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 Sabbath, Circumcision, the Newmoons, and the three solemn Festivals, did cease upon the preaching of the Gospel. (12) And cease it did upon the preaching of the Gospel; insensibly and by degrees, as before we said: not being afterwards observed as it had been formerly, or counted any necessary part of God’s public worship. Only some use was made thereof for the enlargement of God’s Church, by reason that the people had been accustomed to meet together on that day, for the performance of religious and spiritual duties. This made it more regarded than it would have been, especially in the Eastern parts of Greece and Asia, where the Provincial Jews were somewhat thick dispersed; and being a great accession to the Gospel, could not so suddenly forsake their ancient customs. Yet so, that the first day of the week began to grow into some credit towards the ending of this Age, especially after the final desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple, which happened Anno 72 of Christ’s Nativity. So that the religious observation of this day, beginning in the Age of the Apostles, no doubt but with their approbation and authority, and since continuing in the same respect for so many Ages, may be very well accounted amongst those Apostolical traditions which have been universally received in the Church of God. For being it was the day which our Redeemer honored with his resurrection, it easily might attain unto that esteem, as to be honored by the Christians with their public meetings, that so they might with greater comfort preserve and cherish the memorial of so great a mercy; in reference unto which the World’s Creation seemed not so considerable. By reason of which work wrought on it, it came in time to be entitled, *, the Lord’s day: which attribute is first found in the Revelation, writ by Saint John, about the 94th year of our Savior’s birth. So long it was before we find the Church took notice of it by a proper name. For I persuade myself, that had that day been destinate, at that time, to religious duties, or honored with the name of the Lord’s day, when Paul preached at Troas, or wrote to the Corinthians, which as before we shewed was in 57, neither Saint Luke nor the Apostle had so passed it over and called it only the first day of the week, as they both have done. And when it had this attribute affixed unto it, it only was *, as before we said; by reason of our Savior’s resurrection performed upon it, and not exclusively of all other days, as if all other days were not the Lord’s as well as this; or that the Congregation might not be assembled as well on them as on the other. For first it was not called the Lord’s Day exclusively, but by way of eminence, in reference to the resurrection only; all other days being the Lord’s as well as this. Prima sabbati significat diem Dominicam, quo Dominus resurrexit, & resurgendo isti seculo subvenit, mundumque ipso die creavit, qui ob excellentiam tanti miraculi proprie dies Dominica appellatur, i.e. dies Domini; quamvis omnes sunt Domini. So Bruno Herbipolensis hath resolved it. “The first day of the week, saith he, doth signify the Lord’s day, on the which he rose, and by so rising brought great comfort to this world, which on that day he had created: which day by reason of the excellency of so great a miracle, we call the Lord’s day; though indeed all days be the Lord’s.” And next, it was not so designed for the public meetings of the Church, as if they might not be assembled as well on every day as this. For as Saint Hierome hath determined, omnes dies aequales sunt, nec per parasceven tantum Christum crucifigi, & die Dominica resurgere, sed semper sanctum resurrectionis esse diem, & semper eum carne vesci Dominica, etc. “All days are equal in themselves, as the Father tells us. Christ was not crucified on the Friday only, nor did he rise only upon the Lord’s day: but that we may make every day the holy day of his resurrection; and every day eat his blessed body in the Sacrament. When therefore certain days were publicly assigned by Godly men for the assemblies of the Church, this was done only for their sakes, qui magis secule vacant quam Deo, who had more mind unto the World than to him that made it, and therefore either could not, or rather would not every day assemble in the Church of God.” Upon which ground as they, those godly men whom S. Hierome speaks of, made choice of this (even in the Age of the Apostles) for one, because our Savior rose that day from amongst the dead: so chose they Friday for another, by reason of our Savior’s passion; and Wednesday, on the which he had been betrayed: the Saturday, or ancient Sabbath, being mean-while retained in the Eastern Churches. Nay, in the primitive times, excepting in the heat of persecution, they met together every day for the receiving of the Sacrament: that being fortified with that viaticum, they might with greater courage encounter death if they chanced to meet him. So that the greatest honor, which in this Age was given the first day of the week, or Sunday, is that about the close thereof, they did begin to honor it with the name and title of the Lord’s Day, and made it one of those set days whereon the people met together for religious exercises. Which their religious exercises when they were performed, or if the times were such that their assemblies were prohibited, and so none were performed at all; it was not held unlawful to apply themselves unto their ordinary labors, as we shall see anon in the following Ages. For whereas some have gathered from this Text of the Revelation, from S. John’s being in the spirit on the Lord’s Day, as the phrase there is, that the Lord’s Day is wholly to be spent in spiritual exercises; that their conceit might probably have had some shew of likelihood, had it been said by the Apostle that he had been in the spirit every Lord’s Day. But being, as it is, a particular case, it can make no rule, unless it be that everyman on the Lord’s Day, should have dreams and visions, and be inspired that day with the spirit of prophecy: no more than if it had been told us, upon what day S. Paul had been rapt up into the third heaven; every man should upon that day, expect the like celestial raptures. Add here, how it is thought by some, that the Lord’s Day here mentioned, is not to be interpreted of the first day of the week, as we use to take it; but of the day of his last coming, of the day of judgment, wherein all flesh shall come together to receive their sentence; which being called the Lord’s day too, in holy Scripture (that so the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, I Cor. 5.5) S. John might see it, being rapt in spirit, as if come already. But touching this we will not meddle; let them that own it, look unto it: the rather since S. John hath generally been expounded in the other sense, by Aretas and Andraeas Caesariensis upon the place, by Bede de rat. temp. c.6, and by the suffrage of the Church the best expositor of God’s Word; wherein this day, hath constantly since the time of that Apostle, been honored with that name, above other days. Which day, how it was afterwards observed, and how far different it was thought from a Sabbath day; the prosecution of this story will make clear and evident.

