Colossians 2:16,17. Let no man judge you in meate or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moone, or of the SABBATH dayes: which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.

TO THE CHRISTIAN READER.

AND such I hope to meet with, in this part especially; which treating of the affairs of the Christian Church, cannot but be displeasing unto them, which are not Christianly affected. Our former Book we destinated to the Jewish part of this enquiry; wherein, though long it was before we found it, yet at the last we found a Sabbath. A Sabbath which began with that state and Church, and ended also when they were no longer to be called a Nation; but a dispersed and scattered ruin of what once they were. In that which followeth, our enquiry must be more diffused, of the same latitude with the Church; a Church not limited & confined to some Tribes and Kindreds, but generally spreading over all the world. We may affirm it of the Gospel, what Florus sometimes said of the state of Rome. Ita late per orbem terrarum arma circumtulit, ut qui res ejus legunt, non unius populi, sed generis humani facta discant. The history of the Church, and of the World, are of like extent. So that the search herein, as unto me it was more painful in the doing, so unto thee will it be more pleasing being done; because of that variety which it will afford thee. And this Part we have called the History of the Sabbath too; although the institution of the Lord’s Day, and entertainment of the same in all times and Ages since that institution, be the chief thing whereof it treateth. For being it is said, by some, that the Lord’s Day succeeded by the Lord’s appointment, into the place and rights of the Jewish Sabbath; so to be called, and so to be observed, as the Sabbath was: this book was wholly to be spent in the search thereof, whether in all, or any Ages of the Church, either such doctrine had been preached, or such practice pressed, upon the consciences of God’s people. And search indeed we did with all care and diligence, to see if we could find a Sabbath, in any evidence of Scripture, or writings of the holy Fathers, or Edicts of Emperors, or Decrees of Councils, or finally in any of the public Acts & Monuments of the Christian Church. But after several searches made, upon the alias, and the pluries, we still return, Non est inventus, and thereupon resolve in the Poet’s language, Et quod non invenis usquam, esse putes nusquam; that which is no where to be found, may very strongly be concluded not to be at all. Buxdorfius in the 11th Chapter of his Synagoga Iudaica, out of Antonius Margarita, tells us of the Jews, quod die sabbatino, praeter animam consuetam, praediti sunt & alia; that on the Sabbath day, they are persuaded that they have an extraordinary soul infused into them, which doth enlarge their hearts, and rouse up their spirits. Ut Sabbatum multo honorabilius peragere possint, that they may celebrate the Sabbath with the greater honor. And though this sabbatary soul, may by a Pythagorical *, seem to have transmigrated from the Jews, into the bodies of some Christians, in these later days: yet I am apt to give myself good hopes, that by presenting to their view, the constant practice of God’s Church in all times before, and the consent of all God’s Churches at this present; they may be dispossessed thereof without great difficulty. It is but anima superflua, as Buxdorfius calls it; and may be better spared, than kept, because superfluous. However I shall easily persuade myself, that by this general representation of the state and practice of the Church of Christ, I may confirm the wavering, in a right persuasion; and assure such as are already well affected, by shewing them the perfect harmony and agreement, which is between this Church and the purest times. It is our constant prayer to almighty God, as well that he would strengthen such as do stand, and confirm the weak, as to raise up those men which are already fallen into sin and error. As are our prayers, such should be also our endeavors; as universal to all sorts of men, as charitable to them in their several cases and distresses. Happy those men, who do aright discharge their duties, both in their prayers, and their performance. The blessing of our labors we must leave to him, who is all in all: without whom all Paul’s planting, and Appolo’s watering, will yield poor increase. In which of these three states soever thou art, good Christian Reader, let me beseech thee kindly to accept these pains; which for thy sake were undertaken; that so I might, in some poor measure, be an instrument, to strengthen or confirm, or raise thee; as thy case requires. This is the most that I desire, and less than this thou couldst not do, did I not desire it. And so fare thee well.

CHAPTER - THAT THERE IS NOTHING FOUND IN SCRIPTURE, TOUCHING THE KEEPING OF THE LORDS DAY. (1) The Sabbath not intended for a perpetuall ordinance. (2) Preparatives unto the dissolution of the Sabbath, by our Savior Christ. (3) The Lords day not enjoyned in the place thereof, either by Christ, or his Apostles: but instituted by the authority of the Church. (4) Our Saviours resurrection on the first day of the weeke, and apparitions on the same, make it not a Sabbath. (5) The comming downe of the Holy Ghost, upon the first day of the weeke, makes it not a Sabbath. (6) The first day of the weeke not kept more like a Sabbath, than the other dayes, by Saint Peter, Saint Paul, or any other of the Apostles. (7) Saint Paul frequents the Synagogue, on the Iewish Sabbath; and upon what reasons. (8) What was concluded against the Sabbath, in the Councell holden in Hierusalem. (9) The preaching of Saint Paul at Troas, upon the first day of the weeke, no argument, that then that day was set apart by the Apostles, for religious exercises. (1) Collections, on the first day of the week, I Cor.16, conclude as little for that purpose. (11) Those places of Saint Paul, Galat.4.10; Coloss.2.16, doe prove iinvincibly, that there is no Sabbath to be looked for. (12) The first day of the week not called the Lords day, untill the end of the first age: and what that title addes unto it. (1) WE shewed you in the former book what did occur about the Sabbath, from the Creation of the world to the destruction of the Temple: which comprehended the full time of 4000 years and upwards, in the opinion of the most and best Chronologers. Now for five parts of eight of the time computed, from the Creation to the Law, being in all 2540 years and somewhat more, there was no Sabbath known at all. And for the fifteen hundred, being the remainder, it was not so observed by the Jews themselves as if it had been any part of the Law of Nature; but sometimes kept, and sometimes broken; either according as men’s private businesses, or the affairs of the republic, would give way unto it. Never such conscience made thereof, as of adultery, murder, blasphemy, or idolatry; no not when as the Scribes and Pharisees had most made it burdensome, there being many casus reservati, wherein they could dispense with the fourth Commandment, though not with any of the other. Had they been all alike, equally natural and moral as it is conceived; they had been all alike observed, all alike immutable: no jot nor syllable of that law, which was ingraft by nature in the soul of man, being to fall to the ground, till heaven & earth shall pass away and decay together; till the whole frame of Nature, for preservation of the which that Law was given, be dissolved for ever.

