CHAP. XIII.

EVen as the solemn observation of this day is not to be profaned by labour tending to our profit: so neither is it for us to give our selves to the pleasures or delights of the world on it. We do not (saith Prima­sius in Gal. 4.) celebrate festival dayes in luxu­ry and banquettings: and that justly: Cyril lib. 8. in Joh. c. 5. for if a work be for bidden on a feast day, that by the body may be exercised for necessity of life, that we may more entirely attend on Divine matters: are not those things by better right prohibited, which cannot be done without sin, and grievous offending of God? It's for Chri­stians therefore neither by sur [...]eiting, nor sports, to defile the religious observation of this day. In celebrating festivals, divers of the Fathers do to their power reprove riot­ing and drunkenness.

[Page 219] Greg. Naz. Orat. 48, in Iulian. 2. when he describes the man­ner how Christian festivals are to be cele­brated, admonisheth, that we rejoyce not with the varnish of the body, nor change of garments, and their gorgeousness, not in rioting and drun­kenness, whose fruit, you have learned, cham­bering and wantonness are: nor let us crown our streets with flowers, nor our tables with the deformity of oyntments: neither let us adorn our porches, nor let our houses shine with a visible light, nor sound with a concord and shouting of Minstrels: for this is the manner of Heathens celebrating their festivals, &c. when he judgeth all kind of luxury is to be removed from Christians in their festivals, not only because the body being stuffed with meat, and overcharged with wine, easily falleth into wantonness; but because amongst the Heathens (with whom the Church in celebrating festivals ought to have nothing common) this was an usual thing.

Festivals are not to be celebrated in drink­ing off cups of wine, but in renewing the spirit of the mind, and purging the heart: for he that facrificeth to the belly and Bac­chus, doth more stir up to anger the Lord of the celebrity. Scholion 5. in Johannis Chinac [...] gradum decimum quartum de Gula.

It grieved Cyril, that so many amongstUbi supra. [Page 220] the Christians did on festival dayes, give up themselves either to honest sports, surfeiting, dances, or other vanities of the world: and he affirms, that these rites tend to no other end than the derision of Gods name, and slight­ing of the day: and they that follow these things, do grievously sin, the rather, that they go about these things at a more holy time: for surely, they that give the reins to the belly and pleasures, cannot celebrate a festival day.

St. Chrysostom by two arguments of greatHom. de Eleemos. 2. l. 5. p. 819. weight and authority, doth perswade his hearers, spiritually to observe the Lords day. In the first place, from the various good things which we do enjoy on that day: and secondly, from our happy freedome from evils: and at length descends to re­move those means, whereby that spiritual honour is wont to be hindred, not by ban­quetting, not by pouring out wine, nor attend­ing on drunkenness: in his judgment such wicked deeds as these do no little detract from the honour of the Lords day. Yet ma­nyServants not to be called off from san­ctifying the Lords day. in this our age, (especially the richer sort) for these causes cannot avoid a just re­prehension: who above measure on the Lords day filling themselves with surfeit, keep their servants at home to prepare meat finer than ordinary to satisfie their insatia­ble [Page 221] luxury: and think much to give them leave to go to Church to feed their souls with the holy bread of life.

It once grieved Ambrose, that a certainSer. 33. Christian in the time of a fast, did draw with him to an hunting, some servants that were ac­cidentally hasting to the Church, because there­by he heaped others sins on his own pleasures, not knowing that he would be both guilty of his own offence, and the perdition of the servants. And why should not we as well grieve, when we see divers professing themselves Christi­ans to the world, not to be more careful for promoting the salvation of their Christian servants, whilst they hinder them from the publick assemblies of the Church on the Lords day, that they may serve their lust? Especially while, as saith Ambrose, they do Ubi supra. not consider, that although they be servants in condition, yet are they brethren by grace; for they have as well put on Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and have the same God for their father which their Masters have.

St. Paul would eat no flesh whilst the world stood, rather than that his eating should make his brother to offend. 1 Cor. 8. 13. David scrupled the very once tasting of the water which was drawn out of the well of Bethlem by his Worthies, with the great peril of their lives, 2 Sam. 23. With [Page 222] how more heinous a spot do they brand themselves therefore, who do expose the souls of their servants (whom they detain at home from the publick meeting of the Church, to serve their vanities) unto so great a danger? a wickedness it is rather be­seeming those that sacrifice to Bacchus, than those that keep a festival to God.

In the Council of Paris, this very sameCan. 50. wickedness grieved the Fathers, for though the Lords day seemed to be kept in some reve­rent manner, by certain Masters, yet was it found very seldome to be observed with due ho­nour of their servants under subjection. I wish that the Christian Religion, even defiled with the blot of this wickedness, in our age, were not ill spoken of amongst divers! At least, I beseech in Christ, those that are the cause of others absence from the publick exercises of piety, that they would, with their servants which they keep at home, be pleased to do that which Chrysostom requiresHom. 10. in Gen. of his hearers; namely, to discourse of what they heard, with them that were absent, by which means, they might hear and learn from them, what they lost themselves in prepa­ring of corporal food, being held from spiritual, Let them consider this, who cause those that are under them to be hindred of spiritual food, that they may prepare corporal meat for their use.

[Page 223] Gregory Dist. 5. cap. deui [...] ▪ allowed not at all the custom of Laicks; feasting ordinarily on Lords dayes, from which they could not easily be moved.

In the mean while, I am not ignorant,We ough [...] not to fast on the Lords daye that in the old Church divers Canons are extant, of not keeping fasts on the Lords day. Although they condemned not a Fast of it self, and in the general, as a work contrary to Gods command, or that is repugnant to his Word: because divers illustrious ex­amples thereof are afforded in the rules both of Old and New Testament; yet did they judge, that Fasts on that day were to be relaxed.

To the Africans, he that fasteth on the Lords day is no Catholick; to Ep. ad Phil. An. 324. Ignatius, he is [...], a killer of Christ. Yea, in Con­cil. Gangren. Can. 18. an anathema is de­nounced against the observers of this fast; and prohibitions of this nature are frequent amongst the ancients; the cause whereof Zonaras In Can. 52. Conc. in Tralla. seems to teach, while he saith, the time of fasting is appointed for sorrow; but a festival celebrity for mirth and joy. He teaches the same in Can. 18. Concilii Gan­grensis. Therefore, because the Lords day, being consecrated by Christs Resurrection from the dead, it is a day of joy to theAug. Ep. 86. Church: thereupon, the rejoycing Christi­ans [Page 224] gave thanks on that day to God, and relaxed their fasting, and abstained from every right that might inferr any sorrow. They were stirred up to this also by the pranks of Hereticks, who denied the Resur­rection of Christ; amongst whom the Ma­nichees acted with a Diabolical spirit, and studying to diffuse this errour, that they might extinguish the joy of Christians for the saving Resurrection of Christ, have pre­scribed Fasts on the Lords day to their fol­lowers: whose errours, and others which held the same, that the Orthodox might prevent, they have lookt to it, that on overy Lords day the Fast should be re­laxed.

But although we reject not the Canons set out by the Church in detestation of Here­ticks, yet we affirm, that provision was made in them about this matter, was or­dained by the Fathers, and not by the Apo­stles. Otherwise St. Austin had missed it,Ep. 86. when he said, It is not defined by our Lords command, or of the Apostles, on what dayes we ought not, and on what to fast. And if this had been a true Apostolical ordinance, it had been lawful for the Church to fast on the Lords day, when no occasion was offer­ed. But Hierom thinks otherwise, while hea Ep. ad Lucin. wisheth that we might fast at every season [Page 225] (he excepts not the Lords day) and sayes, that Paul, and the faithful with him, fasted on the Lords day, yet doth he not accuse them of the Manichean Heresie. And be­cause we read not that the aforesaid Canons were ordained by the Apostles, therefore they are grown out of use in the Church: because, like as the impious madness of He­reticks, adulterating the Christian faith, hath given the Church occasion to ordain divers ceremonies in the external worship of God, by which they might both extin­guish their poison, and better confirm the minds of Christians in the truth once recei­ved, which, as before those Herefies did put up the head, were not in use; so those being extinct, they grew into dis­use again.

Therefore, whatever we meet with in the ancients, of prohibiting Fasts on the Lords day, doth not at all enervate my opinion of avoiding surfeit on that day, which is con­firmed with the gravest sayings of the appro­ved Fathers; neither do they make any thing against me: to fast and surfeit do differ far enough: between which extremes, a third thing is given; namely, a sober and moderate dinner: the use whereof, none will deny to Christians on the Lords day, unless any think with Urbicus, Aug. Ep. 86. that not [Page 226] to fast is to be drunk. Austin, who used a sparing and frugal table, tells us, that he entertained at dinner with him, a man mi­raculously restored to his former health on the Lords day De Civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8., Possid. de vita Aug. c. 22. because he shewed hospita­lity, as Possidonius.

Arbogastes being entertained at a feast by the King of France, and asked, Whether he knew Paulin. de vit. Amb. Ambrose? answered, that he knew the man, and was beloved of him, and often was wont to feast with him. Some interpret this, as if St. Ambrose fared delicately on the Lords day (on which day, and the Sabbath, and when the birth-dayes of Martyrs were celebrated, Paulinus reports he was wont to dine) because on that day Noble men were entertained by him: but Paulinus relates not that Ambrose did entertain to a Feast Count Arbogastes on the Lords day. Arbogastes boasteth in Paulinus, that he often feasted with Ambrose, but whether he spoke the truth in this, is a question, although An. 375. n. 24. Baro­nius reporteth it for a truth, who yet men­tions not the day on which he held this feast. Arbogastes also glories, that he was beloved of Ambrose; but it's easie to con­jecture, that there was but small friendship between Ambrose and Count Arbogastes, whenas Ambrose so hated his sacrilege: for which cause Arbogastes being incensed, vow­ed [Page 227] that he would make a stable of the ChurchIdem. of Millain, and would try how the Clergy could fight. Therefore it's not certain, whe­ther what he spake of the feast was true. He might perhaps insinuate to the King, who highly esteemed Ambrose the Bishop of Mil­lain, that he was prized by him somewhat, that he might be more highly regarded of the King. However it was, when Ambrose himself would never be present at a feast Possid de vita Aug. cap. 27. in his own countrey, being invited; it may be judged, whether it's likely that he would in­vite others to a feast on the Lords day, who refused to be present at other mens feasts himself.

Lastly, if it were granted that Ambrose did entreat Count Arbogastes at a Feast, whe­ther will any believe it, who considers the austere life of Ambrose, chastizing his body with that discipline (as Paulinus ibidem) that he observed a daily Fast, that he would distain himself with feasts on the Lords day, which hindred the exercises of Religion, ei­ther publick or private? Nay, truly. He might perhaps dine on the Lords day, as the custome of the Church required: but we must not believe that the grave Father did fare so daintily on that day, as that he could not attend the duties of piety: con­cerning which nature of feasts, we are [Page 228] here speaking: in which number that is to reckoned, which Baronius mentions out of Gregor. Turonens. An. 484. n. 142. who tells us of a certain Presbyter, invading the Bishoprick of A­vergue, after the death of Sidonius Apolli­naris, who, when the Lords day came, ha­ving prepared a banquet, commanded that all the Citizens should be invited into the Church: a wickedness indeed beseeming the author, that he who had ambitiously in­vaded the Bishops See, against the Canons of the Church, should violate the Lords so­lemnity by his feast, that hindred the duties of Divine worship: which unlawful exam­ple, I hope no body that relisheth any thing of Christ will follow. And now I will con­clude with St. Austin, Ep. 86. ibidem. that none can right­ly deny, that a Christian may on the Lords day be refreshed with a moderate and sober din­ner, and also will affirm with that grave Father, that those who fear God must not riot on the Lords Day.

CHAP. XIV.

THey that are cloyed with luxurious banquets, drunken feasts, and lewd drunkenness, cannot devoutly consecrate the Lords day to God: so they that de­lighting in luxury, do give up themselves to pleasures, are unfit for the sanctifying there­of, because with their pleasures they defile the Hierom in Is. 58. Lords holy day: pleasure is the individual companion of drunkenness, and intempe­rance in many, becomes a cause of lascivi­ousness, as we say in the Proverb, When the belly is well filled, then follow dances; we read that these have been condemned with great fervour of mind, and most holy zeal, with the old friends of sincere piety: which Chrysostom, Hom. de Eleemosyna, would not have any attend on: and no wonder, for all [Page 230] such worldly spectacles with Chrysostom are called Sathans Festivals, from which he ex­hortsHom. 32. in Joh. his hearers to abstain: and sharply re­proveth Parents, that bring their Hom. 3. in Johan. children to spectacles, and exhort them not to Do­ctrine.

Cyril was sorry, as we have seen in the former Chapter, l. 8. in Jo. c. 5. that Christians should on feast dayes run to playes, pageants, and dan­cings, because in his judgment, these things cannot be done without mocking of Gods name, and violation of the day: for the holiness of festivals is miserably distained by petulant dancings: therefore Leo and Authemius, those good Emperours, ordain, that festi­vals [...] Cod. l. 3. tit. 12. de feriis. l. 11. being dedicated to the most High Majesty, are by no pleasures (which afterwards in detestation of them they call obscene) to be defiled. They say also, We decree the Lords day alwayes to be so honourable and reverent, that it be excused from all executions, &c. And after, Nor▪ yet do we, relaxing the rest of this holy day, suffer any one to be witholden by obscene pleasures. Let the scene of the Thea­tre, or the fights in the Cirque, or the doleful sights of wild beasts, challenge nothing to them­selves on that day: and if any solemnity fall out to be celebrated on our Birth-day, let it be deferred. If any one shall ever be present at [...]ghts on this Feast-day, he shall sustain the [Page 231] loss of his command in the Militia, and the sale of his patrimony; and likewise the Serjeant of every Judge, that under pretence of either publick or private business, doth believe that these things which are ordained in this law are to be violated.

The Fathers in the Council C [...]. 67. of Carthage were of the same mind, who provided, that no sights should be shewed on the Lords day, or any other of the festivals. Yea, even in the thickest darkness of Popery, so solemn was the splendour of this day, that the Cimme­rian darkness of Antichristianism could ne­ver overcome it. Therefore it was provided, Can. 10. part. 9. of the Provincial CouncilCirca An. 1556. of Colen, that there should be an abstinence from these. Wherefore (say they) it is our mind, that on these dayes (they speak of Festivals) Fairs be prohibited, Taverns be shut, Riot, Drunkenness, Expences, Strifes, wicked Sports, Dances full of madness, evil Communication, Bawdy Songs, be avoided: briefly, all Luxury: for by these, and the bla­sphemies and perjuries which usually attend these, the name of God is profaned, and the Sabbath (which admonisheth us to cease from doing perversly, and learn to do well) is de­filed.

In the third Council also of Millain, theyAn. 15 3. decree, Let the Bishop carefully prohibit, and [Page 232] see to it that it be done, that not only no leap­ings and dancings, but no riot, playes in honour of the Saints, and other profane actions, un­meet for the worship of those festival dayes, and pious institutions, be any wayes publickly act­ed on these dayes, or brought in under pretence or occasion of them.

If men brought up in the Cimmerian dark­ness of Antichristianism, declining the pure light of the Gospel, like Owls, yet could not, through the splendour of truth, but bear an illustrious testimony to the Lords festival: and thereupon condemned what was opposite to its sanctification, as dances, which they call full of madness, and wicked sports, by which the Sabbath, on which Christians are to cease from doing evil, is violated: if by no means, under any pre­tence, they permit leapings and danings to be acted: to how tremendous a judgment do the ill-employed Libertines of this age expose themselves? who now having the face of the Church happily discovered, by the sacred Light of the Gospel, are not afraid to tread under foot the holiness of this day, by giving the reins to pleasures, and dances, running out into folly, so often con­demned by the Fathers? As if they made haste to pass over into the heretical tents of the Heicetae, Damasc de Haeic. who in other things following the [Page 233] Churches authority, in their Monasteries, by a company of Monks praised God, using tripu­diations, and dances thereunto. A wicked­ness indeed more becoming Hereticks than Christians. What once the learned Morton in his Catholic. Apolog, lib. 2. cap. 14. rela­ted of Tollet, we will apposirely apply to the Patrons of dancing on the Lords day. Tollet affirms, that a man is bound, under a mortal sin, to sanctifie a Festival, but he is not bound to SANCTIFIE IT WELL. On the other side, Morton cryes out, and that justly, What (the foul ill!) what a sanctify­ing is this, that wants Well, without which, no action can be acceptable to God? So these mens sanctifying of this day, (while they grant the Lords day must be sanctified, but labour not to sanctifie it Well) is rather to be reckoned a profanation, than sanctifica­tion thereof. Alas! Are these fruits be­seeming so long a preaching of the holy Go­spel? while men do on the Lords day so profusely serve the pleasures of the flesh. The primitive Christians, whose souls are now in rest, celebrated not so the Lords day, who made conscience of intermitting its solemnity upon any occasion.

If on holy dayes we must abstain from law­ful, and necessary labours, must we therefore attend upon unlawful, vain, and unhonest [Page 234] works? God forbid. The women of the Jews had better on the Sabbath day spin, than dance on their New Moons, as Augustin judgeth. And on Psal. 39. It is better to dig, than dance on the Sabbath.

But these things are not so to be expound­ed, as if St. Austin had commended the un­dertaking of gainful labour on that day: but that grave Father doth praise the scope of those men rather, who do apply their just and lawful labour, than their unlawful va­nities: as otherwhere he relates of Socrates, Aug. deve­ra rel. c. 2. that swore by flesh, a stone, or any thing that was at hand to swear by: not that he approved Socrates's fact, but by this means he would instruct his hearers, that although neither be agreeable to reason, yet it is bet­ter to transferr Gods honour to Gods work­manship, than to the works of mens hands. So, although we must not attend on the Lords day, on labour undertaken for gain­sake, but only on Divine worship; yet the good Father judged it better on that day, to employ our pains about labours lawful on other dayes, than about vanities, alwayes unlawful, and severely condemned of God; although neither will very well agree with the solemnity of that day.

If any one till his ground on the Lords day, he violates the holy rest, but if the re­fore, [Page 235] he, leaving his husbandry, be drunk, or commit whoredome, shall he not be thought to profane the holiness of the Lords Day? If all profaneness, and carnal delight ought to be banished from the Church, then especially it should, when man doth peculi­arly apply himself to the worship of God. If Tertullian thought it an uncomely thing, and altogether alien from the Religion of publick joy, to celebrate those dayes which were dedicated to the Nativities of the Em­perours, with that vanity, which the Hea­thens abused in such kind of Festivals, where­as Tert. adv. Gen. c. 35. what was acted on the solemn birth-dayes of Princes, would not be thought comely on other dayes: with what spirit are they acted, to whom unchaste dancings, obscene sports, and mad tripudiations shall seem lawful, on the Day dedicated to our Lords honour? Shall the licentiousness of evil manners be pie­ty? an occasion of Luxury be reckoned Religi­on? We must rather say with Tertullian, That it is for men of the true Religion, to ce­lebrate both the Emperours solemnities, and the Lords day, out of conscience rather than li­centiousness. And if any like dancing, I ear­nestly ask it of him, that he would apply his mind to those spiritual dances, which Chrysostom mentions: in which there is much Hom. 1. de Laz t. 5. p. 220. comeliness and modesty, with which Christians [Page 236] must dance, not to the measures of harp and pipe, for they themselves ought to be both harp and pipe to the Holy Ghost: and when others lead the dance to the Devil, these being in the Church, offer themselves the organs and ves­sels to the Spirit, and afford their souls, as musical instruments which the Holy Ghost should play upon, and move; and they give their hearts as Organs, into which he may in­spire his grace. These are those dances of the Angels, Basil. Ep. 1. ad S. Gregor. (and what can be more blessed, than upon the earth to imitate the dance of Angels?) approved by the Holy Ghost, and worthy the Christian name: in which, he that on the Lords day shall diligently be busied, will not bend his mind to those immodest leapings or dancings, (which Chrysostom calls Diabolical, Hom. 55. in Gen. because where this wanton dancing is, there the Devil is, Chrysost. Hom. 49. in Math.) so often condemned; but will refresh his soul, wearied with the sad burden of his fins, by the spiritual joy of these dances: and prepare himself the better to celebrate that eternal Sabbath in the Heavens, which must be observed for ever with all the Saints. And that this is the solemnity which beseemeth the Feasts of Christians, Gregory Nazianzen sheweth at large, andOrat. 48. in Jul. 2. [...] exhorts us, to take hymns for timbrels, sing­ing [Page 237] Psalms, for filthy and ribald songs, a clap­ping of hands when we give thanks, for clap­ping the hands in the Theatre; gravity for laughter, prudent speech for drunkenness, com­liness and honesty for delicious pleasures. And if it be convenient for thee, when thou cele­bratest a Festival merrily, to dance, then dance, yet not the dance of Herodias, but of David, when he danced for the resting of the Ark: by which I think mystically is meant, the nimbleness and volubility of our holy journeying, and that which is pleasing to God. Thus he.

Ephrem Syrus gives the same counsel,Serm. de cruce Dom. whose testimony deserves to be added here. Let us honour, saith he, the Lords Festivals divinely, not in a worldly manner, but spi­ritually, not after the custome of the Heathens, but Christians: let us not lead dances, nor ef­feminate our ears with pipes and harps.—You, both small and great, men and women, let us in a Christian manner celebrate the Lords Fe­stivals, in Psalms, and Hymns, in spiritual Songs, and Angelical melody. That blessed Soul uttered this, about the Lords Festivity,Hom. 26. in 1 Cor. the reason of all which, is extant in Chry­sostom. There is, saith he, a time for Pray­ers, not for drunkenness, and that alwayes, and especially at solemnities. For a solemnity is therefore instituted, not to live filthily, [Page 238] nor to abound in sin, but to extoll present things.

These and many other testimonies of the Ancients, do shew, that all carnal follow­ing of worldly delights, (whereby the sparks of the Holy Ghost being stirred up in the Lords day holy exercises of piety are choak­ed) by which either Divine worship may be hindred, or the fruit thereof prevented, ought far to be banished from the Christian Church. For it is as sure as can be, as some­times in Ps. 45. Ruffinus, that when we are idle and negligent, when we lift not up our mind in heavenly desires, when we grow cold in the love of our Lord, when we spend the day in fables, and wicked cogitations, then we more attend upon the Devil than God. And after; The enemy derides our Sabbaths, when they see us to be at leisure for the idleness and vanities of the evil spirit.

If Sympos. l. 4. q. 5. Plutarch thought that the Jews did worship Bacchus on their Sabbath, because they then strove at their cups and riotings, and gave themselves wholly to drunken­ness, (and for that cause called the Sab­bath [...], which signifies Bacchus, or the son of Bacchus) how much more truly might he at this day say it of many in the Church, if he observed how they are given to Bacchus, Venus, sports, and mad dances? [Page 239] and yet these sins do rage all abroad, with­out danger of punishment, to the great ig­nominy of the Christian name: for there is no wickedness so heinous, which is not most of all committed on the Lords holy day: Polid. Vir. de in­vent. re­rum, l. 6. c. 8. While the greatest part of men do daily more and more spend the rest of Festival dayes not in praying, not in hearing the Scriptures, for which cause the rest was given, but for all manner of encreasing the corruption of good manners: saying, that they do it for their mind sake, as if they were altogether of Pla­to's mind, who said, that for that very pur­pose did God institute such holy Festivals. And he repeats the same complaint, in his Expo­sition of the Lords Prayer, when he ex­plains the fourth Petition, and thus la­ments; At this day, no time is usually more spent in all manner of sports, in dances, wan­ton love, company-keeping, dicing, bargains, and fairs.

These do abundantly shew, that dan­cings, sports, and sights, were both forbidden of the Emperours and Fathers, that they should not at all be kept on the Lords day: which, he that views the sacred Decrees of the one, and the grave Records of the other, will not deny. Yet when all is done, lest some think (Tert. de specta. 29. whom the Doctrine of the [...]e delights, and those who release their [Page 240] minds to pleasure, more than is fitting) that not all, but some kinds of those sports, were forbidden, and that only while the Church-assemblies were held, as though the Christian people were at their liberty, to use certain kinds of dances and sights, even upon the Lords day, when the publick Church-assemblies were finished; to whom it seems, Tertul. de spectac. c. 1. such extrinsecal solaces of the eyes and ears, do nothing interrupt the Religion in their mind and conscience: as though God could not be offended with the delight of man; which, without any prejudice to Gods fear and honour, to enjoy in fit time and place is no sin: lest any one here should think so, I will over and above add something, that may make more for illustrating the genuine sense of the aforesaid prohibitions.