CHAPTER - IN WHAT ESTATE THE LORDS DAY STOOD, FROM THE DEATH OF THE APOSTLES TO THE REIGNE OF CONSTANTINE. (1) Touching the orders settled by the Apostles, for the Congregation. (2) The Lords day and the Saturday, both festivals, and both observed in the East, in Ignatius time. (3) The Saturday not without great difficulty, made a fasting day. (4) The Controversie about keeping Easter; and how much it conduceth to the present businesse. (5) The feast of Easter not affixed to the Lords day, without much opposition of the Easterne Churches. (6) What Justin Martyr; and Dionysius of Corinth, have left us of the Lords day; Clemens of Alexandria, his dislike thereof. (7) Upon what grounds, the Christians of the former times used to pray, standing, on the Lords day, and the time of Pentecost. (8) What is recorded by Tertullian, of the Lords day; and the assemblies of the Church. (9) Origen, as his master Clemens had done before, dislikes set dayes for the assemblie. (10) S. Cyprian what he tells us of the Lords day: and of the reading of the Scriptures in S.

Cyprians time. (11) Of other holy dayes, established in these three first ages; and that they were observed as solemnely, as the Lords day was. (12) The name of Sunday often used for the Lords day, by the primitive Christians; but the Sabbath never. (1) WE showed you in the former Chapter what ever doth occur in the Acts and Monuments of the Apostles, touching the Lords day and the Sabbath: how that the one of them was abrogated as a part of the Law of Moses, the other rising by degrees from the ruins of it, not by authority divine, for ought appears, but by authority of the Church. As for the duties of that day, they were most likely such as formerly had been used in the Jewish Synagogues: reading the Law and Prophets openly to the Congregation; and afterwards expounding part thereof as occasion was; calling upon the Lord their God for the continuance of his mercies, and singing Psalms and Hymns unto him as by way of thankfulness. These the Apostles found in the Jewish Church, and well approving of the same, as they could not otherwise, commended them unto the care of the disciples; by them to be observed, as often as they met together, on what day soever.

First for the reading of the Law, Origen saith expressly that it was ordered so by the Apostles; Iudaicarum historiarum libri traditi sunt ab Apostolis legendi in Ecclesiis, as he there informs us. To this was joined in tract of time the reading of the holy Gospel and other Evangelical writings; it being ordered by S. Peter, that S. Mark’s Gospel should be read in the Congregation, as Eusebius tells us; and by S. Paul, that his Epistle to the Thessalonians should be read unto all the holy brethren; and also, that to the Colossians, to be read in the Churches of the Laodiceans, as that from Laodicea in the Church of the Colossians. By which example not only all the writings of the Apostles, but many of the writings of Apostolical men were publicly read unto the people; and for that purpose one appointed to exercise the ministry of a Reader in the congregation. So ancient is the reading of the Scriptures in the Church of God. To this by way of Comment or application, was added as we find by S. Paul’s directions, the use of prophecy or preaching, interpretation of the Scriptures, to edifying, and to exhortation, and to comfort; this exercise to be performed with the head uncovered, as well the Preacher as the hearer. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, dishonoreth his head, as the Apostle hath informed us. Where we have public prayers also for the congregation: the Priest to offer to the Lord the prayers and supplications of the people, and they to say Amen unto those prayers which the Priest made for them.