The Abrogation of the Sabbath which before we spake of, shows plainly that it was no part of the Moral law, or Law of Nature: there being no law natural, which is not perpetual. Tertullian takes it for conceit, or at least makes it plain and evident. Temporale fuisse mandatum quod quandoque cessaret, that it was only a temporary constitution, which was in time to have an end. And after him, Procopius Gazaeus, in his notes on Exodus, lays down two several sorts of laws whereof some were to be perpetual and some were not; of which last sort were Circumcision, and the Sabbath, Quae duraverunt usque in adventum Christi, which lasted till our Saviours’s coming; and he being come, went out insensibly of themselves.

For as S. Abrose rightly tells us, “Absente imperatore imago ejus habet autoritatem, praesente non habet, etc. What time the Emperor is absent, we give some honor to his State, or representation; but none at all, when he is present. And so, saith he, the Sabbaths and new-moons and the other festivals, before our Savior’s coming, had a time of honor during the which they were observed: but he being present once, they became neglected.”

But hereof we have spoke more fully in our former book. (2) Neglected, not at once, and upon the sudden, but leisurely and by degrees. There were preparatives unto the Sabbath, as before we showed, before it was proclaimed as a Law by Moses: and there were some preparatives required, before that law of Moses was to be repealed. These we shall easiest discover if we shall please to look on our Savior’s actions; who gave the first hint unto his disciples for the abolishing of the Sabbath, amongst other ceremonies. It’s true that he did frequently repair unto the Synagogues on the Sabbath days, and on those days did frequently both read and expound the Law unto the people. And he came to Nazareth; saith the Text, where he had been brought up, and as his custom was, he went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. It was his custom so to do, both when he lived a private life, to frequent the Synagogue that other men might do the like by his good example; and after, when he undertook the ministry, to expound the Law unto them there, that they might be the better by his good instructions. Yet did not he conceive that teaching or expounding the word of God was annexed only to the Synagogue, or to the Sabbath. That most divine and heavenly Sermon which takes up three whole Chapters of S. Matthew’s Gospel was questionless a week day’s work; and so were most of those delivered to us in S. John; as also that which he did preach unto them from the ship-side, and divers others. Nay, the text tells us that he went through every City and Village, preaching, and showing the glad tidings of God. Too great a task to be performed only on the Sabbath days; and therefore doubt we not but that all days equally were taken up for so great a business. So when he sent out his Apostles, to preach the kingdom of God, he bound them not to days and times, but left all at liberty: that they might take their best advantages, as occasion was; and lose no time in the advancing of their Master’s service. Now in this he seemed to give all days the like prerogative with the Sabbath; so many other ways did he abate that estimation which generally the people had conceived of the Sabbath day.

And howsoever the opinion which the people generally had conceived thereof was grounded, as the times then were, on superstition rather than true sense of piety: yet that opinion once abated, it was more easily prepared for a dissolution; and went away at last with less noise and clamor. Particulars of this nature we will take along, as they lie in order.

His casting out the unclean spirit out of a man, in the Synagogue of Capernaum, on the Sabbath day; his curing of Peter’s wife’s mother, and healing many which were sick of divers diseases, on the self-same day: being all works of marvelous mercy, and effected only by his word, brought no clamor with them. But when he cured the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, and had commanded him to take up his bed and walk; then did the Jews begin to persecute him, and seek to slay him. And how did he excuse the matter? My Father worketh hitherto, saith he, and I also work: ostendens per haec, in nullo seculi hujus Sabbato requiescere Deum, a dispensationibus mundi, & provisionibus generis humani. “Whereby, saith Origen, he let them understand that there was never any Sabbath wherein God rested or left off from having a due care of mankind; and therefore neither would he intermit such a weighty business in any reference to the Sabbath.” Which answer when it pleased them not, but that they sought their times to kill him, he then remembereth them how they themselves upon the Sabbath used to circumcise a man, & that as lawfully he might do the one as they the other. This precedent made his disciples a little bolder than otherwise perhaps they would have been; Pulling the ears of corn, and rubbing them with their hands, and eating them to satisfy and allay their hunger: which Epiphanius thinks they would not have done, though they were an hungered, had they not found both by his doctrine and example, that the Sabbath did begin to be in its declination. For which, when he and they were jointly questioned by the Pharisees, he chokes them with the instances of what David did in the same extremity, when he ate the shewbread; and what the Priests did every Sabbath, when they slew the sacrifice. In which it is to be considered, that in these several defences, our Savior goes no higher than the legal ceremonies, the sacrifice, the shewbread, and the Circumcision. No argument or parallel case drawn for his justification from the moral law; or any such neglect thereof on the like occasions. Which plainly shews, that he conceived the Sabbath to be no part or member of the moral Law; but only to be ranked amongst the Mosaical ordinances. It happened on another Sabbath that in the synagogue he beheld a man with a withered hand, and called him forth, and made him come into the midst and stretch out his hand, and then restored it. Hereupon the Author of the Homily entitled de Semente, ascribed to Athanasius, hath noted thus, *, “that Christ reserved his greatest miracles for the Sabbath day: and that he bade the man stand forth, in defiance as it were of all their malice, and informing humor:” His healing of the woman which had been crooked 18 years, and of the man that had the dropsy, one in the synagogue, the other in the house of a principal Pharisee, are proof sufficient that he feared not their accusations. But that great cure he wrought on him that was born blind is most remarkable to this purpose.

First, in relation to our Savior, who had before healed others with his word alone; but here he spit upon the ground and made clay thereof, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay: *, but to mould the clay and make a plaster was questionless work, so saith Epiphanius. Next in relation to the patient, whom he commanded to go into the pool of Siloam and then wash himself: which certainly could not be done without bodily labor. These words and actions of our Savior, as before we said, gave the first hint to his disciples for the abolishing of the Sabbath amongst other ceremonies, which were to have an end with our Savior’s sufferings; to be nailed with him to his Cross, and buried with him in his grave for ever.