And in the first place, this is worth ourFour kinds of sights anciently. knowing, that sights, playes, and conflicts, were amongst the ancients under the same kind: and in Tertullian there are reckonedAp. adv. Gent. c. 38. four kinds of sights; namely, 1. Circi insa­nia, [i. the folly of the Cirque.] 2. Thea­tri impudiciti [...], [i. the wantonness of the Theatre.] 3. Arenae atrocitas, [the cruelty of the Sand.] 4. Xysti vanitas, [i. the va­nity of the Xyst, or wrastling-gallery.] In the Cirque, four horses run striving one with another; In the Theatres were acted Stage­playes, [Page 241] and immodest Interludes were re­cited; In the Sand, were setting together wild Beasts, and Fencers; Lastly, in the Wrastling galleries, there were the praeludia of these Games, while the Wrastlers were exercised in their Schools, and the swiftness of the runners was tryed. Whence, the same Tertullian calls the founders and orderers of these sights, Tert. de spect. c. 22. Quadrigiarios, Scenicos, Xysti­cos, & Arenarios. Whatever we meet with to be observed about them, by the searchers of antiquity, it is to be referred to these kinds of sights. And all these are disallowed by the ancients, especially by Tertullian and Cyprian, in their books which they have set out purposely de spectaculis. In which their Idolatrous original (because at first amongst other superstitious rites, they were institu­ted under the name of Religion) and di­vers obscene provocations of lust flow­ing from them, are recited and condem­ned.

But when the Emperours had embraced the Christian Faith, it seems all other acts but the sights in the Cirque, and Theatre were ceased: and hence it was, that theIt is not for Chri­stians to be present at sights. grave Fathers, being haters of Games, when they write against sights, do not so much make mention of others, as of these two: and against them, from which they judge, [Page 242] that all Christians should withdraw, they direct a sharp stile enough; neither by their good will, would they have any mem­bers of the Church at any time, much less on the Lords day, to be present at them. This the books above cited, de spectaculis, do without me saying any thing, abundantly testifie.

The holy, and general Synod in Trulle,Can. 51. forbids those Jesters, as they are called, and the sights of them: and then the seeing of huntings, and those dances that are acted in the Scene. Neither is the time named by them, on which they are prohibited, but they say, that the Synod, [...], forbiddeth altogether: and what is forbid­den altogether, is to be done at no time. For (as Zonaras expounds the Canon) the Faithful are to lead their life by the prescript of Evangelical discipline, and not remiss­ly, [...], i. as becometh Saints. All those things therefore, by which the mind cannot be released, by a necessary re­mission, and whereupon immoderate laugh­ters are provoked, are by the decree of this Canon forbidden.

Now, if in their judgment, we must not at any time see the actions of Jesters, or Scenical dancings, much less must we on the Lords day, which is expresly ordained by [Page 243] the Africanes in the Council of Carthage. Can. 67. ap. Zona. St. Chrysostom, Cyril, Ephrem Syrus, Greg. Naz. and divers other Fathers, have taught the same. The sacred Emperours, Leo, An­themius, and others, have decreed the same, whose testimonies are formerly recited in this Chapter.

But although the truth of this be largely demonstrated, Cypr. de spectac. yet so far is the vigour of Ec­clesiastical discipline enervated, and by the languishing whereof, we are thrown down into so bad a condition, that now not only an ex­cuse, but authority is given to vice. Where­upon,No worldly pleasures to be used on the Lords day. the same falls out in our age, which did sometime in Cyprians, there are not want­ing fawning assertors, and indulgent patrons of vices, who give authority to vice. These do, as we said, batter with a double Ram, the a­foresaid truth, confirmed by so many illustri­ous testimonies of the ancients. And they contend, that worldly shows were forbidden of the Fathers, only for two causes, either because they were obscene in themselves, and of their own nature, and therefore ne­ver lawful; or else because they were held at such a time, as the publick meetings of the Church were celebrated: according to them, honest and sober dances, as they speak, notwithstanding the aforesaid Canons and Statutes, especially after the Church-meet­ings [Page 244] are ended, may safely be used. How wise doth disputing arrogance think it self, especially when it fears losing any thing of worldy joyes! saith Tertullian. This subtil wit, if anyDe spec. c. 2. where, appears in this weak refuge. Shall they who decree (as Leo, and Anthemius) that dayes dedicated to the most High Ma­jesty, be occupied in no pleasures, be believedUbi prius. that they would assign any place to them? and although these pleasures afterwards, in the same law, be called obscene; yet by vir­tue of what consequence can it be inferred, that therefore some pleasures there are not obscene, which are not prohibited by that decree? This new, and unheard of distin­ction, of forbidden pleasures, is to be left to the authors of it, which was unknown to Leo and Anthemius, when they decreed, that the holiness of the day was to be viola­ted by no pleasures: and which Octavius, in Minuc. Felice, confesses, the Church was ignorant of, while he answers Caecilius, bla­ming the Christians, for abstaining from sights and pomps, which Caecilius, then a heathen, called honest pleasures: Octavius confesses, that Christians abstained from them: Octa­vius, a Christian, takes those for evil plea­sures, which Caecilius a Heathen called honest. This is to all men an argument, that the Christians (whose cause Octavius pleads [Page 245] against Caecilius) did repute the pleasures of sights and pomps, as evil: and that for good cause, since (as the Greeks have a Proverb, An ape is an ape, although clad in purple) by the pleasures of sights, with what painting soever they be whited, the Lords day is not to be violated. Any may see, that the plea­sures of pomps or showes, in the fore-men­tioned decree of the Emperours, are called obscene from the effect. For they that fol­low them, do usually fall into obscene man­ners: And the word Obscenity is added by the Emperours, not for the distinction, but detestation of pleasures: as when the Apo­stle, 1 Pet. 4. 3. calls Idolatry abominable, or if any one else should call Drunkenness detestable; will any wise man thence con­clude, that there is a certain lawful use of Images, or that some Drunkenness is not to be detested? Nothing less St. Chrysostom Hom. 38. in Matth. wished, that games and dances might altoge­ther be left off: of which he never speaks, without highly detesting them in his mind, and boldly condemns the very art of dan­cing: which he that exerciseth, if he be asked, why, omitting other arts, he is em­ployed in this? Chrysost Hom. 41. in Ioh. he could not deny it to be dishonest and unjust. If therefore Conscience dictate, as Chrysostom thinks, that the very art of this pleasure be dishonest and unjust, [Page 246] let them who commend them to the Church, see, where those sober and modest dances, which they speak of, can find any place: and to those that expound choreas ducere, only of lascivious dances, we will in a form of speech commodious enough, interpret these dances to be meant of all dancings whatsoever: otherwise St. Cyprian had not affirmed, that David De spec. Ser. 2. danced before God, unless any should think, that the Bl. Martyr (which never came into his mind) would brand the Royal Prophet with a mark of lascivious, and obscene dancing. And if there be any that think, that dancing be so­ber and modest, they are at their liberty for me to abound in their own sense: at least, with Octavius, that good defender of the Christian Religion, and other lights of Re­formed Christianity, it seems meet for me to repute them as obscene, and evil pleasures. Lastly, let the patrons of those dances, which they call sober, bring forth any testimony out of approved Authors, whereby any dances on the Lords Dayes can be defended, and then we will believe them, that such dances were not prohibited by the Fathers: which, till it be done, we will with the an­cients say, we ought not to lead dances, or effeminate our ears with pipes and harps. The ancients cursed those kinds of plea­sures, [Page 247] which then were in use. If the things which at this day are highly esteemed by the world, and are reckoned as sober, had in their age put up the head, doubtless they would have condemned them, with the same zeal, and holy fervour of spirit, as be­ing contrary to the Lords solemnity, and which hindred the sanctification thereof. In the mean while, since we see that sports and dances by St. Cyril; all pleasures by Leo and Anthemius; sports and dances, by the Fathers of Colen; dancings, by the Council of Millain, to be condemned; the pleasures of showes to be reckoned evil, of Octavius and Chrysostome; to reprehend dances, as leading to the Devil; we affirm, that these worldly showes (which are the very fomes of pleasures, and whose art, witness Chry­sostom, is dishonest, and unbeseeming the Christian name) are not to be kept on the Lords day.

Moreover, neither are the fore-mention­edNo dan­cing after Church­meetings. prohibitions so to be expounded, as if dances and showes were only forbidden, while the sacred exercises of piety were held on the Lords day in the publick assemblies; which being finished, who will may law­fully be employed in them: for that indeed would be nothing else but Tertul. de spec. 11. sect: 25. to go straight out of Gods Church into the Devils. But God [Page 248] grant that such a desire of destructive pleasure be prevented from his people. We have in the fifth Chapter declared, that Christians must keep all the whole day holy, and after­wards, God willing, will teach what duties of piety are to be done by Christians, when Church-meetings are ended.

And thus from the premises we find, that the Lords Day is to be violated by no plea­sures: Chrys. Hom. 2. T. 6. For we must honour this day with a spiritual honour, not in feasting, and drinking, not in drunkenness and dances, &c.

CHAP. I.

WHat we have recited in the fore­going Book, do shew, that the Lords day was alwayes solemnized by the Church, and what things they were which [Page 250] did ordinarily hinder the solemnity thereof, amongst the men of this world: now we come to those things, in which the solemn sanctification thereof consisteth: for we must not onely abstain from labours and pleasures on that day, but also we must attend upon Divine worship: neither is the rest com­manded on the Lords day, to be dedicated to our affections, sports, pleasures, or sins, but to the Worship of God alone: which the pious practise of the Apostles▪ and of the Church following them, doth declare.

Among the ancients, there were Lords day solemnities, [or ordinary duties] Tertul. de Anima, c. 9. Lords day solemnities which were performed in the Church; and what they were, the same author explains in the same Chapter; namely, reading of the Scriptures, singing of Psalms, Adlocutiones, [q. d. speakings unto] and Prayers. By those Adlocutiones which were uttered in the Church assembly, the Battologies (as Pa­melius on that place would have it) fre­quently repeated in the Mass (as Domi­nus vobiscum, [The Lord be with you,] Pax vobiscum [Peace be to you] Oremus, [Let us pray] Gratias agamus Domino, [Let us give thanks to God,] &c. which are in the Mass offices repeated ad nauseam) are not to be understood: but by adlocutiones in Tertullian, are meant the Ministers Ser­mons [Page 251] to the people, after the Scriptures were read in the assembly. For those that expounded the Scriptures, spoke to the peo­ple by exhortations, admonitions, &c. as afterwards will appear. And in this sense of ours, we meet with the word adlocutio, in Cyprian de Lapsis, sect. prima.

Those offices also to be performed on the Lords day, are extant in Clemens, Con­stit. p. 2. c. 59.

The Lords day solemnities, wherewith they honoured this day, are the duties that appertain to godliness: whereof some were of a publick, others of a private right: those were to be performed by every Church, in the publick assemblies, and these of the faithful members of the Church, when they were returned home, the publick assembly being ended. This place therefore requi­reth, that something be added about the pub­lick meetings of the Church, being held on the Lords dayes. In describing whereof, we will first teach, that they were in use with the Church of God, even from the Apostles age. Secondly, we will enquire what was done in them by the Church. Thirdly, we will add something of the places wherein they were held.

Although the ancients (as we have seenPublick as­semblies on the L. Day. in the former book, ch. 5.) did destinate [Page 252] the whole Lords day, or the first day of the week, to the exercises of Divine Worship; yet did they hold their publick assemblies at certain hours, and what time remained besides, they spent it also privately in holy duties. Whence we may easily observe, that there was a solemn, and religious observati­on of the Lords day, both publick and pri­vate: the publick was performed in the publick conventions of the Church; and that Christians, in what part of the world soever they lived, so often as they could for persecution, were wont to meet toge­ther in one place, to handle the duties of piety, is so clear from divers places of the New Testament, that it wanteth no testi­mony. These assemblies could not be held without a stated time every week, and a fit place: now we find that the Lords day was destined to keep them on, and that while the Apostles were living, and faith­fully discharging the ministry committed to them of the Lord. For, on no day was there wont to be a more solemn and frequented convention of the people in the Church, to hear Sermons, and partake of the holy Communion, than on the Lords day: and this we have proved in the two first chapters of the precedent book, to be a very ancient custome.

[Page 253]The Church therefore, as saith Isychius, In Lev. l. c. c. 9. They met oftener in the follow­ing, than in the for­mer Church hath sequestred the Lords day for Divine con­ventions: in which the Worship of God was religiously celebrated: for the dispatch­ing whereof, the Christians met together, as often as they could commodiously. Yet this must be marked of him that observes the meetings of the Church, that there is a rehearsal made of more meetings which were kept by the later, than the former Church, on the Lords day, by Historians and others that treat of them: not because the former Church, if it could, for the daily persecutions it met with, did not so often hold their meeting; especially whenas we see that the first Christians did sharply con­tend (in Book 1. ch. 5.) about sanctifying the whole day: but because it being hin­dred with the cruel flames of persecutions, did meet as often as occasion did occurr: but the following Christians were at liberty to meet oftner under the Christian Emperours; and therefore we read, that they met twiceThe Church met twice on the Lords day. upon the Lords day: in the former meeting whereof, they begun the day, and with the other they ended the day; and upon that reason, they afterwards called the one their Matins, and the other their Vespers. But what, and how many hours were spent at both of these conventions, is not well [Page 254] known: because there was not the same manner of meeting every where, but accor­ding to the necessity and profit of the Church, they held their meetings on the night and day.

The Apostle taught the Ephesians bothMeetings in the night. night and day, Act. 20. 32. At Troas he continued his Sermon till midnight, Act. 20. The Corinthians met in the evening, 2 Cor. 11. for about supper time, or after, they were gathered together. But, as I said, necessity commanded their night-meetings: because the Christians being moved with the fear of Tyrants, could not safely meet on the day time.

The Christians of the following age, re­taining their night-meetings, (as also ma­ny other things, out of which an huge heap of superstitious rites flowed, by which the clear face of truth breaking out of darkness, was filthily darkened) called them Vigils; Vigils. and turned them into the Fasts of the night which went before the Holy day: in which, In Math. 25. sometimes they continued till midnight; wit­ness Hierom in Parab. Virgin. And some­times they began their meeting at mid-night. So it appears out of Basil, who perfor­medBas. in 114 Ps. T. 1. an office in another Church, be­fore he came to some other that were met at mid-night, and waited for his coming. [Page 255] But at this day, because of the wickedness com­mitted in these nocturnal Vigils, Bellarmine thinketh they are justly abrogated. Bellarm. de cultu sanctorum, lib. 3. cap. ult.

Tertullian, amongst others, makes men­tion of night-meetings, lib. 2. ad uxorem, c. 4. at which, he saith, that an Heathen hus­band did not willingly suffer his Christian wife to be present. Souldiers, at the com­mand of Constantine the Arrian Emperour, came to apprehend St. Athanasius, while the people were keeping a meeting in the night with him. Theodor. Hist. l. 2. c. 13.

There are testimonies also extant of meet­ings before day (which are to be reckoned with them of the night) Tertul. de corona milit. cap. 3. and the Epistle of Plinius Se­cundus ad Trajan. mentions them, apud Ter­tull. Ap. adv. Gen. c. 2.

Passing by the meetings which were inCertain hours ap­pointed for publick meeting [...]. the night, and before day, we will enquire of those that were kept on the day: where, assoon as the Church had obtained peace by the authority of the great Emperours, we shall find that they held their ordinary meetings for the exercise of Gods worship, on the day time: and for that end some certain hours of the day were destined for performance of the publick offices of Religi­on. For the religious Fathers did with great [Page 256] care provide, that they should neither wea­ry themselves, nor the people committed to their care, with continual labours, in set­ting all care of refreshing themselves aside. And they judged it more advised, to teach often than long: they therefore selected some hours out of the whole day for pub­lick assemblies.

Julian the Apostate is reported, that he ordered the Greeks to live after the same manner as did the Christians: and there­fore, amongst other things, he ordains, that certain prayers, for certain hours and dayes, after the custome of the Church, should be se­lected. Niceph. Hist. 10. c. 21. which he would never have done, if it had not been a familiar thing with the Church (after whose rule he laboured to regulate the Heathen) to select certain hours of the day for this pe­culiar use. But on what dayes, or what houres of the day, prayers were made by the Church unto God, Nicephorus adds not; only he tells us, that certain hours were se­lect for this office. Ath. Ap. 1. Athanasius witnesseth, that the Arrians, who raged against the Orthodox, even as they were met on the Lords day, being guarded with a company of Souldiers, found but a few together; for many of them were gone home for the hour of the day; that is, after the assembly was end­ed, [Page 257] which the Church observed at stated hours: or as De ani­ma, c. 9. Tertullian speaks, after the solemnities were done, and the people dismissed. But neither Athanasius nor Tertullian do assign the hours at which the Church met.

Ambrose mentions the morning hours, atMeetings in the morning. which the people met, lib. 5. Ep. 33. where, what was read ont of Psal. 78. The Gentiles are come into Gods inheritance, he afterwards calls his hearers to mind for the morning hours. Zeno also Bishop of Majuma, al­though he was well struck in age, yet was he alwayes present at Nic. 12. 47. the morning hymns, and the other holy service, or [...], un­less hindred by sickness. The Eucharist was administred at their morning meetings; which appears out of Ep. 63. Cyprian, while he disallows the custome of those that in the morning only offered water, lest they should smell of wine: for which cause, he calls that the morning sacrifice, In their morning assemblies, they sung the 63 Psalm to God. Witness Clement, Constitut. Apost. lib. 2. cap. 59.

The morning meetings were kept about nine of the clock. Therefore, in Conc. Lao­dic. Can. 18. apud. Zon. it is ordained, that the publick service should be performed at nine of the clock, and at their Vespers. And these solemn assemblies [Page 258] broke up about noon, as witnesseth Chrysost. Orat. de Philogonio.

The Church also met in the Evening.Meetings in the vening. For they had hymns appointed as well for the evening, as morning meetings, Niceph. Hist. l. 12. c. 47. Clemen. Constitut. Apost. lib. 20. c. 59. The Bishops and Presbyters ofSocr. Hist. l. 5. c. 22. Gaesaria, Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, did in­terpret the Holy Scriptures on the Lords day, [...], alwayes about evening. Neither can it be thought inconvenient, Chrysostom being judge, if the Church hold an assembly in the afternoon: yea, he being witness, then especially should we meet, and then our bodily food being received, a spiritual banquet ought to be set before us; lest after satiety of bodily food, the soul beginning to be drowsie, it feel some hurt thereby. So Chrys. in the end of the 10▪ Hom. in Gen. He doth the same in the 9th Hom. ad Populum Anti­ochen. And elsewhere he commends those that when they have dined come to Church, Hom. 10. ad pop. Antioch. Lastly, he doth often reprove those that are absent from afternoon meetings, Hom. 10. in Gen. Ma­ny of the ancients do bear witness to after­noon meetings, which, when we speak of the time assigned to the Treating of the Scriptures, shall, God willing, be made manifest.

[Page 259]For the present it is enough to advertise the Reader, that those, if there be any such, do deceive both themselves and others, who do deny that there were held any meet­ings in the evening of the Church, before the Council of Arragon, that is in the year of Christ 370. The Constitutions of Cle­ment, which are held ancient by all, do make mention of them. Cyprian, as weEp. 63. have seen, took it heavily, that morning Suppers were despised of some delicate per­sons, that would not smell the savour of Wine, but not evening Suppers: they, saith he, offered in the morning water only, yet when they came to Supper, they offered a mix'd cup: whereupon the learned Goular­tius judiciously acknowledgeth, that Pa­melius doth confess, that some in Cyprians age, were wont to offer twice a day: al­though [...]amelius doth corruptly referr this to private Masses in use amongst the Pa­pists. In the Council of Laodicea (which was held before the first Council of Nice) there is mention made as well of the even­ing, as morning Liturgy, (the Fathers speak of the publick service in the Church­meeting.) Hilary acknowledges for aIn Ps. 64. great sign of mercy, the pleasures (while the day begins in Prayers to God, and ends in his Praises) of Matins, and Evening-service in [Page 260] the Church. Divers Treatises also of the Fathers, in the afternoon, which we shall afterwards mention, will teach us, that the Church met in the Evening. But the primi­tive Christians, as we said, met oftener on the night time in that age which abounded with Persecutions, and being hindred by the wicked devises of the adversaries, could seldome keep a meeting on the day time, as Basil. Ep. 63. Tertull. de Fuga, ult. cap. teach us. Thence therefore, I think, it came to pass, that we meet with seldome mention of a two-fold meet­ing amongst the Christians of the former Church.

And these things do testifie, that the Church of Christ kept publick meetings, to those that shut not their eyes against the truth. But since sundry in our age do so easily bite with the tooth of de­traction, that scarce any thing can be written (though never so elaborate, and studiously composed, which at first by the envy of malevolent persons, may not be depraved, and at last contemned: therefore, I onely add this, lest perhaps some might object, that those things which I have observed concerning assemblies, are to be applied not only to meetings kept on Sabbath dayes, of which I shall speak [Page 261] hereafter, but also to those which were kept on other dayes, besides the Lords dayes, which I deny not. I at least wise affirm this: if they had it in their mind to meet on other dayes after noon, for Religions sake; much more are they to be thought to have done it on the Lords day, which was set apart for this end. And divers fore­cited testimonies do make mention of meetings being held on that day. Lastly, what is said to be done in the meetings which were kept on other dayes, we read that the same was done in the Lords Dayes meetings: although all things which were done every where in these, were not done in those meetings: as hath been observed in the first Book, and third Chapter.

CHAP. II.

HAving observed the publick meetings of the Church, let us in the second place see what was done in them. In them the Church was only intent upon the exer­cises of piety, divers whereof are [...]ound in Tertull. lib. de anima, cap. 9. Ap. 2. Justin Mar­tyr, and others. Serm. in [...]es qui in feris tan­tum con­ [...] Chrysostom saith, there was in those holy meetings, a convention of the Brethren, holy Doctrine, Prayers, an hear­ing of the Divine Law, or a Communication with God, and discourse with men. Hesychius saith, [...] in L [...]. c. [...]. There was devout Prayer, devout read­ing of Gods Word, and hearing of the inter­pretation [Page 263] All things, that I may speak brief­ly, were devout, which are said or done in the Churches of God according to his Law. And all these things may be referred to the Ministry of the Word, publick invocation of Gods name, and administration of the Sacra­ments. So it is evident to us, out of the Holy Scripture, and more pure Christianity, in what things the offices of almost all the worship of God were performed. These are reckoned up, Act. 2. 40. although the order in which they were performed be not declared. St. Paul being brought to Troas, some peculiar things fell out, in the description whereof, St. Luke is very dili­gently conversant; and above all, amongst the rest, an example of a Church-meeting, with all its circumstances, is recorded, Act. 20. In which convention, Paul first preached, which exercise he continued till mid-night, and when that was ended, then the Lords Supper was performed. And we must suppose, that the Apostles never preached the Word, or administred the Sacraments, without solemn invocation of God.

When the Apostles were dead, these same things were observed by the following Church, on the Lords day, which, by and by, I will in brief shew. Therefore, not [Page 264] without reason, have I concluded the pub­lick offices of piety on that day to be per­formed under these three.

In describing whereof, first, that Divine office of piety doth occurr, The Ministry of the Word (a word familiar enough to our age) without which, the things of Religion cannot happily be dispatched. Neither were other duties which tended to piety, done without it in the ancient Church. Therefore, in delineating the publick offices of piety, we will first speak of it. Now under the Mi­nistry of the Word to be had on the Lords Day, are understood both the read­ing of the Word, and the explaining thereof.

First, as often as the Church was gather­edReading of Scrip­ture. together, the Holy Scriptures were read. In describing of which argument, I will point at three things; namely, first, I will shew what Scriptures were read in the Church-assembly; secondly, whose office it was to do this; thirdly, I will add some­thing of the place out of which the Scri­ptures were read in the Church-assem­bly.

It is evident out of divers authors, that those Scriptures were read, Tert. ad ux. l. 2. c. 6. by whose read­ing faith was nourished. And that is thought by divers men of great name, in imitation [Page 265] of the Jews: by whom, it was an ordinary thing to read Moses and the Prophets in theWhat Scri­pture was read in the Apostles age. Synagogues, every Sabbath day, Acts 13. 15. and 15. 21. This custome of the Jews, omitting ceremonials, was not onely profi­table to the Apostles, who upon that occa­sion every where preached Christ in the Sy­nagogues, out of Moses and the Prophets, Act. 13. 15. and 17. 2, 3. but also was com­mended by the Apostles to Christians, as often as the Church met: namely, that the writings of the old Prophets should be read and expounded by the modern Prophets▪ 1 Cor. 14. 29. Origen also witnesseth (al­though he be deceived in giving the cause, for which this was enjoyned the Church, of the Apostles) that the Apostles ordained, that the books of Jewish Histories should be read in Churches by the Disciples of Christ. So he, initio Hom. 15. in Josh.

Moreover, there be some that gather out of 2 Cor. 8. 18. where the Apostle saith of Luke, With Titus we have sent our brother, whose praise is in the Gospel, throughout all the Churches▪ that not only the Scriptures of the Old Testament, were wont to be read, while the Apostles were alive, but also of the Evangelists, about the History and Sermons of Christ. Where, according to them, we may not unfitly observe, that even [Page 266] at that time the Gospel of Luke was wont to be read in Churches. Paul is not afraid to adjure the Thessalonians, that when that Epistle to them was finished, it should be read to all the holy brethren, 1 Thes. 5. 27. and he requires the Colossians, that they read the Epistle written from Laodicea: and that they should cause that which he sent unto them, to be read in the Church of the Lao­diceans, Col. 4. 16. And Eusebius, out of Clement, relates, that Peter ordained, that the Gospel of Mark was to be read in Churches. So Euseb. Hist. l. 2. c. 4. and the same author our Euseb. Hist. 5. c. 8. of Irenaeus, asserteth, that Matthew set forth his Gospel for the He­brews, in their own tongue, while Paul and Peter preached the Word at Rome.