These to contain in them all the things necessary for the Church of God, which are the subject of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks; and to extend to all men also, especially unto Kings and such as be in authority, that under them we may be godly and quietly governed, leading a peacable life in all godliness and honesty. For the performance of which last duties with the greater comfort, it was disposed that Psalms and Hymns should be intermingled with the rest of the public service; which comprehending whatsoever is most excellent in the book of God, and being as so many notable forms of praise and prayer were cheerfully and unanimously to be sung amongst them. And thereupon S. Paul reprehended those of Corinth, in that they joined not with the assembly, but had their psalms unto themselves. Whereby it seems that they had left the true use of psalms, which being so many acclamations, exultations and holy provocations, to give God the glory, were to be sung together by the whole assembly; their singing at that time being little more than a melodious kind of pronunciation, such as is commonly now used in singing of the ordinary psalms and prayers in Cathedral Churches. And so it stood, till in the entrance of this age Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, one who was conversant with the Apostles, brought in the use of singing alternatim, course by course, according as it still continues in our public Choirs, where one side answers to another; some shew whereof is left in Parochial Churches in which the Minister and the people answer one another, in their several turns. To him doth Socrates refer it, and withal affirms that he first learned it of the Angels, whom in a vision he had heard to sing the praise of God after such a manner: *, as that Author hath it. And where Theodoret doth refer it to Flavianus and Diodorus, Priests of Antioch, during the bustlings of the Arian Heretics; and Platina unto Damasus Pope of Rome; Theodoret is to be interpreted of the restitution of this custom, having been left off; and Platina of the bringing of it into the Western Churches. For that it was in use in Ignatius’ time, (who suffered in the time of Trajan) and therefore probably began by him, as is said by Socrates, is evident by that which Pliny signified to the selfsame Trajan; where he informs him of the Christians, Quod soliti essent stato die, ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo, tanquam Deo, dicere, secum invicem, etc. “Their greatest crime, said he, was this, that at a certain day, (but what that day was that he tells not) they did meet together before daylight; and there sing hymnes to Christ as unto a God, one with another in their courses: and after bind themselves together by a common Sacrament, not unto any wicked or unjust attempt; but to live orderly without committing robbery, theft, adultery, or the like offenses.” (2) Now for the day there meant by Pliny, it must be Saturday or Sunday, if it were not both; both of them being in those times, and in those parts where Pliny lived, in especial honor; as may be gathered from Ignatius who at that time flourished. For demonstration of the which, we must first take notice, how that the world, as then was very full of dangerous fancies and heretical dotages, whereby the Church was much disquieted, and God’s worship hindered. The Ebionites, they stood hard for the Jewish Sabbath, and would by all means have it celebrated as it had been formerly, observing yet the Lord’s day, as the Christians did, in honor of the resurrection of our Lord and Savior. *, as Eusebius tells. “They kept saith he the Sabbath and the Jewish institutes in the same manner as the Jews, and the Lord’s days they celebrated as the Christians did in memory of our Redeemer’s resurrection.” The like saith Epiphanius of them, l.1.Heres.30.n.2. And on the other side there was a sort of Heretics in the Eastern parts, (whereof see Irenaeus lib. I. ca.20.21.22.23.24.&25.) who thought that this world, being corruptible, could not be made but by a very evil Author. Therefore as the Jews did by the festival solemnity of their Sabbath, rejoice in God that created the world, as in the Author of all goodness; so they in hatred of the maker of the world, sorrowed and wept, and fasted on that day, as being the birth day of all evil. And whereas Christian men of sound belief, did solemnize the Sunday in a joyful memory of Christ’s resurrection; so likewise at the selfsame time, such Heretics as denied the resurrection, did contrary to them that held it, and fasted when the rest rejoiced. For the expressing of which two last heresies, it was affirmed by Ignatius with such zeal and earnestness, *. If any one did fast either upon the Lord’s day, or the Sabbath, except one Sabbath in the year, (which was Easter Eve) he was a murderer of Christ. So he in his Epistle ad Philippenses. The Canons attributed to the Apostles, take notice of the misdemeanor, though they condemn it not with so high a censure, it being in them only ordered that if a Clergyman offended in that kind he should be degraded; * if any of the Laity, they should be excommunicated. Which makes me marvel, by the way, that those which take such pains to justify Ignatius, as Baronius doth, in Anno 57 of his Grand Annals, should yet condemn this Canon of imposture, which is not so severe as Ignatius is, only because it speaks against the Saturdays’ fast. Whereof consult the Annals Anno 102. Now as Ignatius labors here to advance the Sabbath, in opposition of those heretics before remembered, making it equally a festival with the Lord’s day; so being to deal with those which too much magnified the Sabbath, and thought the Christians bound unto it as the Jews had been; he bends himself another way and resolves it thus. *, etc. “Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner, in sloth and idleness; for it is written that he that will not labor shall not eat; and, in the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat thy bread. But let us keep it after a spiritual fashion, not in bodily ease, but in the study of the law: not eating meat dressed yesterday, or drinking lukewarm drinks, or walking out a limited space, or settling our delights as they did, on dancing; but in the contemplation of the works of God. *, etc. “And after we have so kept the Sabbath, let every one that loveth Christ, keep the Lord’s day festival, the resurrection day, the Queen and Empress of all days; in which our life was raised again, and death was overcome by our Lord and Savior.” So that we see that he would have both days observed: the Sabbath first, though not as would the Ebionites, in a Jewish sort: and after that the Lord’s day, which he so much magnifieth, the better to abate that high esteem which some had cast upon the Sabbath. Agreeable unto this we find that in the Constitutions of the Apostles, for by that name they pass, though not made by them, both days are ordered to be kept holy, one in memorial of the Creation, the other of the Resurrection.*. See the like l.8.c.33. of which more hereafter. (3) And so it was observed in the Eastern parts where those of the dispersion had took up their seats; and having long time had their meetings on the Sabbath day, could not so easily be persuaded from it. But in the Western Churches, in the which the Jews were not so considerable, and where those heretics before remembered had been hardly heard of, it was plainly otherwise: that day not only being honored with their public meetings, but destinate to a settled or a constant fast. Some which have looked more nearly into the reasons of this difference, conceive that they appointed this day for fasting in memory of Saint Peter’s conflict with Simon Magus, which being to be done on a Sunday following, the Church of Rome ordained a solemn fast on the day before, the better to obtain God’s blessing in so great a business; which falling out as they desired, they kept it for a fasting day for ever after. Saint Austine so relates it, as a general and received opinion, but then he adds, Quod eam esse falsam perhibeant plerique Romani; That very many of the Romans did take it only for a fable. As for Saint Austine, he conceives the reason of it to be the several uses which men made of our Savior’s resting in the grave the whole Sabbath day. For thence it came to pass, saith he, that some, especially the Eastern people, Ad requiem significandam mallent relaxare jejunium, to siginify and denote that rest, did not use to fast: whereon the other side, those of the Church of Rome and some Western Churches, kept it always fasting, Propter humilitatem mortis Domini, by reason that our Lord that day lay buried in the sleep of death. But as the Father comes not home unto the reason of this usage in the Eastern countries, so in my mind Pope Innocent gives a likelier reason for the contrary custom in the Western. For in a Decretal by him made touching the keeping of this fast, he gives this reason of it unto Decentius Eugubinus, who desired it of him: because that day and the day before were spent by the Apostles in grief and heaviness.

Nam constat Apostolos biduo isto & in moerore fuisse, & propter metum Iudaeorum se occuluisse, as his words there are. The like saith Platina that Innocentum did ordain the Saturday or Sabbath to be always fasted, Quod tali die Christus in sepulchro jacuisset, & quod discipuli ejus jejunassent; “Because our Savior lay in the grave that day, and it was fasted by his disciples.” Not that it was not fasted before Innocent’s time, as some vainly think; but that being formerly an arbitrary practice only, it was by him intended for a binding Law. Now as the African and the Western Churches were severally devoted either to the Church of Rome, or other Churches in the East, so did they follow in this matter of the Sabbath’s fast, the practice of those parts to which they did most adhere. Millaine though near to Rome, followed the practice of the East: which shews how little power the Popes then had, even within Italy itself. Paulinus tells us also of S. Ambrose, that he did never use to dine, nisi die Sabbati & Dominico; etc. but on the Sabbath, the Lord’s day, and on the Anniversaries of the Saints and Martyrs. Yet so, that when he was at Rome, he used to do as they there did, submitting to the orders of the Church in the which he was.