Now where it was objected in S. Austin’s time, why Christians did not keep the Sabbath, since Christ affirms it of himself that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it, the Father thereto makes reply “that therefore they observed it not, Quia quodea figura profitebatur, jam Christus implevit, because our Savior had fulfilled what ever was intended in that Law by calling us to a spiritual rest in his own great mercy. For as it is most truly said by Epiphanius, *, etc. “He was the great and everlasting Sabbath, whereof the less (and temporal) Sabbath was a type and figure, which had continued till his coming: by him commanded in the law; in him destroyed, and by him fulfilled in the holy Gospel.” So Epiphanius. (3) Neither did he, or his disciples, ordain another Sabbath in the place of this, as if they had intended only to shift the day, and to transfer this honor to some other time. Their doctrine and their practice are directly contrary to so new a fancy. It is true that in some tract of time the Church, in honor of his resurrection, did set apart that day on the which he rose, to holy exercises: but this upon their own authority, and without warrant from above that we can hear of, more than the general warrant which God gave his church, that all things in it be done decently and in comely order. This is that which is told us in the Homily, inscribed as formerly we noted, unto Athanasius: *, we honor the Lord’s day for the resurrection. So Maximus Taurinensis, Dominicum diem ideo solennum esse, quia in eo salvator, velut sol oriens, discussis infernorum tenebris, luce resurrectionis, emicuerit; “That the Lord’s day is therefore solemly observed, because thereon our Savior, like the rising Sun, dispelled the clouds of hellish darkness by the light of his most glorious resurrection.” The like S. Austin, Dies Dominicus Christianis resurrectione Domini declaratus est, & ex illo cepit habere festivitatem suam. “The Lord’s day was made known, saith he, unto us Christians by the resurrection, and from that began to be accounted holy.” See the like, lib.22.de Civit.Dei.c.30. & serm.15.de Verbis Apostoli. But then it is withal to be observed, that this was only done on the authority of the Church, and not by any precept of our Lord and Savior, or any one of his Apostles. And first, besides that there is no such precept extant at all in holy Scripture, Socrates hath affirmed it in the general, *, etc. that the designs of the Apostles was not to busy themselves in prescribing festival days, but to instruct the people in the ways of godliness. Now lest it should be said that Socrates, being a Novatian, was a professed enemy to all the orders of the Church, we have the same, almost verbatim, in Nicephorus, lib.12.cap.32. of his Ecclesiastical History. S.

Athanasius saith as much for the particular of the Lord’s day, that it was taken up by a voluntary usage in the Church of God, without any commandment from above. *, etc. As saith the Father, “it was commanded at the first, that the Sabbath day should be observed in memory of the accomplishment of the world: *, so do we celebrate the Lord’s day, as a memorial of the beginning of a new creation. Where note the difference here delivered by that Reverend Prelate. Of the Jews’ Sabbath it is said, *, that it was commanded to be kept: but of the Lord’s day there is no commandment, only a positive *, an honor voluntarily afforded it by consent of men. Therefore whereas we find it in the Homily, entitled De Semente, *, that Christ transferred the Sabbath to the Lord’s day; this must be understood, not as if done by his commandment, but on his occasion: the resurrection of our Lord upon that day being the principal motive which did induce his Church to make choice thereof for the assemblies of the people. For otherwise that Author, whosoever he was, would plainly cross what formerly had been said by Athanasius in his *; and not him only, but the whole cloud of witnesses, all the Catholic Fathers, in whom there is not any word which reflects that way, but much in affirmation of the contrary. For besides what is said before, and elsewhere shall be said in its proper place, The Council held at Paris, Anno. 829, ascribes the keeping of the Lord’s day at most to Apostolical tradition, confirmed by the authority of the Church. For so the Council, Christianorum religiousae devotionis, quae ut creditur Apostolorum traditione immo Ecclesiae autoritate descendit, mos inolevit, ut Dominicum diem, ob Dominicae resurrectionis memoriam, honorabiliter colat. “It is a custom of long standing in the religious devotion of the Christian people, which as it is conceived, descended from the tradition of the Apostles, but rather from the authority of the Church, that they do honor the Lord’s day, in memory of the Lord’s resurrection. Where note, the Synod calls it a custom only; and such a custom as was chiefly founded on the authority of the Church. And last of all Tostatus puts this difference between the Festivals of the old testament and those now solemnized in the new: that in the old testament, God appointed all the festivals which were to be observed in the Jewish Church: in novo nulla festivitas a Christe legislatore determinata est, sed in Ecclesia Praelati ista statuunt; “but in the new, there were no Festivals at all prescribed by Christ, as being left unto the Prelates of the Church, by them to be appointed as occasion was.” What others of the ancient writers, and what the Protestant Divines have affirmed herein, we shall hereafter see in their proper places. As for these words of our Redeemer in S. Matthew’s Gospel: Pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day: they have indeed been much alleged to prove that Christ did intimate, at the least, unto his Apostles and the rest, that there was a particular day by him appointed, whereof he willed them to be careful: which being not the Jewish Sabbath, must of necessity, as they think, be the Lord’s day. But certainly the Fathers tell us no such matter, nay, they say the contrary: and make these words a part of our Redeemer’s admonition to the Jews, not to the Apostles. Saint Chrysostom hath it so expressly. *, etc. “Behold, saith he, how he addresseth his discourse unto the Jews, and tells them of the evils which should fall upon them: for neither were the Apostles bound to observe the Sabbath; nor were they there, when those calamities fell upon the Jewish Nation. Not in the winter, nor on the Sabbath; and why so saith he? Because their flight being so quick and sudden, *, neither the Jews would dare to fly on the Sabbath, [for such their superstition was in the latter times] nor would the winter but be very troublesome, in such distresses. Theophilact doth affirm expressly, that “this was spake unto the Jews, and spoke upon the selfsame reasons:” adding withal, * that before any of those miseries fell upon that Nation, the Apostles were all departed from out Jerusalem. S. Hierom saith as much, as unto the time, that those calamities which by our Savior were foretold, were generally referred unto the wars of Titus and Vespasian: and that both in his Comment on S.

Matthew’s Gospel and his Epistle to the Algasia. And for the thing, that the Apostles and the rest of the Disciples were all departed from Jerusalem before that heavy war began is no less evident in story. For the Apostles long before that time were either martyred or dispersed in several places, for the enlargement of the Gospel; not any of them resident in Jerusalem after the martyrdom of S. James, who was Bishop there. And for the residue of the Disciples, they had forsook the country also before the wars, being admonished so to do by an heavenly vision, which warned them to withdraw from thence and repair to Pella, beyond Jordan, as Eusebius tells us. So that these words of our Redeemer could not be spoke as to the Apostles, and in them unto all the rest of the Disciples, which should follow after; but to the people of the Jews. To whom our Savior gave this caution, not that he did not think it lawful for them to fly upon the Sabbath day: but that as things then were, and as their consciences were entangled by the Scribes and Pharisees, he found that they would count it a most grievous misery to be put unto it. To return then unto our story, as the chief reason why the Christians of the primitive times did set apart this day to religious uses, was because Christ that day did rise again from death to life for our justification: so there was some analogy or proportion which this day seemed to hold with the former Sabbath, which might more easily induce them to observe the same. For as God rested on the Sabbath from all the work which he had done in the Creation, so did the Son of God rest also on the day of his resurrection from all the works which he had done in our Redemption, *. as Gregory Nyssen notes it for us. Yet so that as the Father rested not on the former Sabbath from the works of preservation, so neither doth our Savior rest at any time from perfecting this work of our redemption by a perpetual application of the benefit and effects thereof.