After the Apostles death, the writings, not only of the Prophets and Evangelists, but of the Apostles themselves, were read in the Church-assemblies, as I have said from 1 Thes. 5. and Col. 4.

Justin Martyr Cap. 2. saith, that the writings of the Prophets and Apostles were read on Sun­day in their assemblies. Others afterwards confess the same thing. Hom. 23. in Num. Origen, when he reckons up the works to be performed on the Christian Sabbath, he mentions the sa­cred reading in their assemblies; where al­so he speaks of Reading and Treatises: and [Page 267] in Ex. Hom. 7. he saith, The Lord alwayes rains down from Heaven (namely, when the holy Oracles were read, as he afterwards explains it) Manna on our Lords day; whence he concludeth, that the Christians Lords day is to be preferred to the Jewish Sabbath. Tertullian Ap. adv. gent. c. 39. confesses, that the Church assembled for to remember those Di­vine things that were read. And elsewhere, amongst the Lords day solemnities, he af­firms, that the sacred Scriptures were read; de Anima, c. 9. Cyprian mentions this read­ing, Ep. 33. in which he writes to the Cler­gy and people, of one Aurelius, that was or­dained a Reader of him, to read the Gospel in the Church, &c. De praep. Evangel. l. 4. c. 1. Eusebius acknowledg­es, that both the Old and New Testament was read in Churches, Ambros. in Epist. ad Soror. Ep. 33. Aug. de Civitate Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8.

These things shew, that the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testaments were read, and in the fifty ninth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, it is ordained, that only the Canonical books should be read; and in the sixtieth Canon, they reckon up the names and order of Canonical Books of both Testaments. The same provision is made in the 27th Canon of the Council of Carthage, apud Zonar. That beside the Ca­nonical [Page 268] Scriptures, nothing be read in the Church under the name of Divine Scripture. Only they add the Books of Tobit, Judith, and Esther.

Yet this must not be concealed, not onlyHumane writings read in the Church. the writings of the Apostles, and Prophets, but of divers others, (who were famous for piety, and of great authority in the Church) were anciently read in the Church-assem­blies. Dionysius Corinthiacus apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 23. reports, that Clements Epistle ad Corinth. was read on the Lords day. Hierom. in Cat. Script. Ecclesiast. witnesseth, that Effraemus Deacon of the Church at Edissa, came to such renown, that after the reading of the Scrip­tures, his writings were publickly read in some Churches. The sufferings of the Martyrs were also read upon their Feasts. Concil. Carthag. Can. 50. But the Commentaries, in which the Martyrs conflicts were described, were only read over on those dayes, where­on their memory was annually celebrated; witness Zonaras in Concil. Carthag. Can. 50. And such humane writings as were read in the Church, are to be understood chiefly of the Psalms and Songs which were devi­sed of them, to praise God by. Eusebius mentions these, lib. 5. cap. 28. and lib. 2. 17. Afterwards, through the Devils subtilty, tares sprung up in the Church, and under [Page 269] pretence of these writings, Hereticks sow­ed their false Doctrines, which the Fathers in Trull. Can. 2. observe, in the Constituti­ons ascribed to Clement, to which, some things sorged, and some things repugnant to Faith, are annexed: which evil, that the Fathers might feasonably prevent, they fre­quently ordained, that no Books should be read in the publick Church-assembly, but the Holy Scriptures: much less, that it ever should be safe through them, that many dreams which they babled out with a rash attempt, like old wife's dotages) of vain­talking men, should be read among the Ho­ly Scriptures, as afterwards, by use, it fell out; because, as we have seen, they ordain­ed, that nothing but the Scriptures should be read in Churches.

Now for the order, according to whose rule, all reading of the Scriptures among the ancients was disposed, we meet with a few things to be observed out of their Re­cords. Whether, namely, in the primitive Church, there were selected parts of the Scriptures which they read; or (as it was familiar with the Jews on their Sabbath­dayes) they read the Scripture in order, as the Lords dayes returned, till they had finished that work; this, I say, is not cer­tainly known: onely what parts of Scrip­ture [Page 270] they read, they explained the same for the peoples use, as the necessity of the pre­sent times did require. Tertul. apo. c. 39. Ambr. l. 5. ep. 33.

But afterwards it doth appear, that there was an order observed in reading the Scrip­tures. St. Austin mentions the order obser­ved by himself, in handling his Lectures upon Scripture, in prooemio Epistolae Johannis. And he addeth, Tract. 6. in Joh. that the book of the Acts of the Apostles was every year read at an anni­versary solemnity, after the Lords Passion. He reports also, that Ps. 21. was wont to be read every year, in the last week before the Passion-day of Christ, all the people being at­tentive. Tract. 13. in Joh. Moreover also, when there were divers Feasts constituted in the Church, some certain and peculiar les­sons of Scripture were read every Feast-day, which were annually so carefully observed, that no others could be more. Aug. in prooem. Epist. Jo. The same appears from a Sermon of Chrysostom, against those that only met upon Feast-dayes: who thinks it unseasonable at the solemnity of Pentecost, to continue the Text formerly begun on, and omit the commemoration of the benefits conserred on the Church at that time; and after Pen­tecost he prosecutes the Text he was on be­fore.

[Page 271]I will add no more testimonies for reading lessons out of the Holy Scripture, in the Church-assembly, in a case that is plain e­nough, lest by repeating many things, I cause weariness in the Reader. I will now relate the second thing which I intended, for the candid Readers sake; namely, forasmuch as the ancients judged the H. Scripture should be read in their conventions, therefore they designed certain persons for to do that parti­cular office, whom they called Readers. Cy­prian ordained one Ep. 24. Saturus a Reader in the Church. He tells the Clergy and people, that Aurelius a Confessor, was ordained a Reader by him, Ep. 34. and he designed the office of a Reader to Celerinus. Ep. ead.

Now although this office was offered toDeacons read the Scriptures. some, yet usually it was the Deacons work to read the Scripture in the holy Church-assembly. Hierom reproved Sabinianus, be­cause, after he had sollicited a Virgin to whoredome, Ep. ad Sabin. he, as a Deacon read the Gospel. Sozomen, l. 7. c. 19. and Niceph. l. 12. c. 34. do witness, that this office amongst divers, was translated to the Deacons: and the DeaconsAn. 529. are judged worthy to read what Christ spoke in the Gospel. Conc. Vasens. 2. c. 2. And there­upon Optatus, a Sub-deacon, in Cyprian, Ep. 24. is called, Doctor audientium, i. e. the teacher of them that hear. The Audientes, of [Page 272] whom more afterwards, were called thoseWho the Audien­tes were. that were lately admitted, as if one should say, the tyro's [or new beginners] in the Christian faith, so called, ab audiendo, from hearing; who, though they were not admit­ted to the holy Eucharist, yet might be pre­sent at the reading of the Scriptures; and therefore the Readers to them were called Doctors, [or teachers.]

In divers Churches also, only the Priests, and upon solemn dayes, the Bishops perform­ed this office, as Sozomen Hist. l. 7. c. 19.

Lastly, they that read the Scripture, stood Readers stood in sight of the people. in a pulpit, or tribunal of the Church, as Cypri­an, Ep. 34. i. e. in some higher place than the rest, from whence the lessons were read; and Cypr. calls that place a tribunal metapho­rically; for the tribunal was an high place, out of which Judgment was given to the tribes [or wards.] So that he who performed publickly the offices of Religion in the Church-assembly, was not severed from the presence of the people, into an angle of the Church, there secretly to celebrate the offi­ces of Divine Worship, like some Conjurer, that mutters to himself what he sayes, (as now it is the practice in Popish Churches:) but in the sight of all he uttered what he had to say, or read with a loud voice, which all that were present might understand: as once [Page 273] the holy man Ezra stood in a pulpit of wood, which he had made for the purpose, that he might speak freely in the face of the congrega­tion. Neh. 8. So in Cyprian's age, he that read the Law, and the Gospel of our Lord, be­ing raised up with the advantage of an higher Cyp▪ Ep. 34. place, was seen of all the people; that the read­ing of the Scriptures might better be observed of the hearers, and the reader being set on high, might be seen of the people that stood about him. Eusebius confesses, that the Scrip­tures were so publickly read in the Temples, that through the world were erected to God, that they might be heard of all. De praepar. Evang. l. 5. c. 1. & Const. Ap. l. 2. c. 57. it is appointed, that the Reader should read out of an high place.

That was also a token of reverence to the Scriptures, as once it was amongst the Jews, Neh. 8. 5. and therefore, because a Bishop at Alexandria rose not up when the Gospel was read, it is recited as an unusual fact in the Church. Sozom. 7. 19.

And thus much for the publick reading of the Scriptures every day, especially on the Lords dayes, in use among the ancients.

CHAP. III.

SInce the Sabbath was given for under­standing the Creatour, and not for Idle­ness sake, as Athanasius de Sabb. & Circumcis. therefore the ancients have to the uttermost of their power endeavoured, that by what means they could, they might augment the Churches knowledge, by their labours on that day. For this end, the Church being assembled, the Holy Scriptures (from whence the knowledge of Divine things flowes) were distinctly read: after the reading whereof, followed their explicati­on. This was used in the Church while the Apostle was alive. While he prescribes the [Page 275] manner to those that prophecy in the Church, he charges them to look to, that what they speak, they may promote men in the study of piety, while to that work they either make make use of exhortation, or comfort, 1 Cor. 14. 3. Neither was the use of prophecying left off in the following Church; as may every where easily be ob­served in the Fathers.

After the Apostles and Prophets writings, The Scrip­ture being read, was interpret­ed. the Minister made an Oration, wherein he in­structed the people, and exhorted them to the imitation of such excellent things Just. Mart. Apol. 2.. Ambrose Ep. 33. l. 5. interpreted the appointed Lessons, and did apply them to the peoples present use. Ori­gen saith, the Christians in their readings, and the explication of them, did exhort the people to piety towards the blessed and great God, and to other virtues, the inseparable com­panions of piety. Contra Celsum, l. 3. After the ordinary Scriptures were read, De Civit. Der, l. 22. c. [...]. saith Austin, I came to my Sermon. The same appears every where out of the Fathers Treatises.

This explication of the Scriptures, with us is called▪ Sermon, but with the ancients a Treatise. Origen exhorteth to reading the Scripture, and Treating. Hom. 23. in Num. Ambrose l. 5. ep. 33. & Cyprian de bono pudi­citiae. And they that explained the Scrip­tures, [Page 276] were called Tractatores [Treatisers, or Treaters.] Hieronym. adv. errores Joh. Hierosolymitan. saith, he esteems of Apo­stles after one sort, and of other Treaters after another. And Ep. ad August. he calls those Treaters, that did interpret the Holy Scrip­tures. Aug. Ep. 11.

In explicating this Section about Treati­ses upon Scriptures, first, we will consider whose office it was to interpret them. Se­condly, the manner which they used in ex­plaining of them. In the third place, some­thing shall be added about the time, at which the ancients did attend these.

In the first place, we will speak of the Treaters themselves. Those to whom the administration of the Word was commit­ted by God, in the Scriptures, they were by a name familiar enough to the Fathers, called Clerici, [the Clergy] or in Clerum Clerici, whence se so called. ascripti [admitted into the Clergy] either because Matthias was chosen by lot, who was the first that we read of that was ordained by the Apostles (so Augu. in Psal. 67.) or be­cause they are the Lords lot, [...] should pos­sess him for their lot and inheritance, with the children of Levi for ever. So Austin, in Pro­log.Ad Nepo­ti. in Psal. if that Preface be Austins. Hie­rom gives almost the same reason, who fatih, they are the Lords lot, and because the Lord [Page 277] himself is the lot, that is, the portion of the Clergy. The Apostle comprehends all to whom any publick charge in the Church of the Philippians was committed, under Bi­shops and Deacons, Philip. 1. 1. Where, under the name of Bishops, he understand­eth all that especially executed the office of teaching: and under the name of Deacons, he intimates others that ministred.

The name of Bishop is a general appella­tion,The name of Bishop. signifying all those that labour in the Word of God, and attend upon the cure of souls. Whence the office of an Apostle is called [...], [a Bishoprick] Act. 1. 20. and by the word [...], are elegantly de­scribed men that administer the Word ac­cording to the Scriptures. For it signifies both indulgently to attend, as shepherds their flocks (as Jacob, Gen. 32. 38, 39, 40.) that they may drive away wild beasts from the sheep; and to watch like watch-men, Ezek. 3. 17. I have made thee a watch-man to the house of Israel; namely, that thine ad­versaries come not near thee, who threaten thee destruction. So Heb. 13. 17. the teach­ers of the Gospel are said to watch for the souls of the Church. The Holy Scripture Prosper. de v. 1. co [...] l. 2. c. 2. calls these watchmen, who watch the actions of all men, and with an aim of religious curio­sity, spie out, how every one liveth with his [Page 278] houshold in his house, how with the Citizens in a City. Where the duties of Bishops, or Watchmen is excellently set out. Ambrose interprets Bishops, super inspectores, [over­seers] lib. de dignitate sacerdotali, cap. 6. Hierom contends, that they are most trulyIn Job 20. called Superintendentes, because they are to look diligently over [or superintend] every one in their flock: and Ep. ad Evagrium, he renders the Greek word [...], by su­perintendentes. These words therefore, do not signifie any perfunctory inspection, which only is undertaken for knowledge sake; but a diligent and accurate watch­fulness, that ought to be Bishops, that they might make provision of necessary means to feed their flocks, and instruct them to live piously. As Alipius was, whom Austin Ep. 35. acknowledges to be a Pastor carefully governing the Lords pasture sheep.

Under the title of Bishop, both Bishops and Presbyters are comprehended. And though there be some that distinguish not a Presbyter from a Bishop, yet I do with Au­stin, who expounds the words Oratio, Preca­tio, & Postulatio, choose to understand that by these words, which all. or almost all the Church doth often use. Ep. 59. Therefore, since according to the custom of the Church, or according to the words of honour Aug. Ep. which [Page 279] the Church useth, the office of a Bishop is great­er than that of a Presbyter: the highest Mi­nistry in the Church is now signified under the title of Bishop. The Bishops work was especially to interpret the Holy Scriptures, when the Church was gathered together: and therefore I think their power was of the Ancients signified in the name Cathedra, (because chiefly it consisted in teaching.) Optatus l. 2. saith, the first gift of the Church was Cathedra, whereby is signified, that the Churches power is instructive; and for this cause, Aug. in Ps. 36. conc. 3. de 3 parte Ps. circa fi­nem. confesses, that Christs Chair [or cathedram] succeeded Moses chair. i. e. the Apostles of Christ succeeded the Inter­preters of Moses and the Prophets.

The Bishops duty therefore is, to instruct the people commended to their care: and Hierom thinks Adv. Jo­vinianum, lib. 1. this ability to be so necessary for them, that it can profit a Bishop nothing at all to have the testimony of his virtues in his own mind, except he be able to instruct the people committed to him. And Lib. 6. de Trinit. non procul ab initio. Hilary ac­knowledges, that by the necessary virtue of his office, he is bound to serve the Church in preaching the Gospel. And therefore Ep. ad Draconti­um. Atha­nasius excited Dracontius to take upon him a Bishoprick (to which he was elected) with this reason, because the people by whom he was made Bishop, did expect that he would [Page 280] bring them meat out of the Doctrine of Scrip­ture. Neither did the greatest Bishops de­cline that charge, but rather for a Bishop to abstain from preaching, seemed to Ep. l. 1. ep. 24. Gregory the Great a foul shame, and wicked act, and he saith, that he is dead that walks without the sound of preaching. ibid.

Since therefore the principal duty of Bi­shops is terminated in Doctrine, (to which, by necessity of office they are obliged, and without which, although they otherwise live a pious life, they are not to be adorned with the title of Bishops) their first and prin­cipal charge was, to interpret the Word of God (the onely subject for all doctrine of Ministers in the Church, Luk. 24. 27.) when the Church was assembled for hearing the same; that the most vigilant Bishops of old did this with great praise, and for the great fruit of the Church, their most learned Treatises, which are extant among their works do testifie.

But to explain the Holy Scripture, in thePresbyters explained the Scrip­tures. Churches publick assembly, did not only lie upon Bishops, but upon Presbyters also, and that ex officio. So 1 Pet. 5. 2. Therefore the second chair in the Church was assigned them by the Fathers. So Clem. Alexand. Strom. l. 6. Origen saith, Tract. 24. [...] Math.that some Deacons in his age, did seek after the first chairs of them who are [Page 281] called Presbyters. If the chair was assigned to them, then it was their duty to instruct the people in the doctrine of the Gospel: if it had not been their duty to feed the Church with the food of the Word and Sacraments, why should St. Paul charge them to take heed Act. 20. 17. 18. unto themselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, to feed the Church of God? Augustine being Possid. de vit. Aug. c. 5. yet a Presbyter, while Valerius was alive, edified the Church with the Word and Sa­craments. It was the custome at Alexandria, that (although one was set over all) the Presbyters kept their Churches apart, and gathered the people committed to them into assemblies, Sozom. Hist. l. 1. c. 14. and taught them so gathered together, as an assembly. Ni­ceph. l. 8. c. 11. Neither was this power of teaching the people taken away from the Presbyters of Alexandria, until Arius, a Pres­byter, disputing about his doctrine, introduced a new one. Sozom. 7. 19. Socrates tells us, that the Presbyters, as well as the Bishops of Caesaria, Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, did inter­pret the Scriptures, l. 5. c. 22. In Conc. Va­sens. Au. 529. secund. Not only in Cities, but in all Pa­rishes, the power of preaching was given to Presbyters. Can. 2. Yea, this they were to do in the presence of the Bishop. Constit. Ap. l. 2. c. 57.

[Page 282]The dispencing therefore of the Mysteries of God, was committed to Presbyters, as well as to Bishops, for they are over the Church of Christ, and in breaking of the Lords body and bloud are partakers with Bi­shops, and likewise in teaching of the people, and in the office of preaching. Conc. Aquisgrav. 1.An. 816. c. 8. These, and many other things, do shew, that with the ancients the publick preaching of the Word was committed to Presbyters, and for this cause, it is determined by the Apostles sentence, that double honour is due to 1 Tim. 5. 17. them.

In the third place, sometimes this office ofDeacons also ex­pounded Scriptures. treating out of the Scriptures, was commit­ted to Deacons. For although at first they saw to the collections, and distributing of alms, yet afterwards they performed other offices: in their hands was the care of preserving all order in the holy Church assembly: where­fore a Deacon is said to be consecrated, not to the Priesthood, but to the Ministry. Conc. Carth. 4. c. 4.

But it is certain, that other offices than those that were committed to them from the beginning, fell to Deacons; yea, in Scrip­ture they begun to use Stephen and Philip, to take off some part of the Ministry, as the Church encreased. We read that the Dea­cons discoursed out of Scripture, and preach­ed [Page 283] the Gospel, Act. 7. and 8. and that Philip was one of the seven Deacons, Act. 21. 8. So Austin thinks too. Who, ex utroque Quaest. in 101. & Can. 2. Conc. Ancyrani, are said, [...], i. to preach; which power they are deprived of, by the authority of that Council, if through cowardize they had sacrificed in the torments.

Fourthly, We read that Catechists hadCatechists did the same. sometimes liberty to teach publickly in the Church. Origen, who had not yet attained to the degree of a Presbyter, was asked by Alexander Bishop of Hierusalem, and Theoc­tistus, Bishop of the Church in the same Caesaria, that he would open the Scriptures, in the publick assembly of the Church at Caesaria in Palestine. Also Euelpis was asked by Leo Bishop of Laranda, Paulinus, by Cel­sus Bishop of Iconium, and Theodorus, by At­ticus Bishop of Synada. We read these things in Eusebius Hist. l. 6. c. 20. Nicephorus also re­lates, that Origen did interpret the Scrip­tures amongst them of Alexandria, l. 12. c. 34. And no wonder, when private men were sometimes permitted to preach the Word of God; namely, when there were none depu­ted to that office, who might perform it, nor could be used any means of faith any other way. This did Aedesius and Frumen­tius Theodoret l. 1. c. 23. among the Indians, to their great com­mendation, [Page 284] and the no small profit of the Church; where there were none executing any Ecclesiastical function, to call together publick assemblies, and perform the Divine Mysteries. Theodoret also records, that a woman converted the Iberi to the truth of Christian Religion, Hist. l. 1. c. 24. But none doubts, but that this was done extra­ordinarily, because this charge was not com­mitted to them, according to the order which is to be observed in the Church: al­though Bishops were wont sometimes to ex­hort those whom they knew to be fit a­mong the Laity, that they might thereby something profit the people by expounding the Scriptures, and preaching, to exercise this charge, even in their presence. So Euse­bius, ubi supra.

CHAP. IV.

THese are they to whom the expound­ing of Scripture was committed among the ancients: which things being declared, somewhat remains to be spoken of the manner which was observed by them in ther Expositions.

In the first place, when they were to treat out of Scripture, they saluted the people. So Optatus contra Parmenianum, libro vet. And what kind of salutation that was, is taught in Const. Ap. l. 8 c. 5. Chrysost. also in Hom. 3. in Coloss. namely, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all, &c. But afterwards it was [Page 286] usual with the Bishops to salute the people in another manner than the Presbyters; which was prohibited in Conc. Bracarensi T. 2. Conc. 1. Can. 21.

This salutation being premised, whether without further prayer to God, they set up­on their Treating, is doubted by some. But if the Love-Feasts in use among Christians, were not performed without the office of Prayer; (for before they sate down, they Tertull. adv. Gent. Apolic. 39. first took a taste of Prayer to God, and when the Supper was finished, Prayer determined the Feast;) if, I say, their banquets were ne­verThe study both of Praying and teach­ing is com­mended to the Mini­sters of the Word from the Apostle in Act. 6. 4. celebrated but with Prayer to God, much less durst they set upon the expounding of the Holy Scriptures, without the invocati­on of Gods name being premised. But this I will advertise the Reader of, that the in­dustry of Antiquity hath so carelesly touch­ed this part of holy things, that there is but a very little which at this day we can find delivered in the Records of the ancients, about this matter. And neither is it to be wondred at, nor is it unusual. There are in this age divers Sermons of very learned Di­vines, published, which are not uttered but with Prayer to God first made, and yet none of those Prayers are prefixed to the printed Copies. We may conjecture the same of the Ancients Treatises, without any injury [Page 287] to the truth: which, doubtless, the pious Fathers never entred upon without Prayers to God first premised; which thing I will now manifest by some testimonies.

The godly Prayer of a certain holy man is extant in Hom. 10. in Coloss. Chrysostom. I know, saith St. Chrysostom, a certain godly man that prayed thus; Before these words, he said nothing, namely, We give thanks to thee for all thy be­nefits, which have been conferred on us unwor­thy wretches, from the first to this present day; for those we know, and those we know not: for those that are manifest, and those that are not manifest: for what have been done in work or word: for what have been done voluntari­ly, and unvoluntarily: for all things that have been made for us unworthy creatures, for af­flictions, for recreations, for Hell, for punish­ment, for the Kingdom of Heaven. We pray thee preserve our soul holy, having a pure con­science, and to make our end worthy thy cle­mency. Thou that hast so loved us, as to give us thy onely begotten son; vouchsafe us to be worthy thy love. Give us wisdom in thy word, and in thy fear. O onely begotten Christ, in­spire us with thy fortitude. Then that hast given for us thy onely begotten, and sent forth thy Holy Spirit for the remission of our sins; if we have willingly, or against our will sinned, pardon it, and impute it not to us. Remember [Page 288] all them that call upon thy name in truth. Re­member all that wish us well and ill. For we are all of us men. And then having added a Prayer of the faithful, as it were for a cer­tain conclusion and winding up for all per­sons, he having made this Prayer, here he ended. And thus he.

The aforesaid Prayer was rehearsed in Chrisostom's presence, but where, or when, it is not evident out of the fore-cited place. It seems to me, without prejudicing others, to have been recited by one that was entring upon a Treating out of the Word of God; especially since he calls him, by whom it was used [...], i. e. a holy man. And secondly, he used this Prayer when he be­gun to speak: for before it he said nothing. Thirdly, Chrysostom speaks of his frequent using it, when he himself was also present: but Laicks had never liberty to pray fre­quently, when any of the Clergy were by; much less when St. Chrysostom was present: who yet confesses, that he heard him, [...], i. so to pray. Fourthly, the whole form of the Prayer shews plain enough, that it was used publickly: for whether­foever he give thanks, or petition God in it, he pleads not only his own cause, but others, and alwayes speaks in the plural number. Fifthly, he seems to speak it with respect [Page 289] had to the Word; for he begs for wisdom in the word. Lastly; he said nothing before he used it, [...]. But it is not credible, that the men of that age did in their ordinary discourses burn with such an ardency of zeal towards God, as that they would not begin them without premi­sing Prayer to God. These things perswade me to believe, that the aforesaid Prayer was used publickly, at the Treating upon the Word: but let the wise judge.