Whence that so celebrated speech of his, Cum hic sum, nonjejuno Sabbato: cum Romae sum jejuno Sabbato: at Rome he did; at Millaine he did not fast the Sabbath. Nay, which is more, Saint Augustine tells us that many times in Africa, one and the selfsame Church, at least the several Churches in the selfsame Province, had some that dined upon the Sabbath and some that fasted. And in this difference it stood a long time together, till in the end the Roman Church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a fast almost through all the parts of the Western world. I say the Western world, and of that alone, The Eastern Churches being so far from the altering their ancient custom that in the sixth Council of Constantinople, Anno 692, they did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day upon pain of censures. Which I have noted here in its proper place, that we might know the better how the matter stood between the Lord’s day and the Sabbath; how hard a thing it was for one to get the mastery of the other, both days being in themselves indifferent for sacred uses and holding by no other tenure than by the courtesy of the Church. (4) Much of this kind was that great conflict between the East and Western Churches about keeping Easter, and much alike conduced, as it was maintained, unto the honor of the Lord’s day or neglect thereof. The Passover of the Jews was changed in the Apostles’ times to the Feast of Easter, the anniversary memorial of our Savior’s resurrection; and not changed only in their times, but by their authority. Certain it is that they observed it, for Polycarpus kept it, *, both with Saint John, and with the rest of the Apostles, as Irenaeus tells us in Eusebius’ History. The like Polycrates affirms of Saint Philip also, whereof see Euseb.l.5.c,14. Nor was the difference which arose in the times succeeding about the Festival itself, but for the time wherein it was to be observed. The Eastern Churches, following the custom of Jerusalem, kept it directly at the same time the Jews did their Passovers: and at Jerusalem they so kept it (the Bishops there for fifteen several successions, being of the Circumcision), the better to content the Jews their brethren, and to win upon them. But in the Churches of the West they did not celebrate this Feast decima quarta luna, upon what day soever it was, as the others did; but on some Sunday following after: partly in honor of the day, and partly to express some difference between Jews and Christians. A thing of great importance to the present case. For if the Christians of the East reflected not upon the Sunday, in the Annual return of so great a Feast, but kept it on the fourteenth day of the month, be it what it will; it may be very strongly gathered that they regarded not the Lord’s day so highly, which was the weekly memory of the resurrection, as to prefer that day before any other in their public meetings. And thereupon Baronius pleads it very well, that certainly Saint John was not the Author of the contrary practice, as some gave it out. Nam quaenam potuit esseratio, etc. “For what, saith he, might be the reason why in the Revelation, he should make mention of the Lord’s day as a day of note, and of good credit in the Church, had it not got that name in reference to the resurrection. And if it were thought fit by the Apostles to celebrate the weekly memory thereof upon the Sunday, then to what purpose should they keep the Anniversary on another day?” And so far questionless we may join issue with the Cardinal, that either Sunday is not meant in the Revelation; or else Saint John was not the Author of keeping Easter with the Jews on what day soever. Rather we may conceive; that Saint John gave way unto the current of the times which in those places, as is said, were much intent upon the customs of the Jews, most of the Christians of those parts being Jews originally. (5) For the composing of this difference, and bringing of the Church to an uniformity, the Popes of Rome bestirred themselves, & so did many others also. And first, Pope Pius publisheth a declaration, Pascha domini die dominica annuis solennitatibus celebrandum esse, that Easter was to be solemnized on the Lord’s day only. And here, although I take the words of the letter decretorie, yet I rely rather upon Eusebius for the authority of the fact than on the Decretal itself, which is neither for the substance probable, and for the date, starkly false; not to be trusted, there being no such Council (it is Crab’s own note) as are there set down. But the Authority of Pope Pius did not reach so far as the Asian Churches, and therefore it produced an effect accordingly. This was 159, and seven years after, Polycarpus, Bishop of Smyrna, a Reverend and an holy man, made away to Rome; *, there to confer with Arnicetus, then Roman Prelate, about this business. And though one could not woo the other to desert the cause, yet they communicated together, and so parted Friends. But when that Blastus afterwards had made it necessary, which before was arbitrary, and taught it to be utterly unlawful to hold this Feast at any other time than the Jewish Passover, becoming so the Author of the Quarto decimani, as they used to call them; then did both Eleutherius publish a Decree that it was only to be kept upon the Sunday; and Irenaeus, though otherwise a peaceable man, wrote a Discourse entitled De schismate contra Blastum, now not extant.

A little before this time (this happened Anno 180), the controversy had took place in Laodicea, *, as Eusebius hath it; which moved Melito Bishop of Sardis, a man of special eminence, to write two Bookes de Paschate, and one de die Domenico, *. But to what side he took, it is hard to say.