This was the cause, and these the motives, which did induce the Church in some tract of time to solemnize the day of Christ’s resurrection as a weekly Festival; though not to keep it as a Sabbath. (4) I say in tract of time, for ab initio non fuit sic, it was not so in the beginning. The very day itself was not so observed, though it was known to the Apostles in the morning early, that the Lord was risen. We find not on the news that they came together for the performance of divine and religious exercises; much less that they intended it for a Sabbath day; or that our Savior came amongst them until late at night, as in all likelihood he would have done, had any such performance been thought necessary as was required unto the making of a Sabbath. Nay, which is more, our blessed Savior, on that day, and two of the Disciples, whatsoever the others did, were otherwise employed than in Sabbath duties. For from Jerusalem to Emmaus, whither the two Disciples went, was sixty furlongs, which is seven miles and an half, and so much back again unto Jerusalem, which is fifteen miles. And Christ who went the journey with them, at least part thereof, and left them not until they came unto Emmaus, was back again that night, and put himself into the midst of the Apostles. Had he intended it for a Sabbath day, doubtless he would have rather joined himself with the Apostles, who as it is most likely, kept themselves together in expectation of the issue, and so were most prepared and fitted to begin the new Christian Sabbath; than with those men who, contrary to the nature of a Sabbath’s rest, were now engaged in a journey and that, for ought we know, about worldly business. Nor may we think, but that our Savior would have told them of so great a fault as violating the new Christian Sabbath, even in the first beginning of it, had any Sabbath been intended. As for the being of the eleven in a place together, that could not have relation to any Sabbath duties or religious exercises; being none such were yet commanded: but only to those cares and fears wherewith, poor men, they were distracted: which made them loath to part asunder till they were settled in their hopes or otherwise resolved on somewhat, whereunto to trust. And where it is conceived by some that our most blessed Savior shewed himself oftener unto the Apostles upon the first day of the week than on any other, and therefore by his own appearings did sanctify that day, instead of the Jewish Sabbath: neither the premises are true, nor the sequel necessary. The premises not true, for it is no where to be found that he appeared oftener on the first day than any other of the week, it being said in holy Scripture that he was seen of them by the space of forty days; as much on one as on another. His first appearing, after the night following his resurrection, which is particularly specified in the book of God, was when he showed himself to Thomas, who before was absent. That the text tells us, was after eight days from the time before remembered; which some conceive to be the the eighth day after, or the next first day of the week; and thereupon conclude that day to be most proper for the Congregations, or public meetings of the Church. Diem octavum quo Christus Thomae apparuit; Dominicu diem esse necesse est, as Saint Cyril hath it: Iure igitur sanctae congregationes die octavo in Ecclesia fiunt. But where the Greek Text reads it, * in the vulgar Latin, after eight days according to our English Bibles: that should be rather understood of the ninth or tenth, than the eighth day after; and therefore could not be upon the first day of the week, as it is imagined. Now as the premises are untrue, so the Conclusion is unfirm. For if our Savior’s apparition unto his disciples were of itself sufficient to create a Sabbath, then must that day whereon Saint Peter went on fishing, be a Sabbath also; and so must holy Thursday too, it being most evident that Christ appeared on those days unto his Apostles. So that as yet, from our Redeemer’s resurrection unto his ascension, we find not any word or item of a new Christian Sabbath to be kept amongst them; or any evidence for the Lord’s day in the four Evangelists, either in precept or in practice. (5) The first particular passage which doth occur in holy Scripture, touching the first day of the week, is that upon that day the Holy Ghost did first come down on the Apostles; and that upon the same Saint Peter preached his first Sermon unto the Jews, and baptized such of them as believed, there being added to the Church that day three thousand souls.