Basilius M. shews, that Prayers were wont to be said by the whole assembly, after that the President went up into the Pulpit to teach, or expound any thing out of the Scriptures; for he makes this the beginning of his Sermon: ‘I need the Prayers of them that love the Lord, that by the grace of the good God and his Christ, the holy and good Spirit may admonish and teach us, those things it hath heard from the Lord, and may direct our mind into the way of peace, and into found words to the edifying of faith.’ Basil. de Baptism. Au­stin useth the same preface, when he begins his fifteenth Sermon, De verbis Apostoli. De bono pudicitiae. Cyprian spoke not only the words which came from the fountains of the Scripture, but with the words he joyned Prayers, and requests to God, that both for himself and his auditors [Page 290] he might both open the treasures of his Sacra­ments, and also that he would give strength to supply them with what they should know. These things shew, that the Blessed Martyr at his Treating out of the Scripture, did pour out Prayers to God, that what he said might be useful both to himself and his hear­ers; for without Gods mercy, all the watch­fulness of a Pastor is in vain. Therefore did Cyprian adjoyn Prayer to his Treatises, to implore the mercy of God, that what was heard might turn into deeds. Yea, Austin judges, that Prayer is so necessary to him that is to treat upon the Scripture, before he begin that work, De do­ctrin. Christiana l. 4. c. 15. &c. 30. that none, in his opinion, ought to teach them before he pray, and that at the same time, before he let loose his tongue to preach, he lift up his thirsty soul to God, that he may cast up that which he hath drunk in. And afterwards, cap. 30. Let him that is to speak to the people, pray that God would give good words into his mouth, &c. And what Augustine required of other Doctors, with great devotion he performed himself, in that he earnestly begged of God, when he spoke to the people, that he De ver­bis Domi­ni, Serm. 51. might utter what was true, and suitable in his Sermon, and what the hearers might understand, and what they might believe.

2. When the Prayer was ended, they en­tred [Page 291] upon the Treatise: and they were u­suallyTexts of their Trea­tises. wont to preach to the hearers out of the Lessons of Scripture which were then read. Tertullian Ap c. 39. saith, that the Lessons of Scripture were rehearsed in the assembly, as the quality of the times required, either to forewarn, or to call to remembrance: that is, they applied the Scriptures that were read, to the quality of the times. So sayes Justin Martyr, the President instructed the Peo­ple with his oration, to imitate those things which were read in the Records of the pro­phets and Apostles, ap. 2. Ambrose ap­plied the L. 5. Ep. 33. History of Job, and prophecy of Jonas, as he read them, to the use of his hearers. August. Tract. in Joh. c. 12. & 13. and the same appeareth every where from those Treatises. Origen saith, that he in­tended briefly to admonish his hearers, of those things that had been read, Hom. 8. in Levit. Athanasius saith, in the beginning of his Oration De Semente, We have heard now how Jesus went through the corn fields, and how he healed the withered hand; wherefore [...] think it convenient, if we discourse a little upon the Lesson in the Gospel.

Sometimes they also did interpret that place of Scripture, which the people were greatly desirous should be explained unto them: which the words of Basil M. whoDe Baptis. [Page 292] was about to make a Sermon to the People on Christs Baptisme, do testifie. For he saith, that he entertained with a ready mind, their pious admonition in Christ, about the most glo­rious baptism of Christ: and acknowledgeth, that he will be very ready to speak of it accor­ding to his ability.

Thirdly, in their Treatises they lookt toScripture was to be applied to the peoples use. this, that what was read should be applied to the peoples use. So Tertull. ap. c. 39. Ju­stin Martyr, Apol. 2. saith, that the Presi­dent did exhort the hearers to the imitation of what was read: and not without reason; for to preach, is, according to Isychius, in Levit. lib. 2. c. 9. to exhort the people. Origen contra Celsum, lib. 3. affirms, that the Christians expounded the Scriptures as they read them, that they might exhort the people to piety towards God, and unto other virtues. Ambrose also accommodated the Scriptures, as they were read, to the present use and edification of the people, partly, by teaching, and partly, by reproving. See the beginning of Serm. 5. The same he does in lib. 5. Ep. 33. And Chrysostom confesses, that he fulfilled that charge, by convincing, rebuking, and admonishing. Serm. ad eos qui in festis tan­tum con­veniunt. t. 8. p. 8. Treaters sometimes stood, and sometimes sate.

Moreover, these Treaters, as they ex­pounded the Scriptures, did sometimes stand, 1 Cor. 14. and sometimes they sate. [Page 293] For the Bishops seat (whose office it was chiefly to treat out of Scripture) was set in the midst of the Church, on either side whereof the Presbyters sate. Constit. Ap. lib. 2. cap. 57. When Chry­sostom preach'd unto the people, he sate in the pulpit, or chair, as his manner was. Niceph. lib. 13. c. 4. Chrysostom himself confesses, that he sate in the pulpit and taught. Hom. de non contemnenda Eccle­sia, t. 7. p. 891. All sate when they taught the people, in Optatus his time; although Hierom taxeth the superciliousness of someHierom. in Gal. 4. Bishops, smelling of the pride of this world, who, being set as in a watch-tower, will scarcely vouchsafe to look upon mortal men, and otherwise their fellow servants. And the Epistle of the Council of Antioch reckon­eth this amongst the portentous manners of Samosatenus, that he, being not content with a mean one, as a Disciple of Christ, hath erect­ed himself an ascent in the Church, and a chair of state, like one of the Princes of this world. Euseb. Hist. 7. c. 24. Gregory Nazi­anzen Or. 26. in plagam grandinis. also nippeth the pride of Ministers, who fit upon high thrones, and that lift up their superciliousness higher than the Theatres themselves.

Fourthly, As they begun their TreatisesThey con­clude the Treatise with prayer with Prayer, so when they were ended, [Page 294] they stirred up the people to call upon God. This did Athanasius, when he ended his Sermon de Semente. But because, saith he, our discourse hath proceeded far enough, let us arise and stretch forth holy hands, that ha­ving called upon the God of all things, we may enjoy his assistance, through Christ our Lord. The same did Basil, as appears from the end of Hom. 7. Hexaemer. When the Mi­nister, saith Justin Martyr, hath finished his Sermon, we all rise up, and pour out our Prayers, Ap. 2. After exposition, the Priests by appointment lift up their hands to Hea­ven. Isychius in Levit. lib. 2. c. 9.

The Prayer of St. Austin, which he used after all his Sermons and Treatises, is extant in the end of his Commentaries upon the Psalms, in these words; We, being con­verted to the Lord God, our omnipotent Fa­ther, let us with a pure heart give him, so far as our weakness is able, great and unfeigned thanks, praying with our whole mind, for his singular meekness, that in his good pleasure he would vouchsafe to hear our Prayers: and that by his power he would expell the enemy from our actions and thoughts; multiply our faith, rule our mind, afford us spiritual cogitations, and bring us to his blessedness, Through Jesus Christ his Son, and our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with him, being God, in the unity [Page 295] of the Holy Ghost, through all ages. Amen. This very same Prayer is extant also Serm. 30. de verbis Domini.

Lastly, when Prayers were ended, theyAfter Treateng they sung Psalms. sung Hymns [or psalms] to God. It is or­dained, Concil. Toletan. 4. Can. 11. circ. ann. 671. that not before, but after the Gospel be preach't, Hymns be sung. So Ba­sil▪ Ep. 63. ad Neo Cae­sari. Neither did they begin to sing Psalms, be­fore their having made confession to God, they rose up from Prayer. Chrysostom teaches the same from the example of Christ. Hom. 83. in Matth.

CHAP. V.

THese are the things which are chiefly to be observed touching the great la­bours which the Fathers took in their con­tinual Treatises upon the Holy Scriptures: whom, he that shall seriously observe, will [Page 296] evidently find, with a small ado, that the pious and laborious Fathers in instructing the people, were not of that mind, as if the naked reading of Scripture were sufficient to instruct the Christian people in the under­standing of them, without undertaking any farther explication of them to the peoples use: which divers Treaters of this age are not ashamed to urge. They that assert this, do either not excell in any faculty to inter­pret the Scriptures, or the Holy Ghost hath indued them with no meet gifts to undergo that office, (to which they are wanting, through their carelesness) with dexterity, and to the Churches great profit. And that such should stand for the bare reading of Scripture, and decline painful treating out of the same, I no more wonder at them, than at the Fox, (as it is in the fable) that had his own tayl cut off, the want of which he thought himself truly disgraced by) who perswaded the other Foxes also to cut off their [...]ayles, (as if they were both a burden and blemish to them:) So these men, being unfit to expound Scripture themselves, could not envy others this ability. If these mens eye (Mat. 20. 15.) be not evil, out of which in due time it would be convenient to pluck their beam, let them consider.

As for those that judge they may safely [Page 297] forbear labour in expounding the Scriptures, although they be of God endued with a to­lerable ability to undergo that burden▪ I cannot without grief of mind consider, and admire their slothfulness, and yet they con­tend for the Scriptures, as if to them no­thing was more dear than reading of the Scriptures, which they glory of before others, that they highly value. When the learned Divine. Mr. S. A. seriously weigh­ed the temper of these men with himself, it came into his mind, how Aurelius Fuscus blamed Livy, for commending Thucydides writings: for he praised Thucydides wri­tings; not for Thucydides sake, but be­cause he thought that he could the more easily overcome Sallustius, if he preferred Thucydides first: so any man, though of no fine judgment, may here smell out these mens disposition: they commend the bare reading of the Scriptures to the Church, not because they are delighted therein, but that under this pretence they may oppose their necessary explication; in which, while they give up themselves to idleness, they observe others, not without some stomaching, car­nestly to bestow their pains.

There is no body so shameless, as to deny,How read­ing may be called preaching. that the reading of Scripture in the Church­assembly, is necessary for increasing both [Page 298] the faith, and knowledge of the people: and he that readeth Scripture, doth after a manner preach them, I deny not: since any may either by hand or writing, evange­lize. i. e. declare abroad. But this word Preaching is here more strictly to be taken: under which, after reading of the Scriptures, (alwayes in use and esteem in the Church of God, as formerly hath been shown) both their interpretation, and application to the Hearers, are comprehended, which the Fathers used, when the reading of Scripture was ended, as the testimonies ci­ted in the fore-going Chapter do manifest. Nor do the Scriptures say otherwise: for it's said, Act. 15. 21. that Moses was preach­ed, Act. 15. 21. when he was read every Sabbath day: be­cause it was a custome of the Jews to inter­pret the Scriptures as they were read, Neh. 8. 4, 7, 8. The Elders of the Levites inter­preted the Law, when it was read unto the people. Philo Judaeus makes mention of this custome, who was coetaneous to the Apo­stles, in Euseb. de praeparat. Evang. lib. 8. c. 2. When the Priest, saith he, or one of the Elders reads the Law, [...], he expounds it severally, (we use that word, when we bring a more full exposition, and rehearsal of a thing) and that through the whole seventh day. And if no more than a [Page 299] naked reading of Scripture had been requi­red to constitute a fit Minister of the New Testament, St. Paul having obtained an Embassy from the Lord to preach the Go­spel, had not dealt seriously with God, when he would have an open mouth, and free to preach the same granted, which yet he did with all his heart, Col. 4. 3. where he is to be thought to ask for something more than a faculty to read the Scriptures. And when the Lord taxeth the watchmens blindness in Isaiah, Is. 56. 10. whom he calls greedy dogs, feeding themselves, that are ignorant, doth he only brand them for being ignorant of reading Scripture? Moreover, if nothing were required by a Minister of the Gospel than reading of the Scripture, then he that once shall read them in the sacred Church­assembly, must straightway be said to preach them, as though he had abundantly fulfil­led the part of a gallant Treater; and so at length he that being called before a tribu­nal into judgment, for being guilty of some smaller crime, and shall, according to the custome of some Kingdomes bottomed up­on obsolete Canons, distinctly read some part of the Holy Scripture, which the Judge offers him, that he, having some milder pu­nishment inflicted, may escape with his life, for his skill in reading; I see not why such a [Page 300] watchman should not be judged acute, and fit enough, because he readeth as a Clergy­man: and [...], i. e. to divide the Word of truth aright (to under­go which task, if we ask Paul, he will an­swer, [...], i. who is sufficient? 2 Cor. 2. 16.) will according to them be nothing else but to read the word of truth distinctly: and at last it will come to this, that the re­ligious education of youth in the Univer­sities, that they may make themselves better furnished to undergo the charge of preach­ing the Gospel, will be in vain.

How little the defenders of this opinion do differ from the Gnosimachi, let them look to it. Damascen witnesseth, that they wereDe Heres. such adversaries to the knowledge of Chri­stians, that they said, that it was a vain, and less necessary labour in them, who sought for any knowledge in the Divine Scrip­tures.

But who will there be found desirous of Divine knowledge, that will not be weary of these fooleries? and what to judge of the premises, viz. Whether a Reader of Scripture may deservedly, and properly in the Church of God be called a Preacher of them? let the wise judge of it. Since Preaching cannot univocally be pre­dicated of simple reading of the Scrip­tures, [Page 301] and their interpretation and appli­cation. For Preaching hath reading pre­vious to it, but reading of Scriptures doth not contain in it their explication. I will add nothing of the difference in the words, [...].

CHAP. VI.

FOr the fuller discovery of these Trea­tises out of Holy Scripture, something is in the third place to be added, of the time assigned by the ancients to their Treatises: touching which, a double question doth oc­curr: first, how long their Treatises lasted, secondly, how often treated they in the week.

For the continuance of their Treatises,Their Trea­tises were not long. the Fathers troubled themselves but a lit­tle: [Page 302] and therefore they continued their Ser­mons an hour, and sometimes longer: and that they were not long in their Treatises, may be observed from Origen's, and all the other Fathers (who drew not out their Ser­mons to any long time with the people) their manner of Treating. For they thought it to be much more advised to teach often, than long: and those who Treated out of the Scripture, looked to that, of which once Hierom admonished Augustin; namely,Aug. Ep. 11. lest the Sermon being drawn out too long, could not be understood; for they knew well enough, that a satiety in a Sermon was no less an enemy to the ears, than too much meat to the body, as Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 42. therefore, lest their unpleasant prolixity should beget in the Hearers a loathing of the Sermon, they were cautious for this respect. Basilius M. Hexam. Hom. 8. being moved with this consi­deration, ended his morning Sermon [the sooner] lest he should make his auditors more dull against the evening assembly.

Besides, they judged, that holy Doctrine was to be instilled by little and little, for defect of understanding in the people: which Hom. 3. de Lazaro, 1. 5. p. 242. Chrysost. declares by a similitude from a Mother that makes way to bring a sucking infant to so­lid meat: she doth not pour much at once into the mouth of a meer infant, lest, what [Page 303] was poured in, be forthwith cast up again of the child: therefore the mother doth pour in by little and little, and so what is given, is presently by the child sent through him without any trouble. After this man­ner, the Fathers propounded not many things to their hearers, at one and the same time, lest what they had proposed, should slip out of their Auditors minds; and there­fore they chose rather to propound what they had to say, at distinct times. Chry­sostome also, Hom. 15. in Gen. assignes this very reason; namely, that they might bet­ter consider with themselves what they had heard.

But although they did not protract their Sermons very long, yet was there a time set for the doctrine of the Sermon, that nei­ther the Teachers should weary themselves with the multitude of words, nor the hear­ers. Chrys. Hom. 2. de verbis Isaiae, t. 5. p. 13 [...]. And he that shall say, that the time of a whole Sermon was determined within the space of about an hour, will not much miss it: as appears from Basil's se­cond Sermon in Psal. 14. where he saith, that he could not finish yesterday his Ser­mon with them, under an houres space, and what remained, he deferred till the following day. Hom. 2. in Num. Origen reproved some men that ra­ther followed their worldly, than spiritual [Page 304] affairs; because they assigned one or two hours of a whole day to God, and come to prayer in the Church; but spend their principal care about the regard of the world and their belly. From which, it's given to understand, how long they were present at the Church­assembly; namely, one or two hours.

Austin confesseth, that he carefully a­voided speaking in his Sermons to the people, of the abominable sin against the Holy Ghost, because he could not fi­nish this question, which of all he judged the greatest, Ser. 11. de verb. Dom. within the space of an hour. (namely, at the publick-assembly.) The same appears out of Chrysostom, when he reproves those that forsook the Commu­nion, and Congregation of the Saints; especially, because, whereas the week ha­ving an hundred sixty eight houres, God hath set apart one for himself, and they would spend this about secular, and ridiculous mat­ters. Hom. de Euchar. And elsewhere, Hom. de non contemnenda Eccles. t. 7. p. 891. he makes mention of two hours in which the Church is to attend spiritual affairs. idem, t. 5. p. 523.

But they were not so tyed to anTreatises not tyed to an hour [...]. houres space, as that upon any necessary occasion emerging, they might not con­tinue their Sermon longer to the peo­ple. [Page 305] What Austin Ep. 86. answers to Urbicus, about the continuance of Fasts, may be re­ferred hither; he thought that if any necessi­ty arose, a dinner was not to be preferred to a more urgent action. Which he confirms by the example of the Church, Act. 20. which thought it not much to hear St. Paul continuing his Sermon till midnight. To judge the same of Treatises (which upon some urgent necessity, may be longer con­tinued than ordinary) who will judge it to be alien from the Christian Faith?

Yet whether their Treatises were longNo going out before the Trea­tise ended. or short, he that went out of the Audito­ry, before the Treater had finished his Sermon, was obnoxious to the Church­es censure. Chrysostom, for this cause, dothHom. 83. in Matth. severely pinch some that waited not for the last sentence of the mystery. And else­where he requires it of all, that none go out of the Church before they be dis­missed. For if any went out before the dismission, he was, as a fugitive, requi­red his reason. Homil. de non contemnen­da Eccles. In the fourth Council of Car­thage, Canon 24. it is provided, that he that goes forth while the Priest is spea­king, shall be noted with the terrible censure of Excommunication. See the twenty eighth Canon Concil. Aurelian. 1. [Page 306] ann. 507. Also Can. 27. Concil. Agathen­sis, ann. 306.

Lastly, Because the Auditors were not to go out of the Church-assembly till the end of the Treatise, the Treaters, when they had ended their Treatises, conferred their help in pouring out their Prayers; as formerly hath been shewn in the fourth Chapter. I onely add this, that Chrysostome commends his hearers that received his admonitions with great chearfulness, and that they were not of­fended with their prolixity, but preser­ved a continual desire of hearing, with an extreme setledness of vigour, even to the end. In princip. Homil. 15. in Gene­sin.

CHAP. VII.

IN the second place, it will not be un­profitable to find out, how often we read that this was done by the ancients, within a weeks compass, or how often the Fathers were wont to treat out of the Scripture to the people. To which que­stion I answer briefly, and say, that they buckled themselves to this work every day, (as occasion offered) but especially on Lords Dayes, on which they were not wanting twice to sustain this labour, when they had liberty for persecution.

But because this, through some mens pre­judice, may seem a thing hard to believe, we will plead with the very testimonies of the gravest authors, and will teach both, by the grace of God, out of their records.

In the first place, they used to preach toThe anci­ents Treat­ed out of Scriptures every day. the people every day, which will appear to him that looks into their Treatises. For [Page 308] how often do we meet with this phrase in the beginning of their Treatises, Yesterday's Sermon?—Ambr. de Sacramentis, l. 5. c. 1. Also l, 3. c. 1. also Serm. 92. which he begins in the same manner.

Chrysostom thinks it necessary that a Bi­shop should preach every day; and he shews the fruit of this diligence, that by continu­ance in teaching, the auditors minds might re­tain the Sermon. Chrys. de sacerdotio, lib. 6. And what burden the grave Father impo­sed upon other mens shoulders in this bu­siness, yet he declined it not himself through a Pharisaical austerity, though it were hard to be born, which his Sermons shew.

Ye made yesterday, which had been the Devils Festival, to be the Spirits Feast-day, because ye received what we said to you, with a great desire of mind, &c. Hom. de Lazar.

Hom. 34. in Gen. he saith, Ye learned yesterday the excellent modesty of the Patriarch

Hom. 22. in Gen. thus he begins; The reliques of yesterdayes table, I set before you to day. Such prefaces as these do frequently occurr in his Homilies.

Hom. 5. ad Populum. Although I have spoken to you of this matter, yesterday, and the day before yesterday, yet shall I not per­swade you to it to day, nor to norrow, nor the next day after to morrow, &c.

[Page 309]Hom. 13. ad Populum. With the same be­ginning, and like prefaces, with which I be­gun yesterday, and the day before yesterday, I will also begin to day.

These, and many others, that may be observed in him, do plainly shew, that he performed the office of Treating out of Scripture every day to the people. Greg. Nyss. Orat. 2. de 40 Martyribus, makes mention of the things he had spoken the day before to the people; and in an Ora­tion next after that, he calls to their re­membrance what he had declared yester­day.

Austin thus begins his second Sermon in Psalm 68. The later part of the Psalm upon which we spoke yesterday to your charity, re­mains to be explained by me to day. Tract. 16. in Joh. he mentions, Yesterdays labour, and yesterdayes lesson. Tract. 18. in Johan. & Tract. 21. He begins Tractat. 22. after this manner, This dayes lesson out of the Gospel follows the Sermons that I repeated to you, yesterday, and the day before yesterday, &c.

Cyprian by his daily Treating out of the Gospels, endeavoured to encrease the saith and knowledge of his hearers. Nicepho­rus affirms, that Alexander comforted the Church daily, with his Divine instructions. Hist. l. 8. c. 5.

[Page 310]And thus much for the daily labours of the Doctors of the Church, which they spent in the explication of Scripture: whose diligence was so great, over their flocks commended to their charge, to feed them saithfully with the bread of life, that they would not abstain from the continual la­bours of Treating. They became not at that time lookers after their secular affairs, reli­cta cathedra [i. leaving the chair] (which thing was a grief to Cyprian, De Lapsis, sect. 4.) as afterwards they were; or did they grow too rank with excessive stipends: but, as their chief charge was bounded in Do­ctrine, so they thought not much to bestow their most diligent labour in this office, though very toylsome: and the more fre­quently and officiously they executed the charge of preaching to the people, the grea­ter honour had they from all good men, according to the Apostles Canon, 1 Tim. 5. 17. which Theodosius junior did piously ob­serve. Socr. l. 7. c. 22.

Nor do I remember that I have read any where in the ancients, that any man was interdicted (who being not deprived of the faculty of preaching, by the Church, or was not subject to its censure) that he should not, so often as conveniently he could, in­struct the people committed to him in the [Page 311] knowledge of the Scriptures. Cyprian ask­ed the Presbyters, in his absence, that they would seriously execute both their own, and his part, in the instructing the Church of Christ, Ep. 5. and he commends the Pres­byters that did corroborate every one with their daily exhortations, Ep. 40. The Ro­man Clergy exhorted the Clergy of Car­thage, to constancy in executing their of­fice, and to encourage the Christians to per­severe in the confession of Faith, and dete­station of idolatry, by arguments drawn out of the Holy Scriptures, Cypr. Ep. 3. But neither Cyprian, nor the Romans, did prohi­bit the Presbyters of Carthage from the di­ligent function of this office: but provo­ked them forward to perform it upon e­very occasion that was offered. This St. Chrysostom teacheth elegantly and pithily Homil. 15. in 2 Tim. while he exciteth all the Doctors of the Church (whom he contends ought so to be called, be­cause they teach) to labour in the Word and Doctrine, and stingeth some, that say, that there is no need of the Word and Doctrine: because, in his judgment, it tendeth no little to the edification of the Church, if those that are over the Church excell in the grace of teaching: with­out which, many things in the Church­discipline [Page 312] will perish. He doth not there­fore greatly reprove those that applied themselves to Doctrine, but shews, they are to be greatly honoured.

CHAP. VIII.

THat the ancients, when a fit occasion was offered, did treat out of the Scri­pture every day, their own records do teach us: but, as I said in the former Chapter, they especially buckled themselves to this work on the Lords day: Ca [...]. 19. Concil. in Trullo. For it be [...]oveth those that are set over Churches, on all dayes, but especially Lords dayes, to teach all the Cler­gy and people the oracles of piety, and the right Religion.

And as they took pains to explain the Scripture every day, so they judged, that all times of the day were fit for a spiritual dis­course, Chrys. Hom. 10. in Gen. Yea, though night gr [...]w on, himself being judge, it pre­judiced [Page 313] not spiritual Doctrine. And hence it was, that we read, that the ancients ex­plained the Scriptures not only in the mor­ning, but evening (for at both times the Church assembled, as is shewn in the first Chapter;) This their very words will tell us.