Were those discourses extant, as they both are lost, we might no doubt find much that would conduce to our present business. Two years before the close of this second century Pope Victor, presuming probably on his name, sends abroad his Mandate touching the keeping of this Feast on the Lord’s day only: against the which, when as Polycrates and other Asian Prelates had set out their Manifests, he presently without more ado declares them all for excommunicate. But when this rather hindered than advanced the cause, the Asian Bishops caring little for those Bruta sublumina; and Irenaeus, who held the same side with him, having persuaded him to milder courses, he went another way to work, by practicing with the Prelates of several Churches to end the matter in particular Councils. Of these, there was one held at Osroena, another by Bachyllus Bishop of Corinth, a third in Gaul by Irenaeus, a fourth in Pontus, a fifth in Rome, a sixth in Palestine by Theophilus Bishop of Caeserea; the Canons of all which were extant in Eusebius’ time: and in all which it was concluded for the Sunday. By means of these Synodical determinations, the Asian Prelates by degrees let fall their rigor and yielded to the stronger and surer side. Yet waveringly and with some relapses, till the great Council of Nice, backed with the authority as great an Emperor, settled it better than before; none but some scattered Schismatics now and then appearing, that durst oppose the resolution of that famous Synod. So that you see, that whether you look upon the day appointed for the Jewish Sabbath, or on the day appointed for the Jewish Passover; the Lord’s day found it no small matter to obtain the victory. And when it had prevailed so far that both the Feast of Easter was restrained unto it, and that it had the honor of the public meetings of the Congregation, yet was not this last exclusively of all other days: the former Sabbath and the fourth and sixth days of the week having some share therein for a long time after, as we shall see more plainly in the following Centuries. (6) But first to make an end of this: this Century affords us three particular writers which have made mention of this day. First Justin Martyr, who then lived in Rome, doth thus relate it, * etc. “Upon the Sunday all of us assembled in the Congregation, as being that first day wherein God separating the light and darkness did create the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior rose again from the dead.” This for the day; then for the service of the day, he describes it thus: “Upon the day called Sunday, all that abide within the Cities, or about the fields, do meet together in some place where the records of the Apostles and writings of the Prophets, as much as is appointed are read unto us. The reader having done, the Priest or Prelate ministereth a word of exhortation, that we do imitate those good things which are there repeated. Then standing up together, we send up our prayers unto the Lord; which ended, there is delivered unto every one of us bread and wine with water. After all this, the Priest or Prelate offers up our prayers and thanksgiving as much as in him is, to God; and all the people say Amen: those of the richer sort, *, every man as he would himself, contributing something towards the relief of the poorer brethren; which after, by the Priest or Prelate, was disposed amongst them.” A form of service not much different from that in the church of England, save that we make the entrance unto our Liturgy with some preparatory prayers. The rest consisting as we know of Psalms, and several readings of the Scriptures out of the Old Testament and the New; the Epistles, and the holy Gospel; that done, the Homily or Sermon followeth the Offertory next, then prayers, and after that the Sacrament, and then prayers again; the people being finally dismissed with a benediction. The second testimony of these times is that of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, who lived about 175, some nine years after Justin Martyr wrote his last Apologie: who in an Epistle unto Soter Pope of Rome, doth relate it thus: *, etc. “To day, saith he, we kept holy the Lord’s day, wherein we read the Epistle which you writ unto us, which we do always read for our instruction, as also the first Epistle writ by Clemens.” Where note that not the Scriptures only were in those times read publicly in the Congregation, but the Epistles and Discourses of such learned men as had been eminent for place and piety, as in the after times, on defect of Sermons, it was the custom of the Church to read the Homilies of the Fathers for their edification. Concerning which it was ordained in a Council at Vaux, Anno 444, that if the Priest were sick or otherwise infirm so that he could not preach himself, the Deacons should rehearse some Homily of the holy Fathers. Si presbyter, aliqua infirmitate prohibente, per seipsum non potuerit praedicare, sanctorum Patrum homilie a Diaconibus recitentur; so the Council ordered it. The third and last Writer of this Century which gives us any thing of the Lord’s day is Clemens Alexandrinus, (he flourished in the year 190) who though he fetched the pedigree of the Lord’s day even as far as Plato which before we noted, yet he seems well enough contented that the Lord’s day should not be observed at all. *, etc. “We ought, saith he, to honor and to reverence him, whom we are verily persuaded to be the word, our Savior and our Captain; and in him, the Father: *, not in selected time, as some do amongst us, but always during our whole lives and on all occasions. The Royal Prophet tells us that he prayed God seven times a day. Whence he that understands himself stands not upon determinate places or appointed Temples, *, much less on any Festivals or days assigned; but in all places honors God, though he be alone. And a little after, *, etc. making our whole lives a continual Festival, and knowing God to be every where, we praise him sometimes in the fields, and sometimes sailing on the Seas, and finally in all the times of our life what ever. So in another place of the selfsame book, *, etc. He that doth lead his life according to the ordinances of the Gospel, * then keeps the Lord’s day when he casts away every evil thought, and doing things with knowledge and understanding, doth glorify the Lord in his resurrection.” By which it seems that whatsoever estimation the Lord’s day had attained unto at Rome and Corinth, yet either it was not so much esteemed at Alexandria, or else this Clemens did not think so rightly of it as he should have done. (7) Now in the place of Justin Martyr before remembered, there is one special circumstance to be considered, in reference to our present search: for I say nothing here of mingling water with the Wine in the holy Sacrament, as not conducing to the business which we have in hand. This is, that in their Sunday’s service they did use to stand during the time they made their prayers unto the Lord: *, as his words there are. Such was the custom of his time, and a long time after; that though they kneeled on other days, yet on the Lord’s day they prayed always standing. Yet not upon the Lord’s day only, but every day from Easter unto Pentecost. The reason is thus given by him who made the Responsiones ascribed to Justin; that so saith he, “We might take notice as of our fall by sin, so of our restitution by the grace of Christ. Six days we pray upon our knees, and that’s in token of our fall:*, etc. But on the Lord’s day we bow not the knee in token of the Resurrection; by which according to the Grace of Christ, we are set free from sin, and the powers of death.” The like saith he, is to be said of the days of Pentecost, which custom as he tells us, and cites Irenaeus for his Author, did take beginning even in the times of the Apostles. Rather we may conceive that they used this ceremony to testify their faith in the resurrection of our Lord and Savior; which many Heretics of those times did publicly gain- say, as before we noted, and shall speak more thereof hereafter. But whatsoever was the reason, it continued long, and was confirmed particularly by the great Synod of Nice, what time some people had begun to neglect this custom. The Synod there thus determined, *, etc. “that forasmuch as some did use to kneel on the Lord’s day, and the time of Pentecost, that all things, in all places might be done with an uniformity, it pleased the holy Synod to decree it thus: *, that men should stand at those times when they made their prayers. For Fathers which avow this custom, consult Tertullian, lib. de corona mil; S. Basil.l, de Sp. S. c. 27; S.