This happened on the Feast of Pentecost, which fell that year upon the Sunday, or first day of the week, as elsewhere the Scripture calls it: but as it was a special and casual thing, so can it yield but little proof, if it yield us any, that the Lord’s day was then observed; or that the Holy Ghost did, by selecting of that day for his descent on the Apostles, intend to dignify it for a Sabbath. For first it was a casual thing, that Pentecost should fall that year upon the Sunday. It was a moveable Feast, as unto the day, such as did change and shift itself, according to the position of the Feast of Passover, the rule being this: that on what day soever, the second of the Passover did fall; upon that also fell the great feast of Pentecost. Nam * semper eadem est feria, quae *; as Scaliger hath rightly noted. So that as often as the Passover did fall upon the Saturday or Sabbath, as this year did, then Pentecost fell upon the Sunday; but when the Passover did chance to fall upon the Tuesday, the Pentecost fell that year upon the Wednesday; & sic de coeteris. And if the rule be true, as I think it is, that no sufficient argument can be drawn from a casual fact, and that the falling of the Pentecost, that year, upon the first day of the week, be merely casual: the coming of the Holy Ghost upon that day will be no argument nor authority to state the first day of the week, in the place and honor of the Jewish Sabbath. There may be other reasons given why God made choice of that time, rather than of any other: as first because about that very time before, he had proclaimed the Law upon Mount Sinai; and secondly, that so he might the better countenance and grace the Gospel in the sight of men, and add the more authority unto the doctrine of the Apostles. The Feast of Pentecost was a great and famous Festival, at which the Jews, all of them, were to come unto Jerusalem, there to appear before the Lord: and amongst others, those which had their hands in our Savior’s blood. And therefore as Saint Chrysostome notes it, did God send down the Holy Ghost at that time of Pentecost: because those men that did consent to our Savior’s death might publicly receive rebuke for that bloody Act, and so bear record to the power of our Savior’s Gospel, before all the World: *, as that Father hath it. So that the thing being casual, as unto the day, and special, as unto the business then by God intended: it will afford us little proof, as before I said, either that the Lord’s day was, as then, observed; or that the Holy Ghost did select that day for so great a work, to dignify it for a Sabbath. (6) As for Saint Peter’s preaching upon that day, and the baptizing of so many, as were converted to the faith, upon the same: it might have been some proof that now at least, if not before, the first day of the week was set apart by the Apostles for religious exercises, had they not honored all days with the same performances. But if we search the Scriptures, we shall easily find that all days were alike to them in that respect: no day, in which they did not preach the word of life, and administer the Sacraments of their Lord and Savior, to such as either wanted it or did desire it. Or were it that the Scriptures had not told us of it, yet natural reason would inform us that those who were employed in so great a work as the conversion of the World could not confine themselves unto times and seasons, but must take all advantages, whensoever they came. But for the Scriptures, it is said in terms express, first generally, that the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved; and therefore without doubt, the means of their salvation were daily ministered unto them: and in the fifth Chapter of the Acts, that daily in the Temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. So for particulars, when Philip did baptize the Eunuch, either he did it on a working day, as we now distinguish them, and not upon the first day of the week, and so it was no Lord’s day duty; or else it was not held unlawful to take a journey on that day, as some think it is. Saint Peter’s preaching to Cornelius and his baptizing of that house was a week day’s work, as may be gathered from Saint Hierome. That Father tells us that the day whereon the vision appeared to Peter was probably the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, as we call it now; fieri potuit ut vel Sabbatum esset, vel dies Dominicus, as the Father hath it: and choose you which you will, we shall find little in it for a Christian Sabbath. In case it was on the Sabbath, then Peter did not keep the Lord’s day holy as he should have done, if so that day was then selected for God’s worship; for the text tells us that the next day he did begin his journey to Cornelius’ house. In case it was upon the Lord’s day, as we call it now, then neither did Saint Peter sanctify that day in the Congregation, as he ought to do had that day then been made the Sabbath; and his conversion of Cornelius, being three days after, must of necessity be done on the Wednesday following. So that we find no Lord’s day Sabbath, either of S. Peter’s keeping, or of S. Philip’s; or else the preaching of the Word and the administering the Sacraments were not affixed at all unto the first day of the week, as the peculiar marks and characters thereof. So for Saint Paul, the Doctor of the Gentiles, who labored more abundantly than the other Apostles, besides what shall be said particularly in the following section: it may appear in general that he observed no Lord’s-day-sabbath, but taught on all days, traveled on all days, and worked according to his Trade upon all days too, when he had no employment in the congregation. That he did teach on all days is not to be questioned by any that considers how great a work he had to do, and how little time. That he did travel upon all days is no less notorious to all that look upon his life, which was still in motion. And howsoever he might rest sometimes on the Lord’s day, as questionless he did on others, as often as upon that day he preached the Gospel; yet when he was a Prisoner in the hands of the Roman soldiers, there is no doubt but that he traveled as they did Lord’s days, and Sabbaths, all days equally, many days together. Of this see what Saint Luke hath written in the last Chapters of the Acts.

Lastly, for working at his Trade (which was Tent-making) on the Lord’s day, as well as others, Conradus Diatericus proves it out of Hierome, that when he had none unto whom to preach in the Congregation, he followed on the Lord’s day the works of his Occupation. Hieronymus colligit ex Act.18.vers.3&4. quod die etiam Dominica, quando, quibus in publico conventu concionaretur, non habebat; manibus suis laboravit. So Diatericus, speaking of our Apostle. Now what is proved of these Apostles, and of Saint Philip the Evangelist, may be affirmed of all the rest whose lives and actions are not left upon record in holy Scripture. Their Ministry being the same, and their work as great, no question but their liberty was correspondent; and that they took all times to be alike in the advancing of the business which they went about, and cherished all occasions presented to them, on what day soever. What further may be said hereof in reference to Saint John, who lived longest of them, and saw the Church established, and her public meetings in some order; we shall see hereafter in his own place and time. Mean while we may conclude for certain, that in the planting of the Church, he used all days equally, kept none more holy than another, and after, when the Church was settled, how ever he might keep this holy, and honor it for the use which was made thereof; yet he kept other days, so used, as holy, but never any like a Sabbath. (7) Proceed we next unto Saint Paul, in his particular; of whom the Scripture tells us more than of all the rest: and we shall find that he no sooner was converted but that forthwith he preached in the synagogues, that Jesus was the Christ. If in the synagogues, most likely that it was on the Jewish Sabbath, the synagogues being destinate especially to the Sabbath days. So afer he was called to the public Ministry, he came to Antioch, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and there preached the Word. What was the issue of his Sermon? That the Text informs us. And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that those words might be preached again the next Sabbath. Saint Paul assented thereunto, and the next Sabbath day, as the Text tells us, came almost the whole City together, to hear the Word of God. It seems the Lord’s day was not grown as yet into any credit, especially not into the repute of the Jewish Sabbath; for if it had, Saint Paul might easily have told these Gentiles, (that is, such Gentiles as had been converted to the Jewish Church) that the next day would be a more convenient time, and indeed opus diei in die suo, the doctrine of the resurrection, on the day thereof. This happened in the forty-sixth year of Christ’s Nativity, some twelve years after his Passion and Resurrection: and often after this, did the Apostle shew himself in the Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath days; which I shall speak of here together, that so we may go on unto the rest of this discourse, with less interruption. And first it was upon the Sabbath, that he did preach to the Philippians, and baptized Lydia, with her household, Acts 16. Amongst the Thessalonians, he reasoned three Sabbath days together, out of the Scriptures, Acts 17. At Corinth every Sabbath day, with the Jews and Greeks, Acts 18, besides those many texts of Scripture when it is said of him that he went into the synagogues, and therefore probably that it was upon the Sabbath, as before we said. Not that Saint Paul was so affected to the Sabbath as to prefer that day before any other; but that he found the people at those times assembled, and so might preach the Word with greater profit. Saint Chrysostome, for the Ancients hath resolved it so; *. He came most fitly to the Synagogue on the Sabbath days because the people were then all met together, as the Father hath it. So Calvin, for the modern Writers, makes this special cause of Saint Paul’s resort unto the places of assembly on the Sabbath day, quod profectum aliquem sperabat; because in such concourse of people, he hoped the Word of God would find the better entertainment.