It appears from the beginning of Basils Two Trea­tises on the Lords day. second Hom. that one of those Sermons was had in the morning, and the other after noon: for he saith, We took time in a few words from the first dawning of the day, &c. Hexaem. Hom. 2. and he kept the second Hom. about the evening. While on it he interpreted the evening Hom. of the first day, he saith, These our discourses of that evening, being now occupied from this even­ing, do here put an end to our Oration. Hex­aem. Hom. secun. circa finem. And he saith in the beginning of his third Hom. that one part of these Homilies brought morning ali­ment, and the other evening joy to his hea­rers.

In the end of his seventh Hom. he admo­nishes his hearers to give thanks, and to talk among themselves of those things which both early, and in the evening, his Oration ye­sterday had offered them.

In the conclusion of the eighth Hom, he puts an end to the morning feast, lest the ex­uberant [Page 314] satiety of speech make his auditors more dull to receive his evening banquets.

In the beginning of the following Hom.Hom. 9. had upon the same day, he saith, that his Oration had set a banquet before his audi­tors in the morning, and that Oration was had about the evening: for he concludes it in this manner, Behold, the Evening time commands us silence, the Sun being now set a pretty while since, here therefore we think it meet, that this our Oration should bring us to our bed, or rest. All these to testifie that Basil the Great held a double Treatise out of the Scriptures the same day. For he makes mention both of his evening and morning labour undertaken in performing that office by him.

Neither did Great Chrysostom give place to Basil, although he was called Magnus, in the diligent treating out of Scripture, who saith, What we have said to day, is very like to [...]. 5. p. 362. that which we yet have determined to speak to day. Hom. oportet haereses esse. That place doth shew evidently enough, that Chryso­stom preach'd twice on one and the same day; and if the Church were but to meet once a day to hear the word of God, with what face could Chrysostom have reproved those his auditors that refused to come after their carnal table to a spiritual banquet? [Page 315] which thing we find him to have done not once. So Hom. 10. in Gen. & Hom. 9. ad Populum. Contrariwise, he commends those that obeyed this admonition, because when they had dined they met in the Church. Hom. 10. ad populum.

In the beginning of 67 Oration, T. 6. of the Greek Edition, [...], &c. he saith, that he, being wea­ried with the labours of the morning Sermon, reserved the rest, (namely, till afternoon) and was wonderfully refreshed with the pre­sence of Flavianus. This testifies, that he preached twice that day, otherwise Bishop Flavianus had not been present to hear him in the afternoon.

He that shall look into the beginning of the second Sermon of Austins in Ps. 88. will grant, that Austin did the same. For he com­mands his auditors to bend their mind to the rest of the Psalm, of which he had been speaking in the morning.

Being content with these authorities of the Fathers, (although we meet with much more in them) we will add no more. And he that shall weigh these in an equal bal­lance, will with a little adoe find, that these grave Authors did endure the labour of Treating twice a day out of the Scriptures. Now, if any one (whose palate nau [...]atingClj. [Page 316] the old path that leadeth straight to the eternal salvation of the soul, and seeking a new one, the premises do not please) shall object to me, that from the aforesaid testi­monies it is not evident, that the Fathers did undergo those labours, in interpreting and treating out of the Scripture twice on the Lords day, which I should have proved:Answ. Surely, he that shall say so, will not work me much trouble, nor will he enervate my opinion of the Fathers labours declared in this sense; unless he shall first demonstrate, that the Church did on all dayes besides the Lords, keep evening assemblies (on which they had these Sermons) and that they la­boured to sanctifie other dayes more than the Lords Dayes; which thing, I suppose, he will demonstrate from their grave wri­tings, about the time of later Lammas.

Moreover, if on other dayes, on which the Church was permitted to attend on worldly labours, they took pains in so of­ten interpreting of Scripture, who will be so far a stranger to right reason, as that he should believe, that they would not bestow so much labour for this business, on the Lords dayes, (on which they, abstaining from all others, were only intent on Di­vine worship)? much rather, and better [...]ould they say, in my judgment, if on [Page 217] other dayes they Treated twice out of Scrip­ture, they would, if occasion served, much oftener give themselves to this labour on the Lords day. As sometimes Sisinnius be­ingSocr. 6. 20. asked, why he would wash himself twice every day in the publick bath, be­ing a Bishop? he answered, because I can­not wash thrice. So the ancient Bishops of the Church were seriously intent twice on the Lords dayes, on the explication of Scripture. And if they could get any just occasion to do more than this, they would not avoid the labour of doing it the third or fourth time; as may be seen by that Sermon in Austin; when he, whoever he was that was the author of that Sermon, had twice performed the office of ex­plaining Scripture, when a new occasion was offered, (which was an extraordinary one) on the same day, he did the same the third time. For thus he begins, Wonder not, dear brethren, if I to day this third time, by Gods assistance, preach unto you. Serm. 33. ad fratres in eremo.

We have formerly seen some of Basils, both morning and evening Sermons; we read also, that he preach'd twice before noon. In the beginning of his Hom. in Psalm. 114. he excuseth himself, that he came somewhat late to some that had wait­ed [Page 318] on him from midnight, and gives the reason, because before he came to them, he had preached in another Church: yet those Vigils were onely continued from mid-night to mid-day.

And thus these things shew, that the Fa­thers did oftener than once treat out of the Scripture, on one and the same day.

CHAP. IX.

THere are some, who being not con­tent with the aforesaid testimonies, do further demand an example to be shewn either in the Old or New Testament: of any Pastour labouring in preaching of the Word, who bestowed his labour in this [Page 319] work twice on the Sabbath dayes. I cannot enough wonder at these mens wit, who will not be removed from the opinion they have espoused, and rather would pluck out their their own eyes, than see what, will they, nill they, they are enforced to see. But come on, i [...] there be any satisfying of these mens expectation, and let us consider what light may be setch'd from the fountains of Scripture to answer this question.

From both Testaments it is evident, that in the publick assemblies of the Church, after reading of Scripture, there followed the interpretation of the same. This we have shewn in Chap. 3. So Neh. 8. 5, 6, 7, 8. they did not onely read plainly the Law of God in the publick assembly, but they also expounded the sense of it: and therefore the naked reading of Scripture was not thought sufficient by the Levites to give the people understanding: otherwise they would have abstained from expounding them from day to noon. So in the Jews as­semblies which are mentioned in the New Testament, alwayes after reading of Scrip­ture, followed their explication: see Luk. 4. 20. Act. 13. 15. The sacred books be­ing read, they that excelled in Doctrine, did afterwards interpret them. So Acts 15. 21. we read, that Moses had in every Town [Page 320] those that preached him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day; the sense of which Scripture we have declared out of Philo Judaeus. And these things, shew that the Scriptures were both read, and by interpretation illustrated in the Jewish Church.

But some there are, that they may eludeIt is consi­dered whe­ther inter­preting of the Law wus in use before the Babylo­nish capti­vity. this answer, who contend, that this man­ner of interpreting Scripture on Sabbath dayes, was not in use under the former Temple, that is, before the Babylonish cap­tivity: because in the writings of Moses, in which is extant the institution of the Sab­bath, before they were returned out of Ba­bylon Object. into the Land of Canaan, we meet with no mention thereof: neither, as they think, is there any command extant, by vir­tue whereof the Priests are obliged to inter­pret the Law on Sabbath dayes, successively returning: which opinion is entertained by some with applause.

Now if it be true, which they say, thenAnsw. the whole manner of the Jews keeping holySanctify­ing of the Sabbath, not in meer idle. [...]ess. the Sabbath, consisted in meer idleness, or a cessation from labours by Gods command, which yet none will easily admit: since not onely in the old Sabbath God enjoyned the rest to the people of the Jews, but also re­quired holiness in those that ceased from [Page 321] their labours; otherwise he had not de­termined the day, on which we are to rest, to be sanctified, which yet he did. Observe, Deut. 5 [...] 12. saith Moses, the Sabbath day, to sanctifie it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. The rest commanded by God on the Sab­bath day, was not a part properly called, but an help to its sanctification, as we have taught out of the Fathers, Book 1. chap. 11. The Sabbath, saith Chrysostome, is given, Hom. 1. de Lazar. t. 5. p. 227, not for idleness, but that men being with­drawn from the care of temporal things, they might spend the rest of it in spiritual mat­ters.

Yea, he saith in the same place, that the Jews were to attend the hearing of Divine Sermons. So also Origen confesses, that theHom. 23. in Num. Reader, or Doctor of the Law, did not cease on Sabbath dayes from his work, and yet did not break the Sabbath. Now what was the work of the Reader or Doctor of the Law, on which they did attend, but to instruct the people in the understanding thereof. Athanasius also saith, ‘The Sab­bathDe Sabb. & Circum signifieth, or intimateth not idle­ness, but the knowledge of the author. The Sabbath was given for knowledge, and not for idleness, because knowledge is more necessary than idleness. He bla­med those who were idle on the Sabbath, [Page 322] because they had not that which was pro­per for the Sabbath, that is to say, know­ledge of the truth.’ The Sabbath therefore according to St. Athanasius, was given men, that they, ceasing from worldly businesses, might freely apply their minds to the means by which they might attain some know­ledge of God. And what those means are, we have shewn from Chrysostom and Ori­gen.

St. Austin thought, that the Jews wo­men might better spin wool, and their men dig the ground, as formerly we have ob­served out of him, than that they, ceasing from labour, should spend their time in playes: according to whom, something else was required to the sanctification of the Sabbath, than meer rest; namely, the san­ctifying of the rest, or the consecration of the rest to the publick exercise of Gods Worship: which, in what things can it better be observed, than in reading of Gods Law, and explaining the sense of its words, prayers, and other exercises of piety?

On the Sabbath, saith iu Ps. 19. Theodoret, we are commanded to rest, but it's not any kind of rest; since the Holy Ghost hath multiplied our work: and what that work of the Spirit is that is multiplied on the Sabbath, he after­wards expounds, when he saith, he hath [Page 323] commanded us to labour in Prayers and Psalms. These things shew, that something more than rest was required of the people on the Sabbath day.

Secondly, if the Bible had not been pub­licklyOn the Sabbath a Holy Con­vocation. read, and its sense expounded on Sab­bath-dayes, then none besides the Priests and Levites, and some others that offered Sacrifices to the Priests, had been bound to be present on Sabbath dayes, in the place destined by God to sacrifice in: for what need was there, that they should onely be present with them that sacrificed? But the contrary appears from the very Text, Lev. 23. 3. where the solemnity of the Sabbath is shown. God appoints, that there shall be an holy convocation. Now if a Convocation were by God required on the Sabbath dayes, then it concerned the people, as well as the Priests, to be present at the common assem­bly? which being finished, that solemn be­nediction was pronounced by the Priest to the people assembled. Num. 6. 23.

Thirdly, if there had been no reading ofThe Levites were to teach the Law. the Law, and explaining thereof, in use among the Jews, under the former Tem­ple, then the Priests had been bound to nothing else, but to serve for offering sacri­fices. But the Scripture testifies, that the Levites were to teach Israel the Judgments, [Page 324] and Law of God, as well as to put incense upon the altar. Deut. 33. 10. where two offices are assigned to the Levites. In the first place, that they teach the people in the Law and judgments of God: and se­condly, that they put incense upon the al­tar. But if they had not instructed the peo­ple in the Law, then they had bestowed their chief care upon the less principal, the other, which was the principal duty, being neglected. And unless the people had been instructed in the meaning of the Law, they had wholly been ignorant of the use for which the Sacrifices were ordained of God. But Aaron and his sons were separated from others by God, to teach the children of Israel the statutes of God, Lev. 10. 11. Which they faithfully performed, both privately (as often as any consulted them upon any emergent question, Deut. 17. 9, 10.) and publickly, for they instructed all Israel in the Word of God, 2 Chron. 35. 3. And that charge did, ex officio, lie upon the Levites, as well before, as after the captivity, to be indued with the knowledge of all things, that the Law might be sought for at their mouth, M.al. 2. 7. But when could they with greater fruit draw out the knowledge of Gods Law to the peoples edification, than in the publick assembly of the Church, [Page 325] being gathered together on S. Dayes? since Mat. 21. Mar. 12. 13. Luk. 22. Joh. 5. 7, 8, 18. on other dayes, on which they were to attend their labours, they could not do this. Christ when he began his Ministry once, did frequently teach in the Temple. Why did the people wait for Zacharias, when he was offering Sacrifice, if it were not an usu­al thing for them to hear some short Ser­monLuk. 1. 8, 9, 10. and benediction from him, before they went out? Christ sate in the Temple in the midst of the Doctors, hearing and ask­ing them questions: which shews, that it was the custome of a Doctor to teach the multitude in the Temple. If therefore the Law of God was not on the Sabbath dayes expounded for the peoples use, and no other exercises of piety but sacrifices, were requi­red of the people, in what thing was the Sabbath ennobled above other dayes? for sacrifices were offered on other besides the Sabbath dayes: yea, two Lambs were day by day offered for a continual burnt-offer­ing, Numb. 28. Therefore the Sabbath was not made remarkable by the only worship of Sacrifices, above other dayes, on which they attended sacrifices: but besides the sa­crifices, were superadded the interpreting of the Law, and a serious and pious exercising themselves therein, and other duties of pie­ty: upon which account, the Sabbath day [Page 326] was reckoned more holy than other dayes of the week, and the ninety second Psalm was for this end written, that the people might sing it in the Church on the Sab­bath day, whereon a holy Convocation was held.

Fourthly, the question propounded by the husband of the Shunamitess doth evince the same, 2 Kin. 4. 23. He asks his wife why she would go to the Prophet that day, since it was neither new moon nor Sabbath? which were the ordinary dayes to consult God upon, and to hear his word, according to the famous Junius. Lyra saith also the same on that place, He spoke this, saith he, because men went more frequently on those dayes to the Prophets, to hear Gods word: because the Prophets were not to attend Sa­crifices, therefore they that went to the Pro­phets, did it, that they might be instructed in the Law and will of God by them: but when could this be better done than on the Sabbath? The famous Cunaeus, upon the authority of Rabbi Aben Ezra, affirms, that Oracles were consulted on Sabbath dayes. De Rep. Hebraeorum, l. 2. c. 24.

Fifthly, if reading of Scriptures, and a clear interpreting of them, had not been prescribed of God, then Christ, and after him his Apostles, who were faithfully dili­gent [Page 327] in expounding the Law on Sabbath dayes, are to be taxed for Will-worship; be­cause they offered God a worship on the Sabbath, which he had not commanded them.

Lastly, that the use of Synagogues wasUse of Sy­nagogues before the Babylonish captivity. among the Jews before the Babylonish capti­vity, may be collected from Moses, Lev. 26. 31. where the Hebrews by Sanctuaries do understand Synagogues, in which the people met weekly on Sabbath dayes: of whose ruine and vastation the Church ex­postulateth with God, Psal. 74. 7, 8. the inscription of which Psalm shews, that that Psalm was penned when David governed the Kingdome: for the Inscription is for Asaph. It was therefore either penned by Asaph, (who writ some of the Psalms as well as David, 2 Chron. 29. 30.) or was commend­ed to his care; who, together with his sons, is recited among those who sung holy songs, 1 Chr. 25. 2. If therefore, while Asaph sur­vived, then were Synagogues long in use before the captivity. But for what end were they instituted? in which sacrifices (which it was lawful to offer no where else but at Hierusalem when the Temple was built) were not offered: but in them was the people instructed in the Law of God by the Levites, who were dispersed up and [Page 328] down Israel, and by others who were dele­gated of God to that charge and office.

Which things being considered, let o­thers judge what to say of their uncertain conjecture, who contend, that there was no other interpreting of the law, used under the former Temple, besides that which the Prophets, being extraordinarily called, un­dertook. Which opinion, being once ad­mitted, it will not be easie to avoid the aforesaid incommodities, as to any one it will appear, by a more narrow search into them. Unto whose conjecture, we will, with their good-leave, oppose the authori­ties both of Jews and Christians in that par­ticular, being bottomed upon the Holy Scripture.

Flavius Josephus (whom according to Cunaeus, we are to believe next to the Pen­men De Rep. Hebr. l. 3. c. 1. of Holy Writ) pleading the Cause of the Jews against Appion, in his Apology (which in the famous Cunaeus opinion is learned to a miracle) in express words af­firms,l. 2. contra Appion. that Moses would have us hear the Law not once, or twice, or oftner, but he com­mands all men, leaving their other works, to meet together to hear the Law, and perfectly to learn it, &c. Thus he. And if this Ordi­nance of a weekly meeting to hear and learn the Law was in force in Moses [Page 329] age, then was it long before the Babylonish Captivity.

While Philo Judaeus contends, that theDe vitae Mosis, l. 3. Playes, and ridiculous spectacles of Fools and Dancers ought to be put away; he saith, that it was the manner to study Phi­losophy on Sabbath dayes, the Prince go­ing before, and teaching, what was needful to be done or spoken, the rest giving ear. Whereupon he also affirms, that they now should play the Philosophers upon Sabbath dayes, more patrio, in their country manner▪ and he acknowledgeth, that Oratories in Cities were for Schools of Virtue▪ More credit therefore is deservedly to be given to the Jewes, relating their countrey cu­stomes, than to other mens conjectures of them.

Among the Christians, divers very lear­ned men treating of the Hebrews Common­wealth, have taught the same. Amongst whom▪ Carolus Sigonius de Rep. Hebraeorum, l. 5. c. 10. and Cornelius Bertramus, p. 96. The famous Cunaeus (to whom the Christi­an Church is much beholden for his labours in explaining the antiquities of the He­brews) saith, that the right observation of De Rep. Hebr. l. 2. c. 24. Sabbaths consisted in the holiness of all their words and deeds, and in Divine worship and Prayers. All which doth plainly evidence, [Page 330] that they used to read the Law, and inter­pret it to the peoples capacity, on the Sab­bath dayes: otherwise neither their words nor deeds had been noted for holiness: or how else could the minds of the Jews have been furnished piously to conceive Prayers on Sabbath dayes, without the explaining of the Scripture? Yea, the Learned Cunaeus confesses, that the Levites in the Syna­gogues did deliver to the people in the Towns of Judaea, the chief knowledge of all Laws, both of Humane and Divine things: and when could the Levites do this with greater profit, than on the Sabbath dayes? In a word, although we deny that at that time the Talmudical interpretation of Scri­pture was grown in use, which▪ we confess the ancient Church of the Jews knew no­thing of: yet we cannot affirm this of the vocal interpretation of the Scriptures by the Levites.

But to return to our purpose; We find that under the Old Testament the Scrip­tures were read and opened in the Jews as­semblie, even the Holy Ghost being witness, although some doubt of the period of time, at which their interpretation on Sabbath dayes began.

As for the Churches in the New Testa­ment, planted by the Apostles, they could [Page 331] not, so long as their Peace was disturbed with a storm of Persecutions, meet together without very great difficulty: for which cause, as we said Chap. 1. they had their meetings sometime on the night, and some­times on the day; neither again was it safe for them to hold a meeting all the day. For which cause De fuga in persecu­tion. c. ult. Tertullian judges, that it was best for Christians, if the Lords dayes solem­nities could not be celebrated on the day time, (for persecutions whereof he speaks) then ought they to keep them on the night, if not with every one of them, yet at least with three. These things teach us, that the Church was not permitted in that age with safety, and as often as they list, to meet together on the day time, to perform the exercises of pi­ety. He therefore that requires of us some one example for expounding Scripture twice (while the fire of Persecution raged, with which that age abounded) I desire him to tell me, whether the Christians did, during that Persecution, twice every Lords day keep their meetings? For if it were safe for them to meet, why may they not as well be believed to me [...]t for interpreting of Scripture, and Prayer to God, (since these duties are joyned by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. and observed by Sect. 1. De bono pudiciti [...]. Cyprian, as he faithfully expounded the Scriptures)? Especially [Page 332] when it was the custom of the Church, so often as Scripture was read, to interpret the same. This we have largely enough shewn out of Justin, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, and other Fathers of great autho­rity, chap. 4.

Since therefore in the Jewish, Apostoli­cal, and other Churches succeeding the Apo­stles, there followed after the reading of the Scriptures, an exposition of them, it seems necessarily to follow, that if they had liber­ty to meet on Lords dayes, then they used to treat twice out of Scripture: of which there is frequent mention in their assem­blies. And it's certainly evident, from the continual practi [...] of the Church, that from the very Apostles times, prayers and reading were reckoned both together, which were celebrated both morning and evening. No man therefore can judge it unreasonable to say, that there followed an interpretation of those things which were read: because reading was used to instruct the people. But how could the people be instructed in the Scripture read, without an interpreta­tion? The Eunuc [...] answered, Acts 8. 31. that he could not understand what he read, except some one should guide him. Yea, they were wont to Treat out of the Reading [or Lesson] as was formerly said.

[Page 333]The calamitous condition also of those times, wherein so many cruel persecuti­ons were stirred up, required the same. Daily exhortations were very needful to the Christians, for to bear the Cross of the Gospel patiently. Neither must we think that these skilful Pastours who were set over the Church by the Apo­stles, and Apostolical men, did not en­deavour, as often as they could, to in­struct the People committed to them in the matters of Faith. St. Cyprian, Ep. 40. professes, that he was sore troubled, when he could not go to, and exhort every one, as the Lords, and his Gospel Ministry re­quired, while he was in his banishment. If it were a grief to this vigilant Bi­shop, that because being hindred by his exile, he could not provoke all who were commended to his inspection and care, by his holy Exhortations, to piety and patience; certainly, when he was with his people, if he took care that by a Reader the bare reading of the Gospel was recited to them, although he stirred not them up by his Exhortations to pra­ctise what they had heard read, he would never in very deed have thought, that he had shewed himself a faithful Bishop. Whereupon, it deservedly seems an absurd [Page 334] thing to Mr. S. A. a man of ripe judg­ment, to think, that the primitive Bishops faithfully fulfilling their Ministry, were content with a naked reading of the Scriptures, without any explaining of them to the People: which, if the Bishop had not performed, although he might live in­nocently and without scandal, yet that con­versation without preaching, would do hurt by silence, although he might do good by Example, as Hierom shews, Ep. ad Ocea­num. Therefore the diligent Overseers of Churches would never intermit this, unless they were hindred by some urgent necessity: and therefore, amongst them, after reading of Scriptures, there followed an explication of them, as often as the Church met.

CHAP. X.

THus far of the Ministry of the Word, whereby was made a solemn obser­vation of the Lords Day: the second Of­fice performed by the Church on that day followeth; this consists in Prayer: and the Scripture witnesseth, that the Church pray­ed in their Assemblies together to God. St. Paul commands, that supplications, pray­ers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made in Churches, 1 Tim. 2. 1. The Apostles and Christians are said to continue with one ac­cord in prayer and supplication, Act. 1. 14. We read, that the Church gathered at Hie­rusalem [Page 336] did continue in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and prayers, Act. 2. 42.

Prayers also are every where reckoned byPrayers had by the Church as­sembled. the Fathers amongst the offices of Piety ce­lebrated on that day. When the people were congregated to perform the Lords dayes solemnities, the Scriptures were not onely read, but also Petitions were sent away, viz. to God. Tertullian de anima, c. 9. also Apol. c. 39, he saith, that the Church assem­bled into a company, that we praying may by our prayers as it were beset God about with a company made up; that is, that the Prayers of all being gathered together, we may as it were in a certain spiritual host, go unto God with one humble assault, and make him propitious to us and others, as the renown­ed Zanchius expounds it. When the wri­tings of the Prophets and Apostles were read in the Church-assembly, and the same explained by the Praeses, all rose up, and poured out their Prayers to God, in Justins age Ap. 2..

When Julian studied to accommodate the Greeks manners to the Orders of the Church, among other things he ordained, Niceph. 10. 21. that after the manner of the Church, there should be certain Prayers for certain houres and dayes. Arnobius affirms, that the Chri­stians [Page 337] used Prayers in their Conventicles. lib. 4. contr. Gent.

In which place, Arnobius calls the placesConventi­tula what. w^ch were assigned to the publick assemblies of Christians for interpreting of Gods Word, prayer to God, and administring the H. Eu­charist, Conventicula. As [...]. 5. c. 11. Lactantius, while he makes mention of a certain mans cruelty in Phrygia, who burnt all the people together with the Conventicle. Where he speaks of the place where the Church performed the exercises of Religion in their assemblies.

Arnobius also elsewhere mentions these Prayers, lib. 1. where he saith, that the Christians with joynt Prayers worshipped Christ, and begged of him things just, ho­nest, and such as he may well hear. Cyril acknowledges, that Christians ought on Feast-dayes, to frequent the Temples of God, and among other duties of Religion, to insist upon prayers. lib. 8. in Joh. c. 5.

All these things shew, that Prayers were used by the Church in their publick assem­blies. But Christians, when they were as­sembled, were not intent onely upon Pray­ers, as Zonaras would have it, in Can. 16. Conc. Laodic. For in the fore-going Chapter we have observed out of Church-records, that in the publick assembly of the Church, the Scriptures were both read and interpret­ed [Page 338] by the Bishops, and those that were de­legated to this office in the Churches.