Hierom. Adv. Luciferian; S. Austin. Epist. 118; S. Hilaries Praefat. in Psalm; Ambros. Serm. 62, and divers others. What time this custom was laid by, I can hardly say; but sure I am it was not laid aside in a long time after; not till the time of Pope Alexander the third, who lived about the year 1160. For in a Decretal of his, confirmatory of the former custom, it was prohibited to kneel on the times remembered; Nisi aliquis ex devotione id velit facere, in secreto, unless some out of pure devotion, did it secretly.

Which dispensation probably occasioned the neglect thereof, in the times succeeding: the rather since those heretics who formerly had denied the resurrection, were now quite exterminated. This circumstance we have considered the more at large, as being the most especial difference whereby the Sunday’s service was distinguished from the week-days worship, in these present times whereof we write, and yet the difference was not such that it was proper to the Lord’s day only; but, if it were a badge of honor, communicated unto more than forty other days; of which more anon. But being it was an Ecclesiastical and occasional custom, the Church which first ordained it let it fall again, by the same authority. (8) In the third Century, the first we meet with is Tertullian, who flourished in the very first beginnings of it: by whom this day is called by three several names. For first he calls it Dies solis, Sunday, as commonly we now call it; and saith, that they did dedicate the same unto mirth and gladness; not to devotion altogether: Diem solis laetitiae indulgemus, in his Apologeticks.

The same name is used by Justin Martyr in the passages before remembered, partly because being to write to an heathen Magistrate, it had not been so proper to call it by the name of the Lord’s day, which name they knew not; and partly that delivering the form and substance of their service done upon that day, they might the better quit themselves from being worshipers of the Sun as the Gentiles thought. For by their meetings on this day for religious exercises, in greater numbers than on others, in Africa and the West, especially; and by their use of turning towards the East when they made their prayers; the world was sometimes so persuaded.