Any thing rather to be thought than that Saint Paul, who had withstood so stoutly those false Apostles who would have circumcision and the law observed, when there was nothing publicly determined of it, would after the decision of so great a Council, wherein the Law of Moses was for ever abrogated, either himself observe the Sabbath, for the Sabbath’s sake, or by his own example teach the Gentiles how to Judaize, which he so blamed in Saint Peter. The Sabbath, with the legal ceremonies, did receive their doom, as they related to the Gentiles, in that great Council holden in Jerusalem: which though it was not until after he had preached at Antioch on the Sabbath day, yet was it certainly before he had done the like, either at Philippos, Thessalonica, or at Corinth. (8) For the occasion of that Council, it was briefly this: Amongst those which had joined themselves with the Apostles, there was one Cerinthus, a fellow of a turbulent and unquiet spirit, and a most eager enemy of all those councils whereof himself was not the Author. This man had first begun a faction against S. Peter for going to Cornelius and preaching life eternal unto the Gentiles; and finding ill success in that, goes down to Antioch, and there begins another against Saint Paul. This Epiphanius tells of him, *. The like Philaster doth affirm, Seditionem sub Apostolis commovisse, that he had raised a faction against the Apostles, which was not to be crushed but by an Apostolical and general Council. This man and those that came down with him were so enamored on the ceremonies and rites of Moses, that though they entertained the Gospel, yet they were loath to leave the Law: and therefore did resolve, it seems, to make a mixture out of both. Hence taught they, that except all men were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved. Where note, that though they spake only of circumcision, yet they intended all the law: Sabbaths, and other legal ordinances of what sort soever. Docuit Cerinthus observationem legis, Mosaicae necessariam esse, circumcisionem, & Sabbata observanda, as Philaster hath it. Cerinthus taught, saith he, that the observation of Moses’ law was necessary still, Sabbaths and Circumcision to be kept as before they were. The like saith Calvin on the place, Sola quidem circumcisio hic nominatur, sed ex contextu facile patet, eos de tota lege movisse controversiam: though Circumcision only be here named, yet it is evident from the context that the observing of the whole law was aimed at. The like Lorinus also amongst the Jesuits; Nomine circumcisionis reliqua lex tota intelligitur. Indeed the Text affirms as much, where it is said in terms express, that they did hold it needful to circumcise the people and to command them to keep the Law of Moses, whereof the Sabbath was a part. For the decision of this point, and the appeasing of those controversies which did thence arise, it pleased the Church directed by the holy Ghost to determine thus: that such amongst the Gentiles as were converted to the faith, should not at all be burdened with the Laws of Moses, but only should observe some necessary things, viz. that they abstain from things offered unto idols, and from blood, and that which is strangled, and from fornication. And here it is be observed that the decree or Canon of this Council, did only reach unto the Gentiles: as is apparent out of the proeme to the Decretal, which is directed to the brethren which are of the Gentiles; and from the 21st Chapter of the Acts where it is said, that as concerning the Gentiles which believe, we have written and determined that they observe no such thing as the law of Moses. So that for all that was determined in this Council, those of the Jews which had embraced the faith of Christ were not prohibited, as yet, to observe the Sabbath, and other parts of Moses’ law, as before they did; in which regard S. Paul caused Timothy to be circumcised, because he would not scandalize and offend the Jews. The Jews were very much affected to their ancient ceremonies; and Calvin rightly hath affirmed, Correctionem, ut difficilis erat, ita subitam esse non potuisse, that a full reformation of that zeal of theirs, as it was full of difficulty, so could it not be done upon the sudden. Therefore it pleased the Apostles, as it is conceived, in their fourth Council holden at Jerusalem, mention whereof is made in the 21st of the Acts, to make it lawful for the Jews to retain circumcision and such legal rites, together with the faith in Christ. Quamdin templum & sacrificia legis in Hierusalem stabant, as long as the Jewish Temple, and the legal sacrifices in Jerusalem, should continue standing. Not that the faith of Christ was not sufficient of itself for their salvation, Sed ut mater synagoga paulatim cum homore sepeliretur, but that the synagogue might be laid to sleep with the greater honor. But this, if so it was, was for no long time.

For whereas the third Council holden in Jerusalem, against Cerinthus and his party, was held in Anno 51, and this which now we speak of, Anno 58, the final ruin of the Temple was in 72. So that there was but one and twenty years, in the largest reckoning, wherein the Christian Jews were suffered to observe their Sabbath: and yet not (as before they did) as if it were a necessary duty, but as a thing indifferent only. But that time come, the Temple finally destoyed, and the legal ceremonies therein buried, it was accounted afterwards both dangerous and heretical to observe the Sabbath, or mingle any of the Jewish leaven with the bread of life. S. Hierome roundly so proclaims it, Ceremonias Iudaeorum & perniciosas & pestiferas esse Christianis: that all the Ceremonies of the Jews, (whereof before he named the Sabbath to be one,) were dangerous, yea and deadly too, to a Christian man; Sive ex Iudaeis esset, sive ex Gentibus, whether he were originally of the Jews, or Gentiles. To which S. Austin gives allowance, Ego hanc vocem tuam omnino confirmo, in his reply to S. Hierome: That it was also deemed heretical, to celebrate a Sabbath in the Christian church, we shall see hereafter. (9) In the mean time, we must proceed in search of the Lord’s day, and of the duties then performed: whereof we can find nothing yet, by that name at least. The Scripture tells us somewhat that S. Paul did at Troas upon the first day of the week: which happening much about this time, comes in this place to be considered. The passage in the Text stands thus: 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. Take notice here, that S. Paul had tarried there seven days before this happened. Now in this Text, there are two things to be considered; first what was done upon that day; and secondly what day it was, which is there remembered. First for the action, it is said to be breaking of bread: which some conclude, to be administering the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; and Paul’s discourse which followed on it, to be a Sermon. But sure I am Saint Chrysostome tells us plainly otherwise, who relates it thus: *, etc. “Their meeting at that time, saith he, was not especially to receive instruction from Saint Paul, but to eat bread with him, and there, upon occasion given, he discoursed unto them. See, saith the Father, how they all made bold with Saint Paul’s table, as it had been common to them all: and as it seems to me, saith he, Saint Paul sitting at the table did discourse thus with them.” Therefore it seems by him, that as the meeting was at an ordinary supper; so the discourse there happening was no Sermon properly, but an occasional dispute. Lyra affirms the same, and doth gloss it thus: They came together to break bread, i.e. saith he, Pro refectione corporali, for the refection and support of their bodies only: and being there, Paul preached unto them, or as the Greek and Latin have it, he disputed with them; prius eos reficiens pane verbi divini, refreshing of them first with the bread of life. This also seems to be the meaning of the Church of England, who in the margin of the Bible, allowed by Canon, doth for the understanding of this place refer us unto the second of the Acts, verse 46, where it is said of the disciples that they did break their bread from house to house, and eat their meat together with joy and singleness of heart: which plainly must be meant of ordinary and common meats. Calvin not only so affirms it, but censures those who take it for the holy Supper. Nam quod hic fractionem panis nonnulli interpretantur sacram coenam, alienum mihi videtur a mente Lucae, etc: That some interpret the breaking of bread here mentioned to be the holy Supper: seems unto me (saith he) to be repugnant to S. Luke’s meaning in that place, as he there discourseth. Then for the time, our English reads it upon the first day of the week, agreeable unto the exposition of most ancient Writers, and the vulgar Latin; which here, as in the four Evangelists, doth call the first day of the week una Sabbati. Yet since the Greek phrase is not so perspicuous, but that it may admit of a various exposition, Erasmus renders it by uno die sabbatorum, & quodam die sabbatorum; that is, upon a certain Sabbath: and so doth Calvin too, and Pellican, and Gualter, all of them noted men, in their translations of that Text. Nor do they only so translate it, but frame their expositions also to their translation, and make the day there mentioned to be the Sabbath. Calvin takes notice of both readings, Vel proximum Sabbato diem intelligit, vel unum quodpiam Sabbatum; either (saith he) S.

