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 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 the Socr. 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 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 moved of ſome that ſeek a knot in a bulruſh. In the one whereof, what Luke means by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. the firſt day of the week: in the other they diſcuſs what muſt be underſtood by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. breaking of bread.

In deſcribing the Church of Troas, firſt, the time is noted, namely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as divers obſerve, ever read in the New Teſtament for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It follows therefore from thence neceſſarily, that Sabbatum ſhould be taken for 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. very early in the morning, the firſt day of the week: as in the ninth verſe of the ſame chapter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . there the Evangeliſt expounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. one by the firſt. And ſo the Greek Fathers next the Apoſtles times, interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Juſtin Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. ſayes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 is not here only recorded, but here is mention made of his Apoſtolical ordination about that thing. Where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth ſignifie every day of the week, (ſingulam Sabbatum) 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &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., 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 • 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 famous Wallaeus 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 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.

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, 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 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 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, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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., 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , John calls it denominative, with an article, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 • [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 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, 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 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, wch 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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.

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, 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. 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 (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 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.

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: 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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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; 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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, 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. 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, 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 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 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 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: 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as God hath commanded; but when he mentions the Lords day▪ he only ſaith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth properly ſignifie life, to which death is oppoſed, or ſuſtenance: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is adminiſtring neceſſaries for this life: alſo in the ſame man it occurrs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .Pag. 500. all neceſſity pertaining to life. But amongſt Divines (as Stephanus obſerves) when it is ſpoken of a man, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. and Hom. 3. de Lazaro, &c. In the ſame ſenſe, in Justin Martyr, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Reſp. ad qu. 19. is oppoſed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be ſtretched to that ſenſe, (becauſe ſometimes in Chryſoſtom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , except the Husbandmans works, to whom 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to reſt: whence it appears, that labour on the Lords day is unlawful to Chriſtians. Now the exception which the Canon mentions ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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?

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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. 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 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 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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 (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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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? 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 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, 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, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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.