Iude suspicio, quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari, as he there informeth us. Whereby we may perceive of what great antiquity that custom is, which is retained in the Church of England, of bowing, kneeling, and adoring towards the Eastern parts. The Second name by which Tertullian calls this day, is the eighth day simply: Ethnicis semel annuus dies quisquis festus est, tibi octavo quoque die. The Gentiles, as he tells us, did keep their festivals only once a year; the Christians every eighth day, weekly. The third is, Dies Dominicus, or the Lord’s day; of which more hereafter. For their performances in their public meetings he describes them thus: Coimus in coetum & congregationem, etc. “We come together into the assembly or congregation, to our common prayers, that being banded as it were in a troop or Army, we may besiege God with our petitions. To him such violence is exceeding grateful. It followeth, Cogimur ad sacrarum literarum commemorationem, etc. We meet to hear the holy Scriptures rehearsed unto us, that so according to the quality of the times, we may either be premonished or corrected by them. Questionless by these holy speeches our faith is nourished, our hopes erected, our assurance settled: and notwithstanding by inculcating the same, we are the better stablished in our obedience to God’s precepts. A little after, President probati quique seniores, etc. Now at these general meetings, some Priests or Elders do preside, which have attained unto that honor not by money, but by the good report that they have gotten in the Church. And if there be a Poorman’s Box, every one cast in somewhat menstrua die, at least once a month, according as they would, and as they were able.” Thus he describes the form of their public meetings: but that such meetings were then used amongst them on the Sunday only, that he doth not say. Nor can we learn by him, or by Justin Martyr who describes them also, either how long those meetings lasted, or whether they assembled more than once a day; or what they did after the meetings were dissolved. But sure it is that their assemblies held no longer than our Morning Service; that they met only before noon; for Justin saith, that when they met they used to receive the Sacrament; and that the Service being done, every man went again to his daily labors. Of all these I shall speak hereafter. Only I note it out of Beza, that hitherto the people used not to forbear their labors, but while they were assembled in the Congregation: there being no such duty enjoined amongst them, neither in the times of the Apostles nor after, many years, nor till the Emperors had embraced the Gospel and therewith published their Edicts to enforce men to it. But take his words at large for the more assurance. Vt autem Christiani eo die a suis quotidianis laboribus abstinerent, preter id temporis quod in coetu ponebatur, id neque illis Apostolicis temporibus mandatum, neque prim fuit observatum quam id a Christianis Imperatoribus, ne quis a rerum sacrarum meditatione abstrabaretur, & quidem non ita precise observatum. “That Christians ought, saith he, to abstain that day from their daily labor, except that part thereof alone which was appointed for the meetings of the Congregation, was never either commanded in the Apostles’ times nor otherwise observed in the Church, until such time that so it was enjoined by Christian Emperors, to the end the people might not be diverted from meditating on holy matters; nor was it then so strictly kept as it was enjoined.” Which makes it manifest, that the Lord’s day was not taken for a Sabbath day, in these three first Ages. But for Tertullian where I left, note that I rendered seniores by Priests or Elders; because I think his meaning was to render the Greek Presbyter by the Latin senior. For that he should there mean layelders, as some men would have it, is a thing impossible: considering that he tells us in another place that they received the Sacrament at the hands of those who did preside in the assemblies. Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu, quam de Presidentium sumimus; and therefore sure they must be Priests that so presided. (9) Proceed we next to Origen, who flourished at the same time also. He being an Auditor of Clemens in the schools of Alexandria, became of his opinions too in many things; and amongst others, in dislike of those selected festivals which by the Church were set apart for God’s public service. Dicite mihi fos qui festis tantum diebus ad Ecclesiam convenitis, coeteri dies non sunt festi, non sunt dies Domini? Iudeorum est dies certos & raros observare solennes etc. Christiani, omni die carnes agni comedunt, i.e. carnes verbi Dei quotidie sumunt. “Tell me, saith he, you that frequent the Church on the feast days only, are not all days festival? are not all the Lord’s? It appertains unto the Jews to observe days and festivals: the Christians every day eat of the flesh of the Lamb, i.e. they every day do hear the Word of God.” And in another place, *, etc. “He truly keeps the festivals that performs his duty, praying continually, and offering every day the unbloody sacrifice in his prayers to God. Which whosoever doeth, and is upright in thought word and deed, adhering always unto God our natural Lord,” *, Every day is to him a Lord’s day. It seems too, that he had his desire, in part: it being noted by the Mandeburgians that every day there were assemblies in Alexandria, where he lived, for hearing the word of God. Et de collectis quotidie celebratis in quibus praedicatum sit verbum Dei, Hom. 9. in Isaiah significare videtur, as they note it from him. Indeed the Proem to his several Homilies seem to intimate that if they met not every day to hear his Lectures, they met very often. But being a learned man and one that had a good conceit of his own abilities, he grew offended that there was not as great resort of people every day to hear him as upon the Festivals. Of Sunday there is little doubt but that it was observed amongst them; so was the Wednesday, and the Friday both. For it is positively said by Socrates that on them both, the Scriptures were read openly, and afterwards expounded by the Doctors of the Church; and all things done appointed by the public Liturgy, save that they did not use to receive the sacrament. *. And this saith he was the old use in Alexandria: which he confirms by the practice of Origen, who was accustomed, as he tells us, to preach upon these days to the Congregation. Tertullian too, takes special notice of these two days; whereof consult him in his book adv. Psychicos. (10) About the middle of this Century did Saint Cyprian live, another African: and he hath left us somewhat, although not much, which concerns this business. Aurelius, one of excellent parts, was made a Reader in the Church, I think of Carthage: which being very welcome news to the common people, Saint Cyprian makes it known unto them, and withal lets them understand that Sunday was the day appointed for him to begin his Ministry. Et quoniam semper gaudium properat, nec moraferre potest laetitia, dominico legit. So that as Sunday was a day which they used to meet on; so reading of the Scripture was a special part of the Sunday’s exercise. Not as an exercise to spend the time, when one doth wait for another’s coming, till the assembly be complete; and that without or choice, or stint, appointed by determinate order; as is now used both in the French and Belgic Churches: for what need such an eminent man as Aurelius was, be taken out with so much expectation, to exercise the Clarke’s, or the Sexton’s duty. But it was used amongst them then, as a chief portion of the service which they did to God; in hearkening reverently unto his voice: It being so ordered in the Church, that the whole Bible or the greatest part thereof, should be read over once a year. And this, that so the Ministers of the congregation, by often reading and meditation of God’s Word, be stirred up to godliness themselves, and be the more able to exhort others by wholesome doctrine, and to confute them that were Adversaries to the truth: as that the people by daily hearing of the Scriptures, should profit more and more in the knowledge of God, and be the more inflamed with the love of his true Religion. Now for the duties of the people on this day in the Congregation, as they used formerly to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments, and to pour forth their souls to God in affectionate prayers: so much about these times, viz. in Anno 237, it has been appointed by Pope Fabian that every man and woman should, on the Lord’s day, bring a quantity of bread and wine, first to be offered on the Altar and then distributed in the Sacrament. A thing which had been done before as of common course, but now exacted as a duty: for the neglect whereof, Saint Cyprian chides with a rich widow of his time who neither brought her offering nor otherwise gave any thing to the poor-man’s Box; and therefore did not celebrate the Lord’s Supper as she should have done.

Locuples, & dives, dominicum celebrare te credis, quae Corbonam omnino non respicis, quae in Dominicum, sine sacrificio venis, quae partem de sacrificio, quod pauper obtulit, sumis. “Thinkest thou that thou dost rightly celebrate the Lords’ Supper, who being rich and wealthy, hast no care at all of the poor-man’s Box? who comest into the Church, (for so Dominicum doth signify in the second place) without thy sacrifice, and eatest a part of that which the poor man offereth?” In after times this custom went away by little and little; instead of which it was appointed by the Church, and retained in ours, that Bread and Wine for the Communion shall be provided by the Church-wardens at the charge of the Parish. I should now leave Saint Cyprian here, but that I am to tell you first, that he conceives the Lord’s day to have been prefigured in the eighth day, destinate to circumcision. Which being but a private opinion of his own, I rather shall refer the Reader unto the place, than repeat the words. And this is all this Age affords me in the present search. (11) For other holy days instituted by the Church for God’s public service in these three Centuries precedent, besides the Lord’s day, or the Sunday, which came every week: Origen names Good Friday, as we call it now, or the Parasceve, as he calls it there; the feast of Easter, & of Pentecost. Of Easter we have spoke already. For Pentecost or Whitsuntide, as it began with the Apostles, so it continues till this present, but not in that solemnity which before it had. For anciently not that day only, which we call Whitsunday, or Pentecost *, but all the fifty days from Easter forwards were accounted holy, and solemnized with no less observation than the Sundays were: no kneeling on the one, nor upon the other; no fasting on the one, nor upon the other. Of which days, that of the Ascension, or Holy Thursday, being one; became in little time to be more highly reckoned of than all the rest: as we shall prove hereafter out of Saint Austin. But for these fifty days aforesaid, Tertullian tells us of them thus: Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare; Eadem immunitate a die Paschae in Pentecosten gaudemus. “We count it an impiety, saith he, to fast on the Lord’s day, or to pray kneeling on the same: the same immunity we enjoy, from Easter unto Whitsuntide, which makes both alike.” Which words if any think too short to reach the point: he tells us in another place that all the Festivals of the Gentiles contained not so many days as did that one. Excerpe singulas solennitates nationum, & in ordinem texe, Pentecosten implere non poterunt. The like he hath also in his book av.