Luke here meaneth the day next to the Sabbath, or else some Sabbath day itself. For his part, he approves the last, Quod dies ille ad habendum conventum aptior fuerit, because the Sabbath day was then most fit for the assemblies of the people. Gualter doth so conceive it also, that they assembled at this time on the Sabbath day, Qui propter veterem morem haud dubie tunc temporis celebrior habebatur, as that which questionless was then of most repute and name amongst them. So that the matter is not clear, as unto the day, if they may judge it. But take it for the first day of the week, as the English reads it: yet doth S. Austin put a scruple, which may perhaps disturb the whole expectation; though otherwise he be of opinion that the breaking of the bread there mentioned, might have some reference or resemblance to the Lord’s Supper. Now this is that which S.

Austin tells us: Aut post peractum diem Sabbati, noctis initio fuerunt congregati, quae utique nox ad diem Dominicum, b.e.ad unam Sabbati pertinebat, etc. “Either, saith he, they were assembled on the beginning of the night, which did immediately follow the Sabbath day, and was to be accounted as a part of the Lord’s day, or first day of the week; and breaking bread that night, as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Lord’s body, continued his discourse till midnight, Ut Incescente proficisceretur Dominico die, that so he might begin his journey, with the first dawning of the Lord’s day, which was then at hand. Or if they did not meet till the day itself, since it is there expressed, that he preached unto them, being to depart upon the morrow; we have the reason why he continued his discourse so long: viz. because he was to leave them, *, and he desired to lesson them sufficiently, before he left them.” So far S. Austin. Choose which of these you will, and there will be but little found for sanctifying the Lord’s day by Saint Paul at Troas. For if this meeting were upon Saturday night, then made Saint Paul no scruple of traveling upon the Sunday; or if it were on the Sunday, and that the breaking bread there mentioned were the celebration of the Sacrament, (which yet Saint Augustine saith not in terms express, but with a sicut) yet neither that, nor the discourse or sermon which was joined unto it, were otherwise than occasional only, by reason of Saint Paul’s departure on the morrow after. Therefore no Sabbath, or established day of public meeting, to be hence collected. (10) This action of Saint Paul, at Troas, is placed by our Chronologers in Anno 57 of our Savior’s birth; and that year also did he write his first Epistle to the Corinthians, wherein amongst many other things, he gives them this direction, touching collections for the poorer brethren at Jerusalem: Concerning the gathering for the Saints, saith he, as I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia, so do ye also. And how was that?

Every first day of the week, let every one of you set aside, by himself, and lay up as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. This some have made a principal argument to prove the institution of the Lord’s day to be by Apostolical precept; and Apostolical though we should grant it, yet certainly it never can be proved so from this Text of Scripture. For what hath this to do with a Lord’s day duties? or how may it appear from hence, that the Lord’s day was ordered by the Apostles to be weekly celebrated, instead of the now antiquated Jewish Sabbath? being an intimation only of Saint Paul’s desire, to the particular Churches of the Galatians and Corinthians, what he would have them do in a particular and present case. Agabus had signified by the spirit, that there should be a great dearth over all the world; and thereupon the Antiochians purposed to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea. It is not to be thought that they made this collection on the Sunday only, but sent their common bounties to them when and as often as they pleased. Collections for the poor, in themselves considered, are no Lord’s day duties; no duties proper to the day; and therefore are not here appointed to be made in the congregation, but every man is ordered to lay up somewhat by himself, as it were in store; that when it came to a full round sum, it might be sent away unto Jerusalem. This being but a particular case, and such a case as was to end with the occasion, can be no general rule for a perpetuity. For might it not fall out, in time, that there might be no poor, nay, no Saints at all in all Jerusalem; as when the Town was razed by Adrian, or after peopled by the Saracens? Surely if not before, yet then this duty was to cease, and no collection to be made by those of Corinth: and consequently no Lord’s day to be kept amongst them, because no collection, in case collections for the Saints, as some do gather from this place, were a sufficient argument to prove the Lord’s day instituted by divine authority.

But let us take the Text with such observations, as have been made upon it by the Fathers. Upon the first day of the week, i.e. as generally they conceive it, on the Lord’s day. And why on that? Chrysostome give this reason of it, “that so the very day might prompt them to be bountiful to their poor brethren, as being that day whereon they had received such inestimable bounties at the hands of God; in the resurrection of our Savior. *: as the Father hath it. What to be done upon that day? Unusquisque apud se reponat, let every man lay by himself, saith the Apostle, *. He saith not, saith S. Chrysostome, let every man bring it to the Church: and why? *; for fear lest some might be ashamed at the smallness of their offering: but let them lay it by, saith he, and add unto it week by week, that at my coming it may grow to a fit proportion. That there be no gathering when I come, but that the money may be ready to be sent away, immediately upon my coming: and being thus raised up by little and little, they might not be so sensible thereof, as if upon his coming to them, it were to be collected all at once, and upon the sudden.” Ut paulatim reservantes non una hor gravari se putent, as Saint Hierome hath it. Now as it is most clear, that this makes nothing for the Lord’s day, or the translation of the Sabbath thereunto, by any Apostolical precept: so it is not so clear, that this was done upon the first day of the week, but that some learned men have made doubt thereof.