In rehearsing of these Prayers, eightPrayer on­ly to God. things come especially to be spoken of, which are not unworthy our knowledge. In the first place, the primitive Christians made all their Prayers to God, because they knew Tert. ap. c. 30. they could not obtain what they prayed for, of any one else, therefore in Pray­ers they had respect to God, as being one who alone could answer their petitions. And it is a point of great folly to ask of those who are no Gods, as if they were Gods. Clem. Alexandr. Strom. l. 7.

The Christians therefore at that time worshipped God alone: and the Martyrs they honoured as the Disciples and follow­ers of the Lord. Eus. Hist. l. 4. c. 14. nei­ther had the Idolatrous worship of Saints crept then into the Church; which our Learned Divines (for all the anger of the Papists) have copiously enough taught: and therefore I will add no more of that.

Secondly, Prayers made in the Church­assembly,The Prae­fectus be­gun Pray­er. were begun by him who was set over the rest, which he put up as well as he could, saith Justin Martyr; for which rea­son, Proterius Bishop of Alexandria, is cal­led by Niceph. Hist. l. 15. c. 17. [...],* Ap. 2. the Mediator of God and Men: [Page] (althhough Augustine [...]. 2. cont. Parmen. Ep. c 8. affirms, that none of the good and faithful Christians could bear Parmenianus, that made a Bishop the Media­tour between God and the people.) And Greg. Naz. reckons this as a praise to Bishops, Orat. 21 that they undertake the care and government of souls, and do the part of Mediatours be­tween God and men. Apol. pro [...]uga. Which yet I think is onely to be affirmed of those, who with Moses stand in the gap, to turn away the wrath of God, lest he destroy the People, Psal. 105. 23. The Emperours themselves do confess, in their Epistle to the Asian Diocess, Theod. 4. 7. that by Bishops Prayers wars are ended, invasions of Angels kept off, and hurtful spirits repelled. All these things are ascribed to them, not that they procured them, but because they seriously pleaded with God in Prayers, that he would avert these evils from the Churches committed to their care: to whose Prayers God in his in­finite Mercy gave an answer. So thinketh Chrysostom, who tells us, that it is the part of a Bishop, as an Ambassadour, to intercede for a whole City, yea, for the whole world, and deprecate God, that he may be propitious to men.

And when the Praepositus prepared to prayThe Praefe­ctus prepa­red the peo­ple to pray­er. with the people, before he begun, he prepa­red the people with a previous speech. For [Page] Ambrose thought it necessary Exhort. ad Virgi­nes. that the preparation of the mind go before Prayer, lest he that prayes to God seem to tempt him, which men led even by the onely instinct of nature know: as we may see in the Pytha­goreans, not suffering men to worship the im­mortal Gods Plut. in Numa Pomp. per transitum, but perswading them to undertake that with a prepared mind. And therefore when the Emperour was con­versant about sooth-saying, and sacrifices, some cryed aloud, Hoc age, i. e. be attentive, or set thy mind on this thing only: which saying did prepare as many as were present at sacrifices to attend them with a devout mind: for in sacred things we must not la­bour in transcursu, quasi, lightly, as it were, and passing by.

But those whose minds are illuminated with the happy light of Scripture, have more perspicuously observed the truth in this point, therefore the people of Christ are perswaded to attend Prayer with the whole heart, having cast aside all carnal and worldly cogitations, and that the mind should Cypr. de Orat. Dom▪ think of nothing at that time but what it pray­ed for only: and for this end, the Priest, ha­ving premised a Preface to the Prayer, did pre­pare the minds of the Brethren, by saying, SURSUM CORDA, [i. up with your hearts] and when the people answered, HA­BEMUS [Page 341] AD DOMINUM, [i. have up, or we have them for the Lord] they were put in mind that they ought to think of nothing else but the Lord. And this was the general preparation wherewith the minds of the people were excited to all the duties of Religion, and by hearing thereof, they were prepared to more ardent Prayer.

In the third place, the peoples minds be­ingO [...]e voice of all in Prayer. thus excited to pray, this is worth our consideration, that of all those who were present together, there was [...], i. one common Prayer, which they uttered with one mind, and sincere faith in Jesus. So Ig­natius, in his Epistle ad Magnesianos. Strom. 7 Cle­mens Alexandrinus also saith, the multi­tude of them that prayed had as it were one common voice, and one mind. Athanasius wished for this, Apol. ad Imperatorem Con­stantium, that all might make one and the same voice, without a discord.

Cyprian, de Oratione Dominica, acknow­ledges, that in the Church there was a com­mon and publick prayer. He adds, that the Apostles, Acts 1. 14. continued with one ac­cord in Prayer, when they declared the instan­cy and concord of their prayer. For Prayer be­ing conceived of more, the more easie en­trance is made unto God, according to that of Matth. 18. 19.

[Page 342]Nor need any to wonder that there was one and the same Prayer of the whole Church being assembled, since there ought to be but one voice in the Church, he that readeth speaketh alone, and he that is the Bishop sitteth silent in the mean time, and he that singeth, singeth alone, and when all sing together, the voice is uttered as by one mouth, and he that preaches to the people, preacheth alone, saith Chrysostom. Also Homīl. 18. in 2 Cor. he saith,Hom. 36. in 1 Cor. Common Prayers were made by the Priest, and others, and all made one Prayer.

Fourthly, they prayed as the Holy Ghost suggested to them, Tert. ap. 30. Prayers suggested by the Holy Ghost. sive m [...]itore, quia de pectore orabant; i. they prayed without a mo­nitor, because out of their heart; that is to say, the Holy Ghost shewed them the way to conceive Prayers in a pious manner, and by his instinct they prayed without any other monitor. After the offering of bread and wine allayed with water, the Praefectus put up prayers, and giving of thanks Pro vi­rin. [...], i. as well as he could. If he pray­ed as well as he could for his might, then it seems he did not read prescribed forms of Prayer, to the bare reading whereof, there was no need of such a labour. Justin Mar­tyr, ap. 2.

Neither could it be otherwise, because upon a new occasion offered, forth with new [Page 343] Prayers were required, answering to that occasion; and for this cause they could not be alwayes the same. Tertullian, as his manner is, teacheth this elegantly. There De Orat. c. 9. are, saith he, some things which may be pray­ed for according to the circumstance of every one, first premising the lawful and ordinary Prayer (he speaks of the Lords Prayer) as a foundation. A liberty of accidents; a liber­ty for desires to be put out into occasional pray­ers. Christians have liberty in Tertullians opinion to put up Prayers to God pro re na­ta, which are formed according to the form of Prayer prescribed by Christ. So St. Au­stin, Ep. 121. ad Probam, saith, that we may beg for the same things in these or other words, but we are not to pray for other things; that is to say, Men may use other words in Prayer, than what Christ used in the Prayer which he prescribed the Church; but the mind ought not to be intent in praying for other things than what Christ hath decla­red to us in that Prayer.

Moreover, the Bishops were sometimes to commend to God in Prayer Aug de Eccl dogm. c. 30. those things which the people desired them, and for this cause they could not alwayes use the same Prayers, because new occasions, as I aid, required new Prayers. Especially since t was for them, De Sa­c. 1 dot 1. 6. Chrysostom being witness, [Page 344] to pray unto God, that he might divert the evils that hung over every one. And there­fore since the same evils did not alwayes oc­curr, the Bishops alwayes prayed, as the state of the people commended to their cure did require.

In the first place therefore, Prayers wereHow this custom was chan­ged. used according to the quality of the time, men having their minds disposed by the Holy Ghost to pray devoutly. But afterwards (when through the Devils subtilty divers errours in Religion crept in) in process of time it sell out, that prayers were by some brought in contrary to the Faith, (or as St. Austin speaketh, some spake in their Prayers De Bapt. contra Do [...]tat. lib. 6. c. 25. contrary to the rule of Faith) the Church providing for this errour, used a threefold remedy; and in the first place they provi­ded, that it should be lawful for none to com­pose Forms of Prayer at their pleasure, which they used in the publick assemblies, but the same (as Zonaras interprets it, those that were daily used) should be retained in every meeting. So Conc. Laodic. Can. 18.

Secondly, it was ordained, that theyA [...]. 397. should conferr with the more able Brethren about the Prayers which they used in their Assemblies. It was so provided in the third Council of Carthage, Can 23.

[...] [...] it was defined, that no requests orA [...]. 416.[Page 345] prayers should be used in the Church, but those which were approved by a Synod. (Conc. Milevit. 2. Can. 12.) lest any thing should be composed against the Faith, either through ignorance, or less care. We meet with mention of both remedies; namely, the second and third in Concilio Africano, Can. 70. T. 1.

But it is a question, whether in the afore­saidCan. 23. African Canons, the Reverend Fathers do speak of set Forms of Prayers in publick Liturgies, or of the Prayers which he that was to treat out of Scripture (which was a common thing with Treaters, as Can. 40. we have heard out of the Fathers) did con­ceive at that time he came forth to speak at. Some men of great account think, that they meant the former rather than the later; because the cited words of the Canons do ordain what forms of prayer they should use, whose office it was to perform acts of Reli­gion, when they stood at the altar. So Conc. Carthag. where they that were to Treat stood not: the Bishops seat who did inter­pret the Scripture, was in the midst of the Church, as we have formerly shown. This therefore was ordained by the Fathers, lest as Hereticks increased, and spread their Heterodox opinions, the Christian people who did not well enough attend their pra­ctise, [Page 346] should be imposed upon by Hereticks. Canons were established, because in that age especially, every faction did spread abroad certain forms of Prayers and Psalms, by which, when they were met together, they might allure unto them men that were not well enough exercised in the faith, but unwarily embraced their dreams: as Histo­rians report it fell out in Chrysostoms age, not long after the aforesaid Councils were held. Soer. l. 6. c. 8. Nic. l. 13. c. 8. That, I say, these mens endeavours should be prevented, lest Hereticks should spread abroad Forms of Liturgies not agree­ing with the Doctrine received from the A­postles; it was ordained, that in publick Liturgies (which were not to be prescribed by any one man) none should have liberty to use any forms of Prayers, but what were either formerly in use (namely, before the mists of Heterodoxisme had obscured the shining face of truth) or had been approved by the most judicious brethren; or lastly, confirmed by the authority of some Synod. The very words of the cited Canon do de­clare, that the Mileritan Fathers do speak of such Prayers. Let the place be seen, it is extant in the first Tome of the Councils, pag. 600.

Moreover, it appears that this was the cause of those Canons, by the condition of [Page 347] the times in which they were ordained. For at that time the Church was grievously sick of the wounds both of Arrianism and Pela­gianism. And reason it self perswades not to restrain the cited Canons to the Prayers which were conceived by him that Treated to the people. For those were to be concei­ved alwayes, as the necessity of the Church did require (as formerly Tertullian taught us) for which cause they could not alwayes be the same: but were to be varied pro re nata, and as the necessity of the people for whom the Treater was to offer the sacrifice of the lips to God, required.

On the contrary, if the Canons speak of the Treaters prayers, then this is worthy ob­serving, that the Grave Fathers in those sanctions did not intend to prescribe lawes for all and every Treater, in the Prayers he was to conceive: but onely for those who were not well instructed in Religion; for they speak of some who name the Father for the son, or the son for the Father: and who had written out Prayers to themselves from some other. So Conc. Carth. where above they ordain, lest the less exercised in Religion should be imposed upon through the fraud and deceit of others, that they conferr with their wiser brethren about the Prayers they had written out, before they uttered them to the people.

[Page 348]The same is also to be said to the Mile­ritan Canon, wherein it is provided, that nothing be composed against the Faith, either through ignorance or less care. And yet by those sanctions the more instructed of the brethren are not restrained to Forms of Prayer, unless they be approved by others. We read that certain prayers were prescri­bed by Constantine the Great to his Guard,Euseb. de vit. Const. l. 4. c. 18. which they used on the Lords day; yet none will thence conclude, that other Christians were to put up no Prayers to God, but what were commanded. The cited Canons are therefore to be understood either of Liturgy Prayers, or of the Prayers of the Treater, un­fit through ignorance to conceive Prayers, and of no others.

Fifthly, in their Prayers conceived afterFor what the Church prayed. this manner they prayed to God for things just, honest, and meet to be heard. Arnob. cont. Gent. lib. 1. And these they asked for all mens sakes; not only for familiars, but ene­mies; for Emperours and Subjects, and in their prayers they seriously pleaded with God for all others; so Arnobius, lib. 4. For themselves, and all every where, as Justin Martyr. Ap. sec. For the Emperours health, as Tertull. apol. cap. 30. For their offices, for their worldly state and peace; Tertull. ibid. And especially for the Church, because [Page 349] the whole people of Christ are one. Cypr. de Orat. Dom.

Sixthly, these Prayers were conceived inPrayer in a known tongue. a known tongue. Origen instead of all, will teach us this, who writeth against Celsus, a froward adversary of the Christian name, Contr. Celsum. l. 8. where he lets all know, that the right Christians did not in their pray­ers make use of the usual names of God in Holy Writ, but the Greeks prayed in the Greek, and the Romans in the Roman, and every one in his own Language, and praised God accor­ding to their might: and the Lord of all Lan­guages heard them pray in all Languages, un­derstanding them as well when they spake in divers, as if they all agreed in one Language, that I may say so, and as men of one voice. Where he teaches us, that Christians, in what place soever they lived, did in their Prayers use no other than their vulgar idiom.

Seventhly, it will not be far from our pur­pose, to add something of the posture of the body in conceiving of prayer. Where, in the first place, it will be worth our noting, what Austin excellently observed, there isLib. 2. ad Simp. q. 4. no prescript posture how the body should be ordered in Prayer, only that the Soul being present before God, that it perform its devo­tion. And he addeth, that some prayed stand­ing, some kneeling, and some lying prostrate. [Page 350] Justin Martyr relates, that they prayed stand­ing, Apol. 2. When we stand, saith Cyprian, De Orat. Dom. we ought with watchfulness, and with all our hearts, to apply our selves to prayer. But we read, that Prayer was used to be made to God upon the knees more frequently; and it appears, that this posture, or rite in Pray­er, was most ancient, and common in all ages. Clem. Alexand. Strom. 7. saith, that they fell down upon the earth when they pary­ed. The Christian souldiers are said kneel­ing on the ground (as it is usual with Chri­stians when they pray) to compose them­selves to offer up Prayers to God, in Euseb. Hist. 5. c. 5. Arnobius also affirms, thatCont. Gen. l. 1. Christians, when with joynt Prayers they wor­shipped God, they were prostrate: or as after­wards, when they prayed, they fell upon their bended knee. The Church, saith Epiphanius in fine Panarii, commandeth Prayers to be made with all diligence, and with kneeling, on set dayes.

But on the Lords day, in memorial of the Lords Resurrection, they worshipped not on their knees, and anciently they rejoyced in that immunity, from the Passover till Pentecost. So Tertullian De c [...]ro­na mili­tum.. Just. Mart. q. 115. Which cu­stome being in some places decayed, the 20th Canon of the first Council of Nice hath ordained to be kept every where; although [Page 351] St. Paul prayed kneeling on the shore of Ty­rus in that time which passed between the Passover and Pentecost, Act. 21. 5. for after the dayes of unleavened bread, he sayled from Philippi, Acts 20. 6. and he hastned to keep Pentecost at Hierusalem, Act. 20. 16. and he came to Tyre in his journey to Hierusa­lem, where, with others, he prayed on his knees.

They were, I say, careful in Prayer, thatOf praying with the face to the East. the whole body should be composed with the greatest reverence, and whether we are to pray with the face turned to the South, or the other coasts of the Heaven, Basil saith,Basil. de Sp. Sanct. c. 27. it is determined by no authority of Scrip­ture, although the ancients being moved with light arguments thereto, prayed with their face turned to the East. As because the East is more excellent than other parts of the Creation; namely, in mens opinion, Just. Martyr, q. 118. Or, because the light of knowing the truth, arose in the east, even as the Sun doth. Clem. Alexand. Strom. 7. Or, because we seek for our ancient countrey, name­ly, Paradise, which God consecrated in the East. Basil. de Sp. Sancto. c. 27. &c. But ofSee other reasons of the same weight, in Damascen de orthod­fide. l. 4. c. 13. what account these goodly reasons are, it is not for me to determine; let the Church judge. From the premises it appears, that the Christians prayed unto God with their [Page 352] faces towards the East. And for that reason the Heathens did accuse the Christians who prayed unto God towards the East, as if they worshipped the Sun. Tertull. ap. 16. But there is no such command from God in the Scripture extant for Christians. This was a tradition which one age received from another: and yet it was no tradition of Faith, but only of a rite or custom: and it's certainly evident, that God will never­theless hear those that pray to the South or West, than those that pray towards the East.

Lastly, when prayers were done, theAmen. whole congregation of people cried toge­ther, Amen. Just. Mart. ap. 2. Athanas. ad Imp. Const. Amen rung again like Thunder, saith Hierom, (which is to be understood ofLib. 2. ad Galat. the multitude of those who were present at the holy mysteries.)

These are the most observables of prayers, whether conceived on Lords dayes, or other dayes, which we meet with among the an­cients.

CHAP. XI.

UNder Prayers, of which hitherto, Sa­cred Hymns also alwaies used by the Church are comprehended. For the custom of rehearsing Psalms in the Church, is a kind of deprecating God. [...]. Zon. in Can. 75. Conc. Trull.

St. Paul oftener than once, mentionsHymns sung in thē Church-Assembly. Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, with which the faithful sung with Grace in their heart to the Lord. Col. 3. 16. and Ephes. 5. 19. although in both places the Apostle seems to some not to speak of publick hymns sung in the Church, but of private; yet it is without controversie, that the Church had her hymns in the publick assembly: which Paul himself witnesseth, 1 Cor. 14. 26. when he saith. When ye come together, every one of you hath a Psalm, &c. there doubtless the [Page 354] Apostle speaks of Psalms recited in the sa­cred assemblies of the Church. Therefore St. Austin thinks, that the Church hath ourEp. 119. c. 18. Lords, and his Apostles, both documents, examples, and precepts, for singing Hymns and Psalms.

Eusebius mentions Hymns out of Philo, which he affirms were recited by the Church, Hist. l. 2. 17. Nepos hath record­ed divers, which the Brethren used in the time of Dionysius. Euseh. 7. c. 24. Tertullian witnesseth, that in his age there were Psalms and Hymns sung in the publick assemblies, Ap. c. 39. and elsewhere, when he reckons up the Lords dayes solemnities, he saith Psalms were sung, De Anima, c. 9. And in the words of Plinius secundus to Trajan, who lived more than an age before Tertul­lian, he acknowledgeth, that the Christians Tertull. Apol c. 2. had their meetings before day for singing to Christ, and God. Now in the time of Trajan, John the Apostle returned to Ephesus, who was banished into the Isle Pathmos, when Domitian was Emperour.

In the time of Ephraemus, Serm. de cruce Do­mini. they honoured their festivals with a Christian dignity in singing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual songs. When Gregor. Nazianz. teaches, how the Feasts of Christians are to be celebrated, he commands us, Ora. 18. to take hymns for tim­brels, [Page 355] singing of Psalms, for bawdy and wic­ked songs, &c.

Chrysostom devised nocturnal hymns, toSocr. 6. 8. suppress the Arrian opinion, and to con­firm his hearers in the faith. And Niceph. confesses, that the Catholick Church used holy songs, the beginning of singing Psalms and hymns being taken from thence. lib. 13. c. 8. Hom. post redit. Chrysostomi, witnesseth, that the Church used hymns in his age. Ba­sil going through the Cities of Pontus, taught the people to meet together, and attend up­on Hymns, Psalms, and Prayers. Ruffin. Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 9. & Basil. Ep. ad Neo­caesar. 63.

From which it appears, that the custom of singing was observed even since the Apo­stles, especially in the Eastern Church: and the more the Church grew, the more the use of singing grew also.

The Western Churches received singing more lately, although Baronius deny it, an­no sexagesimo, sect. 33. who thinks that Da­masus received not the rite of singing, which he saith did from the very beginning of in­stituting the See grow up in the R. Church, but the Psalter of the 72 Interpreters trans­lation out of the East, from Hierom, who then lived at Hierusalem. But the very words of Damasus will shew, that Baronius being [Page 356] deceived in this, doth colourably beguile the Reader. Although Baronius doubts of the truth of this Epistle, which yet the Pon­tifical book Conc. T. 1. p. 496. gives credit to. The Epistle of Damasus [...]o▪ Hierom de­sires, that he would send to him▪ Graecorum Psallentiam, i. the singing of the Greeks, (not Psalterium, i▪ the Psalter of the 72 In­terpreters, as Baronius would have it) espe­cially because the manner of singers was not used amongst them, nor the grace of an hymn was known in their mouth. Damas. Ep. ad Hierom. The Pontifical also saith, thatConc. T. 1. p. 496. Damasus ordained, that Psalms should be sung, both on the day and night by the Clergy. If the singing of Psalms grew up in that Church, from the first instituting of the Roman See, (as Baronius would have it) with what face will the Pontifical affirm, that Da­masus ordained, that Psalms should be sung, which Baronius cryes out, was done long before Damasus? which yet the Pontifical ascribeth to Damasus his constitution.

Austin relates, that Ambrose Bishop ofConf. l. 9. c. 7. Millain, did first appoint the singing of Hymns and Psalms amongst the Western people. Nor doth this disagree with their opinion, who ascribe this to Damasus: for they were contemporaries: and what was begun by one, might be confirmed by the [Page 357] others help. So Polyd. Virgil. l. 6. c. 2. However, it's plain, that that manner of singing was in force with the Millainoys; For when Justina persecuted Ambrose, the people watched in the Church, and then it was appointed, that Psalms and hymns should be sung, according to the custome of the Oriental countries, lest the people should pine away with the tediousness of sorrow, and from that day to this day it is retained, many, and now al­most all congregations in the whole world imi­tating it. Paulinus witnesseth also, in the life of Ambrose, that in the time of Justina hymns began to be sung in the Church of Millain, and he relates, that the devotion of this celebrity was not onely used in that Church, but had spread over almost all pro­vinces in the West.

In explaining the hymns which were anciently sung of the Church, we will first search into the matter of the hymns, andThe matter of hymns. then into the manner of singing. As for the hymns themselves, the Divine Oracles be­ing sung with a sweet voice, did animate their sounds, and therefore they sung some­times David's Psalter. Aug. Conf. l. 10 c. 33. So Theodoret saith, that Flavianus and Dio­dorus did teach, that David's Psalms were to be sung. Hist. l. 2. c. 24. Hom. de verb. Is [...]ae 1. l 5. p 128. Chrysostom, when he reproves some that sung uncomelily, men­tions [Page 358] the very words of Davids Psalms, which were uttered in the singing. Austin glorieth, that the divine Songs of the Pro­phets, were sung soberly in the Church. Ep. 119. c. 18.

Tertullian saith, that in the assemblies of Christians, after the This Ma­nualis a­qua was for wash­ing the hands with, to distin­guish it from their baths, which they used before Supper. Manualis aqua, every one was called forth to sing to God, either out of the Holy Scriptures, or of his own inven­tion. Apol. cap. 39.

Sometimes also Psalms were sung in the Church-assembly, which were written-by the Doctors of the Church. Socrates men­tions some Psalms that were written by Chrysostom. lib. 6. cap. 8. Eusebius, by Nepos. Hist. lib. 7. c. 24.

Conc. Laod. Can. 59. it is prohibited, that no private Psalms be uttered in the Church. Therefore St. Austin in the afore­said place doth blame the Donatists, for leaving Davids Psalms, and singing Hymns which were invented by themselves.

CHAP. XII.

IN the second place, this is to be observedSinging to the vulgars capacity. of the manner of singing used by Chri­stians in their assemblies, although singing was every where used, yet the same manner of singing was not used by all. At least, the ancients did chiefly regard that their singing might be understood of the people, lest through the sweetness of the voice in sing­ing, without the pious affections of the heart, they should be deceived. The Corin­thians, excelling in the gift of tongues, sung commonly in an unknown tongue, but Paul [Page 360] abrogated that errour, and commanded them to use a known tongue, that the peo­ple might say, Amen. 2 Cor. 14. 15. Nei­ther could they that sung to the Lord in their heart, any otherwise stir up themselves by Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Which yet was enjoyned the Church by the Apo­stles Canon, Col. 3. 16. Eph. 5. 19. which do teach, that all the art of singing in the Church, ought by the Apostles sentence, to be ordered into the vulgars capacity.

So was is also used in the following Church. St. Athanasius made the Reader of the Psalm to sound it sorth with so little a changing of the voice, that he was likelier to one that pronounced it, than sung it, wit­ness Austin, Confess. l. 10. c. 33. St. Hierom Hier. Ep. ad Rustic. being bold upon the testimony of St. Paul (2 Cor. 14. 15. where the Apostle saith, I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with understanding also) teaches us, that in sing­ing a Psalm, not the sweetness of the voice, but the affection of the mind is to be observed. For it's better to worship God in praises and hymns that are tuned in a pure mind, which God onely looketh at, than those that are sung with a loud and shrill voice: as sometime Phi­lo de Plantatione Noe. The Africans did so­berly sing their Divine songs of the Prophets Aug. Ep. 119. c. 18. in the Church, whereas the Donatists sung [Page 361] their immodest roarings, like songs composed by mans wit, as if they were sounding a trum­pet to battel. Where Austin finds fault with them for two things. First, because they betook themselves to sing hymns, which they devised by their own invention, leaving the holy songs of the Prophets. And se­condly, because they sung them not soberly, as the Church did, but as puffed up with pride. Austin blames them for both. Quae­stiones ad Justinum Mariyrem, acknowledge simple singing in the Church. Qu. 107.