Calvin upon the place, takes notice how S. Chrysostome expounds the * of the Apostle, by primo sabbati, the first day of the week, as the English reads it: but likes it not. Cui ego non assentior, as his phrase is; conceiving rather this to be the meaning of S. Paul, that on some Sabbath day or other, until his coming every man should lay up somewhat towards the collection.

And in the second of his Institutes, he affirms expressly; that the day destinate by Saint Paul to these Collections, was the Sabbath day. The like do Victorinus Strigelius, Hunnius, and Aretius, Protestant Writers all, note upon the place. Singulis sabbatis, saith Strigelius; per singula sabbata; so Aretius; diebus sabbatorum, saith Egidius Hunnius: all rendering *, on the Sabbath days. More largely yet, Hemingius, who in his Comment on the place, takes it indefinitely for any day of the week, so they fixed on one.

Vult enim ut quilibet certum diem, in septimana, constituat, in quo apud se seponat, quod irrogaturus est in pauperes. “It was the meaning of S. Paul, saith he, that every one should resolve of some day constantly in every week, in which to lay aside, by himself at home, what he intended to bestow among the poor.” Take which you will, either the Fathers, or the Moderns, and we shall find no Lord’s Day instituted by any Apostolical Mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week, as some would have it: much less that any such Ordinance should be hence collected out of these words of the Apostle. (11) Indeed it is not probable that he who so opposed himself against the old Sabbath would erect a new. This had not been to abrogate the ceremony, but to change the day; whereas he labored what he could to beat down all the difference of days and times which had been formerly observed. In his Epistle to the Galatians, written in Anno 59, he lays it home unto their charge, that they observed days, and months, and times, and years; and seems a little to bewail his own misfortune, as if he had bestowed his Labor in vain amongst them. I know it is conceived by some that Saint Paul spake it of the observation of those days and times which had been used among the Gentiles, and so had no relation to the Jewish Sabbath, or any difference of times observed amongst them. Saint Ambrose so conceived it, and so did Saint Augustine. Dies observant, qui dicunt crastino non est proficiscendum; etc. “They observe days, who say, I will not go abroad to morrow, or begin any work upon such a day, because of some unfortunate aspect,” as Saint Ambrose hath it. From him it seems, S.

Augustine learnt it, who in his 119th Epistle directly falls upon the very same expression. Eos inculpat qui dicunt, non proficiscor quia posterus dies est, aut quia luna sic fertur; vel proficiscar ut prospere cedat, quia ita se habet positio syderum, etc. He reprehends those men who say, I will not go abroad because it is an unlucky day, and the moon is in such a sign: or I will go abroad this day for good luck’s sake, because the stars are in a fortunate aspect.” The like conceit he hath in his Enchiridion, ad Laurentium, cap. 79. But whatsoever Saint Ambrose did, Saint Augustine lived I am sure to correct his error: observing very rightly that his former doctrine could not consist with Saint Paul’s purpose in that place, which was to beat down that esteem which the Jews had amongst them of the Mosaical Ordinances, their New-moons and Sabbaths. I shall report the place at large for the better clearing of the point. Vulgatissimus est Gentilium error, ut vel in agendis rebus, vel expectandis eventibus vitae ac negotiorum suorum ab Astrologis & Chaldaeis notatos dies observent. “It is, saith he, a common error of the Gentiles that in the undertaking of any business, or in expecting the event of their undertakings, they take especial notice of those days which their Astrologers have noted for good or evil.”

This was the ground on which he built his former error. Then followeth the correction of it, Fortasse tamen non opus est ut haec de Gentilium errore intelligamus, ne intentionem causae (mark that) quam ab exordio susceptam ad finem usque perducit, subito in aliud temere detorquere velle videamur; sed de his potius de quibus cavendis eum agere per totam Epistolam apparet. Nam & Iudaei serviliter observant dies & menses & annos & tempora, in carnali observatione Sabbati, & neomeniae, etc. “But yet perhaps, saith he, it is not necessay that we should understand this of the Gentiles, lest so we vary from the scope and purpose of the Apostle; but rather of those men, of the avoiding of whole doctrines, he seems to treat in all this Epistle, which were the Jews; who in their carnal keeping of New-moons and Sabbaths, did observe days and years, and times, as he here objecteth.” Compare this with Saint Hierome’s preface to the Galatians, and then the matter will be clear; that Saint Paul meant not this of any Heathenish, but of the Jewish observation of days and times. So in the Epistle to the Colossians, writ in the sixtieth year after Christ’s Nativity, he lays it positively down, that the Sabbath was now abrogated with the other ceremonies, which were to vanish at Christ’s coming. Let no man judge you, saith the Apostle, in meat and drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the New-moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. In which the Sabbath is well matched with meats and drinks, new-moons and holy-days, which were all temporary ordinances, and to go off the stage at our Savior’s Exit. Now whereas some, that would be thought great sticklers for the Sabbath, conceive that this was spoken, not of the weekly moral Sabbath, as they call it, which must be perpetual, but of the annual ceremonial Sabbaths, which they acknowledge to be abrogated: this new device directly crosseth the whole current of the ancient Fathers who do apply this Text to the weekly Sabbath. It is sufficient in this point to note the places. The Reader may peruse them, as his leisure is, and look on Epiphan.l.1.haeres.33.n.11.

Ambrose upon this place. Hierome Epistle ad Algas.qu.10. Chrysost. hom.13. in Hebr.7. August. cont. Iudaeos cap.I. & cont. Faust, Manich.l.1.6.c.28. I end this list with that of Hierome, Nullus Apostoli sermo est vel per Epistolam, vel praesentis, in quo non laboret docere antiquae legis onera deposita, & omnia illa que in typis & imaginibus praecessere, i.e. otium Sabbati, circumcisionis injuriam, Kalendarum, & trium per annum solennitatum recursus, etc. gratia Evangelii subrepente, cessasse. “There is, saith he, no Sermon of the Apostle’s, either delivered by Epistle, or by word of mouth, wherein he labors not to prove that all the burdens of the Law are now laid away; that all those things which were before in types and figures, namely, the