Austin relates the incommodities of aThe incon­veniency of a sweet voice in▪ singing. sweeter concord in singing: who was some time more moved with the singing, than the thing which was sung: for which cause, he acknowledgeth, that he sinned grievously, and had rather that he had not heard whenConf. l. 10. c. 33. he sang: for the contentment of his flesh be­guiled him, and he gave more respect to Musical delights in the Church, than was seemly.

For avoiding these inconveniences, it is ordained in Conc. in Trullo, Can. 75. that those who sing, [...], i. should neither use disorderly shoutings, nor strain nature to clamour. Nor is the reason of this Canon assigned by Zonaras, contrary to religion, or right reason. Singing of Psalms, saith he, is a kind of deprecating God, [Page 362] wherein, by suppliant prayers, we beg the par­don of sins. Now it's fit that supplicants go in humble habit, but clamours and rude shoutings are no argument of humility and modesty, but of a mind rashly vaunting, and carried away with presumption. Thus Zonaras.

Hierom is clearly of the same opinion, who thinks, that our singing must be to God, not with the voice, but the heart; Nor are we like Tragedians, to anoint our throat and mouth with sweet modulation, that our Thea­trical tunes and songs may be heard in the Church, but we are to sing with reverence, in­deed, and in knowledge of the Scripture.

None doth better than Chrysostom re­proveChrys. hom. 1. de verb. Isaiae, t. 5. p. 128. that unseemly manner of singing, borrowed from the Theatres, that signifie no certainty to us by their clamours. It is a notable place, which, though it be large, I will set down for the Readers sake. There are some men, saith he, who, contemning God, and reckoning the Oracles of the Spirit, for common and profane, do utter disordered voi­ces, carrying themselves no better than those that are mad, ruffling and rowling with the whole body, and shewing manners far off from a spiritual stability. O wretched and unhap­py man! thou oughtest with trembling and re­verence to resound the angelical glorification, [Page 363] and with terrour to make confession to thy Creatour, and by this to beg the pardon of sins. And here thou bringest in the fashions of Mi­micks and Dancers, while thou throwest the hands undecently, and jumpest with the feet, and turnest about with the whole body. And how is it, that thou fearest not, nor tremblest to hear of these things against such Oracles? doest thou not think that God is in­visibly present here, who measureth the motion of every man, and hath a consideration of the conscience? doest thou not think, that the An­gels do stand by this stupendous table, and with reverence compass it about? but thou dost not think on these things, because the things which are heard and seen in the Theatres have dark­ned thy mind; and therefore doest thou bring in that to be used in the Church, which is done there? therefore doest thou discover a disor­dered mind, in clamours that signifie nothing certain? how therefore wilt thou beg the par­don of thy sins? how wilt thou receive the Lord into thy house, who dost so contemptuously offer him a prayer? Thou sayest, Have mer­cy on me, O God, and declarest, that thy manners are far from mercy. Thou criest out, Save me, and expressest an outward shew far from salvation. Why are thy hands spread out to pray, which are alwayes thrown aloft, and turned about in an unseemly manner. Which, [Page 364] through the importunate impulse of a vehement and violent spirit, make a sound which signi­fies nothing certain? are not those examples partly of silly women, that exercise whorish tricks in the streets, and partly of them that bawl in the Theatres? &c. These are the words wherein that grave Father taxes those rude voices in singing of hymns, which sig­nifie nothing certain; as being such as ra­ther become Theatres, than the Church of God; because they were borrowed from thence, and are unseemly for the Church of God: in which all things are to be done with reverence, because of the tremendous presence of God, who observes the motion of every one in the Church, yea, he reckons those rude voices in singing, for tokens of an uncomposed mind; which do declare, that men are rather mad, than humbly con­fessing their sins to God, and lowly begging pardon of God for them.

But if there be any one that desires toThe good use of a well mode­rated sing­ing. hear the commodity of a moderated singing, consisting of a clear voice, and convenient moderation therein, let him read Austins tenth Book of Confessions, and chap. 33. ‘When I call to mind, saith he, the tears I shed at the hearing of the Church-songs, in the beginning of my recovered faith, yea, and at this very time, whenas I am [Page 365] moved, not with the singing, but with the thing sung; I then acknowledged the great good use of this institution.’

And elsewhere, Confess. lib. 9. c. 6. he saith, ‘How abundantly did I weep before God, to hear these Hymns of thine, be­ing toucht to the very quick by the voices of thy sweet Church-song! the voices flowed into my ears, and thy truth plea­singly distilled into my heart, which caused the affections of my devotion to overflow, and my tears to run over, and happy did I find my self therein.’ This shews, that Austin did approve that sort of singing in the Church, which tended to edi­fication: by the help whereof, the hearers mind was more lift up to God (such was the manner of singing used at Millain, of which Austin here speaketh) not that which onely pleased the eares, nor that which suffered the words, when they were uttered in singing, to be heard or understood. This kind of singing, which is delicately pronounced with a certain allurement of the voice, is a delight to unregenerate eares (for there followeth the contempt of the flesh, unto which, it was not fit to give Aug. Conf. l. 10. T. 33. over the soul to be effeminated) but will be of no advantage to move the mind, from whence the calm affections of religion should be ex­cited.

[Page 366]Then again, we must observe also, in the manner of singing then used by the Church, that Psalms were sung sometimes of one, sometimes by the Quire, sometimes of all together.

At first they sung all at once. So Chrys. Hom. 36. in 1 Cor. 14. who saith, they had all one voice, and one heart. He adds also in the same place, he that sings, sings above, (that is, rehearses the words of the Hymn to be sung, and goes first before the rest in singing, as short­ly after the words of Basil will tell us) and when all sung after him, the voice came as it were out of one mouth.

When Ep. ad Neo Caes. 63. Basil describes the manner of singing of Psalms in his age, he saith, now when they sing, they are divided into two parts, and sing after one another by course, then this charge being committed to one of these persons, to begin before the rest in singing, then the rest sung after him; (but he saith, this variety of singing Psalms was ordained, that now and then prayers being mixed also, they might pass the night with less weari­somness) when day appeared, they all offered up a Psalm to God, as with one mouth, and one heart.

The custome of Anthemns [or Anti­phones] that is, of singing verses alternately by way of answer, not onely at Antioch, [Page 367] but in other Churches, the writers of Eccle­siastical history do derive from Ignatius, whom they report did first institute An­themns. So Socrates, Hist. 6. 8. and Niceph. 13. 8. although this seems improbable to divers men of no mean judgment, because Responsory Hymns or Anthemns are not so much worth, as for their sake there must needs Angels come down from Heaven, and appear to sing before others (which the aforesaid writers, searching out the reason of Anthemns, do affirm) whereas the Church at that time wanted not Psalms and Hymns; which the Epistle of Plinius Se­cundus to Trajan witnesseth; for Ignatius suffered Martyrdome when Trajan was Em­perour. And after Ignatius, for a long time, there was one voice of all in the Church, while they prayed to God, one prayer of all, when they sung hymns: the voice was uttered as out of one mouth, as formerly we heard out of Chrysostom Chrys. Hom. 36. in 1 Cor. The author of harmo­nious tu­ning.

The invention of harmonious tuning among the Syrians, they attribute to Ephrai­mus Syrus, Soz. 3. 15. but Theodoret ac­knowledges it received from Flavianus and Diodorus: who having divided the Quire into two parties, gave them Davids Psalms to be sung by course. They followed the manner of Antioch, which, Theodoret saith, spread [Page 368] afterwards to the uttermost parts of the earth, Lib. 2. 24.

In the Western Churches, Platina In vita Damas. as­cribes this to Pope Damasus; whose opini­on agrees with Damasus his Epistle to Hie­rom, and with the Pontifical, as we have for­merly mentioned.

Platina in his Life relates, that Vitalianus Organs. the first Pope of Rome, did ordain singing, using Organs (as some would have it) for harmony. But the author of those answers, whoever he was, ad Orthodoxos, which are added to Justin Martyr, saith, that the cu­stomeJust. Mart. q. 107. of singing by inanimate instruments in the Church, was taken away in his time, and upon that account simple Prayers were retained, because songs, rattles, and organs, are fitter for children and fools than the Church.

Leo the second brought Hymns to a bet­ter concord. Plat. in vita Leonis.

It was provided by the fifteenth CanonHow none but a few should sing in the Church. Conc. Laod. that none should sing in the Church, besides certain that were chosen for singing: the reason of which Canon is as­signed by Baronius An. 60. n. 28. to be this; Because, saith he, when the people and Clergy sung promiscuously, through the unskilfulness of the singers, it oft fell out, that by the disorder­ed sound of voices, the diversity marred [Page 369] that harmonious singing, which was congruous to the Churches dignity; therefore it was pro­hibited the people in the Church, that none should sing but those unto whom this work was assigned. To confirm this conjecture, he hath recourse to Chrysostom: the same doth Bini­us, Conc. T. 1. in Notis Conc. Laodic.

To me it is not manifest what was the true reason of ordaining the Laodicean Ca­non. After the Laodicean Council, the fore­observed testimonies have shewed us, that it was an usual thing for the Christian people to sing with others in the Church: but as for the place in Chrysostom, cited by Baronius, it brings no help at all to esta­blish the conjecture of Baronius. For in that place (of which we have formerly heard in this Chapter) St. Chrysost. only blamesHom. 1. de verb. Isa. that unseemly manner of singing, which was borrowed from the Theatres, Mimicks, and Dancers, and confisted of clamours which signified no certainty. But he hin­ders not the people from the liberty of sing­ing in the Church. This none will deny, that looks into the place of Chrysostom, ci­ted by Baronius. ‘When all is done, saith he, we forbid not jubilation (the contra­ry whereto is affirmed by Baronius, and his follower Binius) but a voice that sig­nifies nothing; not the voice of praise, [Page 370] but a rude voice of absurdity, the vain and rash throwing up of the hands into the air, stamping with the feet, unseemly and effeminate songs, which are the playes of them that sit idle in the Theatres, and at Horse-races.’ Thus Chrysostom: which is far from the sense for which Baronius brought it. Which doth also more evident­ly appear, from the end of that Homily, in which he speaks to his hearers, ‘that they would come to God with a calm and re­pressed voice, and not lift up their hands in disorderly motions, but present them to God both together.’ Which things being well observed, with what face can the Pa­pists alledge Chrysostom, for denying the people a liberty to sing in the Church?

Now from the premises it may easily beThe Church could not endure broken musick. observed, that the Fathers approved not of that, which they call Broken Musick, that consists rather in the noise of the voice, than the fervour of the spirit; as if from such Musick God neither got any praise, or the Church profit. Therefore passing over that, they prescribed the Church sim­ple singing. It displeased Gregory the Great, Li. 4. ep. 44. that those who were chosen to office of preaching, and the holy Ministry, should, having that charge, betake themselves to singing: in a Synod at Rome, held in the [Page 371] time of Mauritius. Gregory would not have so much time taken up in singing, and al­mostIn Can. 22. Conc. Lao. no place left for preaching. Zonaras also teacheth, that Readers in the Church ought rather to attend the care of singing, than the reading of holy bookes.

To conclude, I leave it for others toA censure of the mu­sick among the Papists judge, what to think of that Popish sing­ing, which is fitted to the exact measures of all kind of Musick; since Cornelius A­grippa, one of their own profession, hath copiously enough painted out the liberty of Musick, which they allow for setting out of hymns. ‘There is, saith he, at this day, such a licentiousness of Musick in Churches, that even a deal of bawdy songs on the Organs, have equal place with the Canon of the Mass; and they chaunt the Divine offices, holy myste­ries, and prayers, having hired a compa­ny of wanton Musicians with a great sum of money, not to the Hearers understand­ing, not to the Elevation of the Spirit, (hearken here, you Papists, that number your Psalms, but love to bray them out like Asses, without understanding them) but for lecherous tickling, not with mens voices, but belluine clamours, while the boyes whine the descant, others bellow the tenor, others bark the coun­terpoint, [Page 372] others roar the treble, others grunt the base, and they make that many sounds may be heard, but no words or sentences be understood, but the autho­rity of judgment is taken away, both from the ears and mind.’ Thus he who warrs with you in your tents, De vanitate Scien­tiarum, in the end of the sixteenth chapter: in which he doth paint out to the life, as they say, the bawdry of Roman Musick, in their holy mysteries, (well enough befit­ting the Babylonish whore) and the incom­modities thereof, little agreeing to the holy worship of God. And the like doth Polydor Virgil, De inventione rerum, lib. 6. c. 2.

And these are the things which I had to mention of the two exercises of Religion, comprehended under the Ministry of the Word, and Prayer, that were to be perfor­med upon the Lords Day.

CHAP. XIII.

THe third thing among the publick exercises of Religion, wherein the observation of the Lords day was solemni­zed among the ancients, follows; viz. the administration of the Sacraments. Which (although not tied to the Lords day) were administred on the Lords day, the Scriptures bearing witness, Acts 20. 7. the Disciples being gathered together on the first day of the week, to break bread, Paul preached to them, &c. where breaking of bread is not to be expounded of a domestick feast, but of the H. Supper, as we have shewn Book 1. chap. 2. For having continued his speech until midnight, St. Paul took bread (the comparing of ver. 7. with 11. evinces this:) now the Disciples met not at that time of night to break their daily bread. But we must make account, that there was a solemn day proclaimed amongst them, for celebrating the Holy Supper; which should [Page 374] be more commodious than all the other: and that was the first day in the week, on which that place doth evidently enough conclude, that the Church met together. And the Apostle teaches, that it met in the same place to eat the Lords Supper. 1 Cor. 11. 20.

Justin, in the place above so often cited,Ap. 2. doth witness, that the Eucharist (or as Ter­tull. lib. 2. ad Ux. cap. 4. the Lords Feast) was wont to be administred by the Church on the Lords day. So Chrys. Hom. 18. in Act. Ap.

Ambrose delivered to the Catechumeni Ep. lib. 5. ep. 33. (whom he calls Competentes, that is, those that were instructed in the Christian faith, suing for Baptism) on the Lords day, after the reading and Treatise, the Symbol of the Church in the fonts (which we understand of Baptism, without which none were ad­mitted to the Eucharist.)

That the Sacraments were administred on the Lords day, none doubts; concerning the administration whereof, I leave the prolix narration to be drawn out of the learned Commentaries of Divines (of whom this age by the grace of God reapeth a fruitful crop) who professedly handle common places of Divinity: lest I should lose my labour, with the Reader that's well exercised in these things, and after Homer write an Iliad, as the Proverb goes.

CHAP. XIV.

HAving recited the offices which were performed in the Churches publick assemblies, it will be a thing worth the labour, to advertise the Reader, that all the members of the Church were not all at once to be present alwayes at all these offices: which we will now shew from a more narrow observation of the per­sons, of which the Church consisted; the observation of which thing, because it is not obvious to all mens eyes, we think it not altogether good to pass by in si­lence.

The whole Christian people in the Church were anciently distinguished into thr [...] de­grees. [Page 376] For there were the [...], the Catechumens, Faithful, and Penitents; and to men as they were constituted in all those degrees, there were certain offices of the Liturgy appropriated, to which they being admitted, were ex­cluded from the rest: while, in the mean time, the faithful were present at all the rest.

The Catechumeni were they who first de­sired to become Christians; whom Origen Contra Celsum, l. 3. calls, them that lately were admitted, but had not obtained the Symbol of lustration. They are called Catechumeni, because, while they were in this Class, they were by the voice instructed of others in the principles of the Christian Faith. [...]. i. no believing without catechising, saith Clemens Alexand. Even those thatp. 576. were to be brought to the Faith, were first to be instructed in the Doctrine of the Cate­chism: [...] i. Clem. Al. paed. t. 1. Cate­chizing leads to the faith. Now the points wherein the Catechumeni were instructed, are extant in Const. Ap. lib. 7▪ c. 40. They were instructed, namely, in the tremendous mystery of the Holy Trinity, in the stupen­dous work of Creation, and Gods provi­d [...]e, and especially that about mankind, and [...] the general judgment to come, &c. [Page 377] all which are compendiously recited by Augustine, lib. de Fide & Operibus, cap. 6. where he exhorteth the Catechumeni, to hear how they ought to become, and live as the Faithful. Afterwards, that they hear what Faith is, and what the life of a Christian ought to be. Those that were to be baptized there­fore, were to be instructed in these before they desired Baptisme.

They that taught the persons of this or­derIn Catal. Eccl. Scr. in Clem. in the principles of the Christian Faith, were called by St. Hierom, the Masters of Catechising, among whom were numbred Origen, Euseb. Hist. l 6. c. 8. Hierom, in Ca­tal. Eccles. script. in Origine. Also Pantaenus, Eus. l. 5. c. 10. Hierom confesses, that he hadApol. ad Damien▪ Greg. Nazianz. and Didymus for his Cate­chists in the Holy Scripture.

Now if any desire to know to what offi­ces of the publick Liturgy the Catechumeni were admitted, this cannot be observed with a distinction of them, of which mention is made amongst the ancients in divers places. Of the Catechumeni, some were called Audi­entes, and some Competentes. Those had their name from hearing the Word; be­cause they were newly admitted only, as tiroes, or candidates of the Christian Faith: and therefore they were reckoned inter au­ditorum Lib. d [...] Poenit. c. 6. tyrocinia, as Tertnllian speaks, while [Page 378] being not admitted into the auditory, they stood [...], i. without the compass of the Temple, as Dionys. Areop. de Hierarch. libro, c. 3. that is, as Zonaras in­terprets it, [...] i. with­out the Temple, in the Porch; where the Con­sistentes, according to the custome of the Church, onely heard the tune of the Psalms, and reading of Scripture in the Church (for Conc. [...]4: Carthag: Can. 84. none, whether he were Gentile, or Jew, or Heretick, was excluded from hearing of the Word) or the Bishops Sermon to the peo­ple, for instructing them. (Zonar. in Can. 19. Laodic.) Neither were they admitted to the holy things, which afterwards followed in the Church-assembly. So Dyonys. Areop. Ec­cles. Hierarch. lib. p. 94. & 96. Behold, saith Augustine, after Sermon, missa fit Catechume­nis Serm. de Temp. 137. (i. e. the Catechumeni were dismissed) and the Faithful remained.

The Audientes then were to come at no holy office, but the reading of the Scrip­tures: which being ended, before the Church went to prayer, or administring the Eucha­rist, they were dismissed. And because they had liberty granted to be present at reading the Scripture in the publick assembly of the Church, therefore the Readers were called their Doctors [or Teachers.] So Optatus, in Cyprian, is called Doctor Audientium; be­cause,Ep. 24. [Page 379] that after he was an ordained Reader, he was to read the Scripture in the Church­assemblies.

The Catechumeni, who were Competentes, being well instructed in the Christian saith, sued for Baptisme, Aug. Retr. lib. 1. c. 17. and were sometimes di­stinguished from the Catechumeni, in Am­brose, lib. 5. ep. 33. Having dismissed, saith he, the Catechumeni, (that is, those whom they call Audientes) to some I gave the Sym­bole in the Fonts. Because, as I said, they being well instructed in the Christian faith, as firm therein, they sued for Baptism. Aug. Serm. de tempore 116.

When the Audientes were admitted, a Prayer was rehearsed by a Deacon, to the Catechumi Competentes, who were fallen on their knees, Conc. Neocaes. Can. 5. and then when that ( [...], i. let the Catechumeni go out) was pronounced, they went forth, the Faithful preparing them­selves to the Holy Eucharist, as Zonar. in Can. Conc. Neocaesar.

The words of an excellent Oration, utter­edAn Orati­on over the Catechu­meni. to the Competentes, together with a per­spicuous explication of them, by St. Chryso­stom, are extant in Chrysostom, Hom. 2. in 2 ad Cor. where the Deacon admonisheth all to pray for the Catechumeni, while he saith, ‘Let us stand honestly, let us pray [Page 380] earnestly, that the most merciful and com­passionate God would hear their Prayers, would open the eares of their hearts: that they may hear what the eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entred into the heart of man, and that he would instill into them the word of truth; that he would sow his fear in them, and confirm his faith in their minds; that he would reveal to them the Gospel of righteous­ness, that he would give them a divine mind, chaste thoughts, a life joyned with truth: continually to think of his things, to relish his things, to meditate of his things, to delight themselves in his Law day and night. Let us moreover pray for them more intensly, that he would deliver them from all evil, and dishonest matter, from every sin of the Devil, and all snares of the adversary: that he would vouchsafe them in due time the laver of regeneration, and remission of sins: that he would bless their comings in, and going out, all their life, their houses and habitations. Let us pray, that thou wouldest increase and bless their children, and instruct them, when they are come to age, with wisdom: that thou wouldst direct all their purposes to profit. Pray ye Catechumeni, to the Angel of peace, that all your purposes may be peaceable to you, beg, that this [Page 381] may be a peaceable day, and all the dayes of your life. Commend Christians, your purposes, what is honest, and profitable, your selves to the living God, and his Christ, &c.’ Which being pronounced, the Deacon bids them rise up, and dismisses them, having instructed them with sundry Precepts.

And these are the offices of the Liturgy, at which the Catechumeni were allowed to be present. The second degree of them that were in the Church, followeth, namely, the Faithful; who were present at all the parts of the Liturgy performed in that order they were recited in the precedent Chapters. Neither could any one of this degree de­part out of the Church-assembly, before all those offices were finished, as we have observed formerly, chap. 6. of this Book, and therefore I need to add no more of them.

The third degree of them, was those who were called [...], or Penitents. These being instructed in the Doctrine of Christi­an Religion, and once baptized in the holy laver of baptism, they recorded their names in the Church catalogue. But falling into some manifest sin (by which they lost the common priviledges of the Faithful) they were bound of the Church with spiritual [Page 382] bonds, till they had declared sufficient signs of their repentance.

There were sundry classes of these, du­ring the time (which was defined by the Bishops judgment: Can. 7. Concil. Ancy­ran.) of their publick repentance, and sun­dry places were assigned to them in the Church. Without whose observation, it will not be easie to shew what offices of the Church-Liturgy they had liberty to be at, and what not. For, during the repentance which was prescribed them by the Bishops, they had not the liberty of all offices with the body of the Church.

We meet with five kinds, or classes ofThe degrees of Peni­tents. Penitents, in the ancients. Some were Lu­gentes, some Audientes, some Substrati, some Subsistentes, and then some that were perfectly admitted to partake of the Lords Body and Blood. Zonaras reckons three de­grees of these, in Can. 8. Conc. Ancyran. And the same Author adds a fourth, in Can. 4. of the same Council. But all the de­grees of Penitents, are extant together in Baronius, an. 263. num. 29. with the Cen­tur. Magdeb. 2. c. 6. also. These degrees are reckoned up by the fore-mentioned Historians, out of the Canon, or the cano­nical Epistle, as the Greeks call it, of Gre­gorius Neocaesariensis, sirnamed Thaumatur­gus [Page 383] (if it be that Gregory, as some think not.)

The first degree of these was [...], or Weepers, in which the Lugentes [or Weep­ers] having committed a sin, stood without the Church, Zonar. in Can. 5. Conc. Neo­caesar. Where they asked them that entred in, with sorrow and tears, that they would draw out the bountiful mercy of God for them. Weeping, saith Thaumaturgus in Ba­ronius, or sorrow, is without the gate of the Oratory, where the offender, as he stands, must ask the Faithful as they enter in, to pray for them. Let the offender, saith St. Am­brose, De Paenit. lib. 1. c. 16. beg pardon with teares, beg with sighs, beg that he may be pardoned at the weeping of all the people. These are said by Tertullian, libro de Poenitentia, cap. 9. to kneel to the Presbyters, and charis Dei, [i. the dear ser­vants of God.]

But here I will give the Reader this ad­vertisement, that it's well observed by Pa­melius, in his notes upon this place of Ter­tullian, that this place in some editions is faulty. For, some have it, Presbyteris & aris Dei adgeniculari. i. they kneeled to the Pres­byters and altars of God. Which reading some catching at, as agreeing to their do­tage, are busily diligent to desend bowing to altars, upon this testimony. So Bell. d [...] Missa. l. 2. c. 10. Bellarmine, [Page 384] and others of his opinion. Now their expo­sition, how likely soever, is not worth a rush. For it's clearer than the noon-day, that in this they are deceived, through igno­rance of the Church custome. For how could the Penitents kneel at Gods altars, when at that time they were not permitted to come within the rails of the Clergy, as is well enough known to all that are any whit seen in Church antiquity) much less to the altar: but being placed without the auditory, as formerly we have heard out of Thaumaturgus and Ambrose, and falling down at the feet of them that entred in, they seriously intreated them with tears, that they would beseech God for them. The Lugentes therefore were wont to kneel down to the dear servants of God, both Presbyters and others, that went into the Church; for Ambros. de Poenit. l. 2. c. 10. they sued to them, besought them, fell on their knees, kissed their footsteps. Afterwards, they required the patronage of the holy people to God for them. For in this business Fabiola Epitaphi Fabiolae▪ will be to us an example: who is by Hierom recorded to have opened her wound to all, while she had her sides ripped open, her head bare, her mouth shut, neither did she enter into the Church of the Lord, but sate saparate with­out the tents, with Myriam, Moses's sister. This she did, while she stood in the order [Page 385] of Penitents before Easter, in the Lateran Cathedral, all the City of Rome behold­ing her, the Bishops, Presbyters, and all the people weeping for her, as Hierom, ibid.

Dionysius Areopagita reproves Demophilus, Epist. ad Demoph. (because he had kicked with his foot a Presbyter, for gently receiving a man that had fallen at a Priests feet.) Eu [...]ebius also re­lates, lib. 5. cap. ult. ‘That Natalius, a confessor of the truth, being sometime [...]e­duced, but at length returned to the Church, did in hair cloth, and sack­cloth, cast himself down at the feet of Pope Zephirinas, with great sorrow, and tears, and fell not onely at the feet of the Clergy, but Laity; so that the Church of our merciful Christ having mercy on him, lamented with him.’

From which it appears, that the Peni­tents of this degree did communicate with the body of the Church in no offi­ces of the Liturgy; and much less went up to the altar (forsooth) to bow. But this by the bye.

Moreover, some make a doubt, whether this degree of repentance was prescribed the Penitents by the Primitive Church, or was taken up by them of their own accord; in whose judgment that degree of repen­tance, [Page 386] which was voluntary in the first age, was in the third age after enjoyned the Penitents by the Church. Howbeit, every one of these degrees was a certain disposi­tion to prepare the Penitent for a farther. But in explaining of these degrees, we will follow Thaumaturgus.

The second degree of Penitents wasThe Peni­tents cal­led Audi­entes. [...], or Hearers. These stood within the gate, in a place which they call [...], or the porch of the Temple; hearing the Scripture, (that is, the reading of the Law, Prophets, and Gospel, Constit. Apost. l. 2. c. 39.) and the doctrines that were raised out of the Scriptures: yet were they judged unworthy to be present at the Prayers of the Church. Baron. ubi prius. So Zonaras in Can. 11. Conc. Nic.

The third degree of these was [...];Substrati. or the Prostrate: when they that had re­pented stood within the compass of the Church, behind the Pulpit (separate from the place of the Faithful, yet within their [...]ight) where they were present at none of the holy offices, save the reading of the Holy Scripture, expounding of the Go­spel, and prayer, that was rehearsed for them, and the perfect Catechumeni, that is, the Competentes, and a little while after the going out of the Catechumeni, having [Page 387] made Prayers for them▪ they went out. Can. 19. Conc. Laodic. Baron. ibid. Zonar. in Can. 4. & 5. Conc. Anoyrani.

Here the Penitents stood sorrowful, and being not yet made partakers of the Eucha­rist, since the commission of their sin, for which they were bound of the Church with spiritual bonds, they threw themselves down on the earth with weeping and la­mentation: and for this prostration, the word [...] was assigned to this de­gree. Then on the other side, the Bi­shop running to him lamenting, falls like­wise upon the ground with pitiful la­mentation; and last of all, the whole multitude of the Church falls a weep­ing too. After this, the Bishop rises [...] first, and raises them that were fal­len down, and having for a convenient time prayed for sinners that repented, he dismisses them. Thus Sozomen, de Eccle­siae Romanae consuetudine, lib. 7. cap. 16. where it's manifest he speaks of the Pe­nitents called [...]ubstrati. The form of pray­er used for them (after the Deacon had ad­monished the Church to pray for them) by the Bishop, is extant Constit. Apost. l. 8. c. 8, & 9. which being ended, they went out of the Church-assembly.

The fourth degree was [...], when [...]ubsist [...] ­tes. [Page 388] they that had repented were called [...]; because they stood with the Faithful, and went not out with the Catechumeni, or the Penitents called Sub­strati, Baron. ibid. These were with the Faithful present at Prayers, but were not admitted to the Holy Eucharist, Conc. 1. Nic. Can. 11. they are said to partake of Prayers with the people, but without oblation. So Can. 12. ibid. Zonaras in Can. 4. & 5. Concil. Ancyr. for which cause, St. Ambrose said he could not of­fer, if Theodosius would stand by. Ambr. Ep. 28.

The last degree of Penitents, was of them, who, having fulfilled the time of repentance prescribed them by the Church, were by her perfectly received; and af­ter the aforesaid offices of the Liturgy, at which the Subsistentes were present, they were admitted also to participate of the Lords Body and Bloud, with the body of the Faithful. Of which Zonaras Can. 4. & 8. Concil. Ancyran. There are some that distinguish not the fourth de­gree of Penitents from the fifth. But the Subsistentes are distinguished from these, Can. 11. 1. Conc. Nic. where, [...]: [...]. they, were partakers of Prayer with the people, [Page 389] without offering. And so those that were placed in the last degree, were superiour to those Penitents of the fourth degree, because they were admitted together with the Faithful, to partake of the mysteries. Yet, that I may ingeniously confess the truth, the finishing of the repentance, ra­ther than the degree of Penitents, is in this to be attended.

Now he that will apply his mind to weigh the aforesaid records of antiquity more narrowly, shall easily observe, who were to be present at all the exercises of Religion, and who were excluded from the same, or some of them by the custom of the Church, while in the mean time, the assembly of the Faithful, after they were gathered into one, performed all the aforesaid offices piously, and with great devotion of mind. But to speak of these a little in transitu is enough.

CHAP. XV.

WE have observed, that meetings were gathered by the Church, to perform the duties of Religion: and we have seen what was done in them. In the third place, something remains to be ad­ded of the places in which these meetings were kept. For a place is required where the people of God being gathered together, may exercise themselves in the things that pertain to his publick worship. And that some places designed to Divine Worship, are necessary, I trust no body will doubt: for without them, the publick assemblies of the Faithful (the use of which is for­merly shewn) to worship God, could not without inconvenience be held. There­fore this place requireth, that something be added of their names, situation, and use, and other circumstances that declare these places. But I will spare the labour of putting these things in writing, lest I, [Page 391] gaggling like a Goose amongst the Swans, seem to stammer upon a subject which hath been happily treated on by other judicious men. Others have managed the charge of describing this argument with great commendation. Especially the Learned Hospinian, a man of profound Learning, and various Reading, in his learned Treatise De Templis. In which is described what is necessary to be known of places that are destined to the publick meetings of the Church, which to me at this time is enough to point at.

And thus much for the publick exerci­ses of Religion, that were observed by the Church on the Lords Day.

CHAP. XVI.

THus far of the Sacred Exercises of Religion (wherein the observation of this day was solemnized) which were performed in the publick assemblies of the Church; now follow the private. Those were observed of sundry members of the Church, being assembled together, but these were devoutly performed by them, when they were dismissed from the publick assembly. For although they met publick­ly, Hier. in Gal. 4. lest the disorderly meeting of the people should diminish their faith in Christ, and to procure the greater gladness amongst them, by a mutual seeing one another; yet their pub­lick Church meetings did not determine the sanctification of the Lords Day: because publick conventions were held at certain [Page 393] hours, and the Lords Day i [...] to be celebra­ted in memorial of that happy Resurre­ction of our Saviour, on a perfect and entire day, as we have shown in the first Book, and fifth Chapter. Some things then remain to be done by Christians after the Church meetings are ended, and these are various. Some whereof I will mention for the godlies sake (who make conscience of sanctifying the Lords Day.)

First of all, they that preached theAfter the publick Treatises followed examina­tion of what was beard. Word of God in the publick assemblies, when those were ended, they did some­times examine the people of what they had heard: Which we read the Anci­ents did perform with great industry. And for this cause, Prosper, De vita con­tempt. lib. 2. cap. 2. contends it is, that Bishops are called Watchmen. ‘Because they watch the actions of all men, and with an aim of religious curiosity, spie out, how every one liveth with his houshold in his house, how with his Citizens in the City: what good men they approve, they confirm by honour­ing them; whom they observe to be vicious, they amend by reproving them.’ St. Prosper judged it to be the Bishops du­ty, whom the Lord hath appointed to be the Watchmen of his Church, not onely [Page 394] to attend preaching of the Word in the Church assembly, but also when that was ended, and the people dismissed, diligent­ly to observe the manners and conver­sation of the people, that they might promote godliness, if by any means they could, while they excited those, whom they saw to walk according to what they heard in publick, to a farther progress in godliness, and sharply admonished those that turned not what they heard into works. Which office, if ever, we believe they did faithfully perform on the Lords Day: which we may see in St. Chryso­stome, who, when he observed any not to be attentive enough to his publick Trea­tises, promised, that he would, when he had finished his Treating, by interroga­tories make tryal, whether they retained what they had heard. Homil. 4. in Hebr. Yea, he tells them, that when the assem­bly was dismissed, he would discourse some time with his Auditors about what they had heard; in the conclusion of Hom. 6. ad Pop. Antioch. And elsewhere he de­clares the reason of his diligence, Hom. 9. ad Pop. For, saith he, if it be no reproach for a Physician to ask his patient how it is with him; neither is it amiss in us to be still inquiring about our Hearers salvation; [Page 395] for we being thus advertised what to do, and what to leave undone, shall apply reme­dies according to congruous discipline. And this diligence he calls a sollicitude, not of curiosity, but provision: where, by an argument from the less to the greater, he illustrates the necessity of the aforesaid industry. For if a Physician, who attends the cure of a frail body, doth diligently enquire of the state of his patients health, after he hath administred his medicines: why doth it not much more lye upon Bi­shops, (to whom the inspection of souls is committed) ex officio, to observe whe­ther their people lead their life according to what they have heard, after that they have prescribed unto them wholsome ad­monitions, and exhortations? whereby on every emergent occasion they may pre­scribe necessary remedies. Chrysostom him­selfConfer­ring of what they heard. confesses, that he undertook private labours in teaching some of his Hearers, while he inculcated some things to them, who entred communication with him privately. Thus he speaks of himself, Hom. prim. de Lazaro.

It grieved St. Cyprian to the heart, while he was in exile, that he could not have liberty to go to every one that was committed to his care, and to exhort them [Page 396] cording to the Ministry of the Lord and of his Gospel. He commends the Presbyters and Deacons, that supplied his place, for strengthening all by their daily exhortations. Ep. 40. If therefore Cyprian set upon all that were commended to his care with his exhortations, and commended others that did the like, he thought that some­thing more, after the Church-meetings were ended, in which he could not go to them severally, was to be done by him.

Possidonius in the Life of Austin, chap­ter 12. mentions his private labours, that he frequently undertook in instructing, and exhorting the Catholick people. All these vigilant Fathers did not onely propound the Word in Church meetings, but also shewed us by their own example, that it is privately to be inculcated upon the minds of the Hearers; and their own te­stimonies teach us, that this was done by them daily.

Secondly, he that shall consult the Fa­thers touching the observation of the Lords Day, will observe, that they did fre­quently stir up their hearers to a religi­ous meditation and discoursing of what they had heard in the publick assembly. Chrysostom more than once doth, labour [Page 397] what he can to perswade his hearers, ‘that after they are returned home from the Church, friends among themselves, parents with their children, masters with their servants, meditate and strive how they may do what they are taught.’ Homil. 5. ad Pap. Antioch. which he ele­gantly explains by divers similitudes. ‘Even as, saith he, many that depart out of a meadow, do take a Rose or Violet, or some such flower, and carrying it about a while in their fingers, do depart: and others returning home out of an Orchard, do carry the boughs of trees that bear fruit; others again, bring to their kins­folks, fragments of the table from sump­tuous suppers; so also thou, when thou depart'st, carry back an admonition to thy children, wife, and all thy kindred. For this admonition is of more use than a meadow, an orchard, and a table. These roses never wither, this fruit never falls off, these dishes never are marred.’ After­wards; ‘Think what a thing it is, setting aside all other things, both publick and private, to be alwayes discoursing of Gods Laws, at table, and in the market, and in other Conventicles, &c.’ Homil. 6. ad Populum. Where, by an induction of divers similitudes, he declares what Christians [Page 398] are to do, after they be returned home from the publick assembly; namely, that they conferr at home of what they heard in the Church. In the beginning also of the se­cond Homil. on John, he requires of his hearers, that they talk not only with one another publickly, but at home, of what they had heard: and when he reproves those that went out of the Church, who did not well remember what they had heard, he prescribes this remedy for that malady; namely, that when they are return'd home, they Hom. 5. in Math. read the Holy Scriptures, and call their wife and children together, to confer of those things that were spoken. It's an excellent place which the Reader shall find lib. 5. chap. 12. ‘We wish, saith Origen, that you wouldHom. 9. in Levit. study what you have heard; not one­ly hear the Word of God in the Church, but in your houses be exercised, and me­ditate in the Law of the Lord day and night: for Christ is there, and every where present to them that seek him.’

From the fore-mentioned testimonies, it appears, that the Fathers treated seriously with their people, to conferr among them­selvesObject. of what they had heard. Now if any one think, that they meant conferring of what they had heard on other dayes than [Page 399] the Lords Dayes; I doubt not but he is de­ceived, that perswades himself of this. ForAnsw. if they require of their Hearers to confer [...] of the Word heard on other dayes, (which he will not deny they did, that looks into their writings) do they therefore judge that the Word of God which was handled on the Lords Day, must be forgotten? No­thing less; especially when elsewhere they counsel their hearers to conferr with those that were absent, of what they heard in publick, after they were departed from the publick assembly. So Chrysostom, Hom. 10. in Gen. And he sharply taxes those that did not thus, Hom. 32. in Joh. whom, when they are gone home, he affirms, they set upon no work beseeming a Christian, Whilst they do not search out the sense of the Scriptures, which they heard in the assembly: And at length requires them, that when they are gone home, they endeavour the doing of what they are commanded, &c. Hom. 3. in Joh.

Bafil was of the same mind, who seriouslyHom. 7. Hexaem. wished, that what they had heard at both morning and evening assembly, all that might be the table talk to the hearers; that is, when they sat down to table, they should talk of what they heard.

St. Austin counsels his hearers, to con­ferr [Page 400] with those that were absent, of what they heard; and so their memory would be as his voice. Praef. in Psal. 50. And in the end of the interpretation of that Psalm, he saith, As it belongeth to us to speak in the Church to you, so it belongeth to you to speak of it in your houses.

Thirdly, Because the Lords Day isMeditati­on of the life to come. not onely ordained for a pious celebra­tion of the memory of Christs Resurre­ction, but also, Basil the Great being wit­ness, is an image of the world to come, although it be no type of the rest and hap­piness in the life to come, yet, as after he explaines it, that in this daily commo­tion we neglect not to provide viands for a removal into that life that never will have end. Basil de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 27. Such viands shall he provide, that on that day, while he hath leisure from external things, shall seriously think with himself, that this is not his Countrey, but he an Exile; and at length he must remove hence into Heaven, the Countrey of all the faith­ful.

Augustine, or whoever it was else, af­firms, in the Book De decem chordis, cap. 3. that a Christian is commanded to observe the Sabbath spiritually, in hope of the future rest, which the Lord promiseth. [Page 401] And elsewhere, The Lords Day being con­secrated by the Resurrection of Christ, doth not onely prefigure the eternal rest of the Spi­rit, but body also. Aug. de Civitate Dei, lib. 22. cap. 30. Christians therefore are on this day principally to think of this eternal rest, taking an occasion from the rest of the Lords Day; although, as I said, it be not properly instituted to sig­nifie this rest, as a type of that thing.

What Ignatius, Epist. ad Magnes. delivers of the manner of observing the Sabbath, may fitly be applied to the celebration of the Lords Day: He would have every one to keep a Sabbath in a spiritual man­ner, in meditating of the Law, not in re­freshing and releasing of the body, and ad­miring the works of God: which especi­ally do agree to the solemnity of a Christi­an Sabbath: on which Christians are to bend their care hither, to recollect them­selves, and feed their souls with the pi­ous thoughts of that eternal rest (of which the Lords Dayes rest is an image, according to Basil) in the world to come, by what means they can. Therefore, when the publick meeting was ended, there followed also a pious meditation, which very well agreeth to the sanctifica­tion [Page 402] of the Lords Day, when the minds of men by hearing of the Word, publick Prayers, and other publick Offices of Re­ligion performed on that day, are infla­med with exceeding love to desire hea­venly things. And that the Ancients were of that mind, the testimonies cited Book 1. Chap. 5. without me saying ought, do bear witness. For the Fathers, as we have seen, do acknowledge, that the Lords Day was dedicated to Divine Worship, and judged that nought was to be done on that day by Christians, whether in their assemblies, or after they were dismissed from them, but what tended to the sal­vation of the soul. This, Origen alone, for all, will manifest, Hom. 23. in Num. who, while he shews in what things the observation of the Christian Sabbath con­sisteth, bids in, among other things, to think of heavenly things, to be careful about the future hope, to have before our eyes the Judg­ment to come, and not to look at present and visible things, but at invisible and future. These things do shew, that pious medita­tion is of necessity to be had on the Lords Day: by help whereof, the minds of Christians may be carried up from earthly, to heavenly things; to the end; [Page 403] that their conversation may be in heaven, from whence they look for the Saviour, Phil. 3. 20. even while they live on earth.

Chrysostom is earnest with his hearers, Hom. 15. in Gen. that they would remem­ber what was spoken in the Auditory, and that they would weigh all things with themselves, that what they had heard might settle in their thoughts. Nor doth he ask this onely of them, but doth also earnestly request it of God, that not onely while they were present in the Auditory, they would remember what he had said, but that they would weigh them at home by themselves, and in the mar­ket, and wheresoever they did abide. Hom. 5. ad Pop.

Now if a Religious meditation on the Lords Day of what we have heard, be a way to the eternal observation of a Sabbath in the Heavens for Christians, (for whom there [...], re­maineth a Sabbatism, Heb. 4. 9.) if they are to have before their eyes the future hope, and the tremendous judgment on that day, and to exhilerate their minds with the thoughts of a future life; if they are to hearken to what is said with an attentive mind, not onely while they [Page 404] are present in the Auditory, but after their their departure thence, where-ever they abide, they be to call to mind what they have heard.

Lastly, if those vigilant Fathers were earnest with God, that their Auditors minds might be perswaded to do this, all which are manifest by the cited testi­monies: then, not without cause, have we affirmed, that when the publick as­semblies are ended, Meditation upon what we have heard is of necessity required of Christians.

Fourthly, we read that Gifts, whichAlms ga­thered. afterwards they called Collects, were gi­ven on the Lords Day, for the use of the poor. So St. Paul gave order, 1 Cor. 16. 2. That upon the first day of the week every one of you lay by you in store as God hath prospered him, &c. The Apostle did very fitly make choice of a day of a sacred assembly for gather­ing Almes on. That the minds of Chri­stians might, by hearing the Word, pub­lick Prayers, and holy Lessons had on that Day, be the better inflamed to best [...] them upon the poors use.

Add also the consent of the antient Church. [Page 405] Justin Martyr, Ap. 2. saith, that when the Church was met on the Sunday, there was a larger contribution, as their ability would bear, and what they so gathered, they committed to him that was the Praepositus, to be bestowed for the use of all that were poor.

Tertullian also mentions this custome, in Apol. and others that flourished after him in the Church. Which is so mani­fest, that I suppose none will make doubt of the same.

These are some of sundry things, where­in the ancients, after the publick assem­blies were ended in the Church, bestow­ed their principal pains. Which things, whoever considerately weigheth, he will easily grant, that the private observation of the Lords Day was not unknown to the Fathers; because their hearers were sometime examined of what they had heard, when the assemblies were end­ed; and the Bishops admonished them to conferr one among another of those things; and they required them to refresh their minds with Divine Meditations out of the Word, which they heard in the publick assembly; and carefully bestowed several things that conduced to the comfort of the poor.

[Page 406]And let these things briefly suffice to be spoken about the publick and pri­vate celebration of the Lords Day Festi­val.

CHAP. XVII.
THE CONCLUSION.

HE that will not refuse to weigh seriously with himself the testimo­nies of Scripture, and the Holy Fathers, thus far mentioned, shall not deny, that the Lords Day was solemnized by the Church, in the very Apostles age, and successively. He cannot but acknowledge, that its holy observation was instituted of God. He will easily perceive what hinders its solemnity, and in what things its so­lemn sanctification, whether publick or private doth consist.

[Page 407]In asserting whereof, though I entred into a certain Sea of Disputations, yet have I sayled it through by the Grace of God, in a short course. And I have affirmed nothing without the perspicuous testimony of notable authority: but we have missed it sometimes, lest any should believe, that we (silly men of inferiour note, betaking our selves to what is plain) do undertake an exquisite piece of work: who indeed have thrust out into the world nothing but our tumultuary com­mentations, and intended onely to stirr up the Wits of others. Now if there be any that is rather desirous of a worldly liberty, or carnal rest, than of Divine truth; who relisheth not what hath been said, I will take my leave of him with that grave sentence of St. Austin, If he have any thing more to say, for my Aug. in Ps. 21. part, I know it not, let him wrangle with the Scriptures, and the Fathers that pi­ously interpret them, not with us. And I humbly beg it of the Lord, who is the author of this solemnity, that he would govern the Church with his Spirit, and stirr up the minds of men boldly to ex­ercise piety, that what God hath cleansed, they call not common.

[Page 408]Whatever my blear-eyes have obser­ved to be laid up in the deep records of honourable antiquity, (which they that love the truth, cannot but highly prize) upon this holy Subject, I have brought it out to light; that it may be ma­nifested to all who truly [...]avour of godli­ness, how much honour, not onely reason it self▪ but the consent of all good men, and learned, do attribute to so solemn a Festival.

And if I have mistaken any thing here, I do not withdraw my self from the censure of the Orthodox Church, but submit my self very willingly to its sentence. Sith with all godly and modest men, I heartily desire to remember that of the Comedian, Hu­manum est▪ errare. i. It's a point of mans frailty to mistake. Neither is there here, as Gregory Nyssen, a pronouncing of sentence, but an exercitation, and disputation. I, ha­ving by the conduct of the most ancient Fathers, like them who are half▪ blind, entred a Wood, have brought into this bundle what I thought to be most con­gruous for declaring the exercises of this holy solemnity. Whilst that I observed sometimes the Fathers did not altogether agree among themselves, I have embraced [Page 409] that, which was observed by men of more sound judgement, and more congruous to the practise of the universal Church.

If any one blame me, for not demon­strating the Holy practise of the Church, in these questions, more copiously, and with more testimonies of the Ancients; I hope in this to find pardon from the courteous; since I purposed to do in this business, what Isychius, in Levit. l. 2. cap. 9. relates of Image-makers and Paint­ers: who, when they begin of any thing their art requireth, do at first set out some rough draughts of an Image or picture▪ onely shadowed out in its lineaments, which afterwards, in process of the work, are perfected, by adding of the several parts, and are, as it were, brought to their [...] In like manner have I also given onely some testimonies upon this holy subject, for a taste, that all in a sort may understand, that the chief Fathers of the ancient Church did embrace and religiously retain the very same practise of piety in sanctifying of the Lords Day, which at this day is maintained by a perpetual observation, with all the friends of sincere religion (some whereof, to the great dolour of my mind, I see to be [Page 410] wavering about this question, and am troubled at others that indulge the li­berty of the flesh too much) in the Ca­tholick Church. But I commend in the name of God this office to others, who are well exercised in observing the monu­ments of the purer Church, that for the ability granted to them by the Lord, for profiting the Church, they would not re­fuse to bring to light those things which may conduce to the glory of God, in observing the solemnity of his day. Indeed, I judge, they would in this do a thing very acceptable to God, the au­thor of the Lords Day solemnity; pro­fitable to the Church, the faithful obser­ver of this solemnity, and very well be­coming the Christian Religion, of which this solemnity was alwayes a token.

I silly man have here, so far as the la­bours of my charge would bear, accor­ding to my weakness, of which I am very well conscious, done in a sort, as some Dyers, who prepare a cloth to re­ceive a colour, and commit it to the la­bour and art of others, to put upon it the gloss.

And this I believe I have done through the grace of God▪ by the consummation [Page 411] of these testimonies, that now with little ado the friendly Reader, careful of this solemnity, may observe, whether they who endeavour to adorn the Lords Day Festi­val, fetch the truth out of its fountains, or they who delight to subvert it, that they may seek novelty (as sometime Opta­tus said of the Donatists, lib. 6.) in the bowels of antiquity? He that views the premises, without a prejudiced mind, will find this. I have therefore been careful to produce the very testimonies of the Fa­thers themselves, that to their words, and not my relation, or conclusions inferred from their words by me, credit might be given.

In the mean time, God grant that of his infinite mercy he would cure the exul­cerated manners of this age, which are im­patient of sound Doctrine.

Through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, the Author of the Lords day so­lemnity, be glory for ever.

Amen.