Psychicos: the like Saint Hierom ad Lucimum; the like Saint Ambrose, or Maximus Taurinens. which of the two soever it was, that made those Sermons, Serm. 60, 61; In which last it is said expressly of those fifty days, that every one of them was instar Dominice, and qualis est Dominica, in all respects nothing inferior to the Lord’s day. And in the Comment on Saint Luke (which questionless was writ by Ambrose) cap.17.l.8, it is said expressly, Et sunt omnes dies tanquam Dominica, that evey day of all the fifty was to be reckoned of no otherwise, in that regard especially, than the Sunday was. Some footsteps of this custom still remain amongst us, in that we fast not either on S. Mark’s Eve or on the Eve of S. Philip and Jacob, happening within that time. The fast of the Rogation week was after instituted on a particular and extraordinary occasion. Now as these festivals of Easter and of Whitsuntide, were instituted in the first age or Century, and with them, those two days attendant, which we still retain; whereof see Austin de Civit. Dei.li.22.ca.8. & Nyssen in his first Hom. de Paschate, where Easter is expressly called *, or the three-days-feast: so was the feast of Christ’s nativity ordained or instituted in the second; that of his incarnation in the third. For this, we have an Homily of Gregory surnamed Thaumaturgus, who lived in Anno 230, entitled De annunciatione B. Virginis, as we call it now. But being it is questionable among the learned, whether that Homily be his or not: there is an Homily of Athanasius on the selfsame argument (he lived in the beginning of the following Century), whereof there is no question to be made at all. That of the Lord’s nativity began, if not before, in the second Age. Theophilus Caesariens. who lived about the times of Commodus, and Severus, the Roman Emperors, makes mention of it, and fixeth it upon the 25. of Decemb. as we now observe it. Natalem Domini, quocunque die 8. Calend.

Ianuar. venerit, celebrare debemus, as his own words are. And after, in the time of Maximinus, which was one of the last great persecutors, Nicephorus tells us that in ipso natalis Dominici die, Christianos Nicomediae festivitatem celebrantes, succenso templo concremavit; “even in the very day of the Lord’s nativity, he caused the Christians to be burnt at Nicomedia, whilst they were solemnizing this great feast within their Temple.” I say this Great Feast, and I call it so on the authority of Beda, who reckoneth Christmas, Easter, and Whitsontide for majora solennia; as they still are counted. But before Bede it was so thought over all the Church. Chrysostome calls it, *, the mother or metropolis of all other feasts. And before him Pope Fabian, whom but now we spake of, ordained that all lay-men should communicate at least thrice a year, which was these three festivals. Et si non frequentius, saltem ter in Anno Laici homines communicent, etc. in Pascha & Pentecoste, & Natali Domini. So quickly had the Annual got the better of the weekly Festivals. According to which ancient Canon, the Church of England hath appointed that every man communicate at least thrice a year, of which times Easter to be one. (12) Before we end this Chapter, there is one thing yet to be considered, which is the name whereby the Christians of these first Ages did use to call the day of the resurrection; and consequently the other days of the week according as they found the time divided. The rather, because some are become offended that we retain those names amongst us which were to us commended by our Ancestors; and to them by theirs. Where first we must take notice that the Jews in honor of their Sabbath used to refer their times to that; distinguishing their days by Prima Sabbati, Secunda Sabbati, and so until they came to the Sabbath itself: as on the other side the Gentiles, following the motions of the Planets, gave to each day the name of that particular Planet by which the first hour of the day was governed, as their Astrologers had taught them: Now the Apostles being Jews, retained the custom of the Jews; and for that reason called that day on which our Savior rose, *, una sabbati, the first day of the week, as our English reads it. The Fathers, many of them followed their example. Saint Austin thereupon calls Thursday by the name of quintum sabbati, Epist. 118, and so doth venerable Beda, hist. lib. 4.c.25; S. Hierome Tuesday, tertium sabbati, in Epitaph. Paule; Tertullian Friday, by the old name parasceve l.4.advers. Marcion. Saturday they called generally the Sabbath; and Sunday, sometimes dies solis, and sometimes Dominicus. Pope Silvester, as Polydore Virgil is of opinion, vanorum deorum memoriam abhorrens, hating the name and memory of the Gentile gods, gave order that the days should be called by the name of Feriae; and the distinction to be made by Prima feria, Secunda feria, etc. the Sabbath and the Lord’s day holding their names and places as before they did. Hence that of Honorius Augustodunensis: Hebraei nominant dies suos, una vel prima sabbati, etc.

Pagni sic, dies solis, Lunae, etc. Christiano vero sic dies nominant, viz.

Dies Dominicus, feria prima, etc. Sabbatum. But by their leave, this is no universal rule; the Writers of the Christian Church not tying up their hands so strictly as not to give the days what names they pleased: Save that the Saturday is called amongst them by no other name than that which formerly it had, the Sabbath. So that when ever for a thousand years and upwards we meet with Sabbatum, in any writer of what name soever, it must be understood of no day but Saturday. As for the other day, the day of resurrection, the Evangelists, and S. Paul, take notice of no other name than of the first day of the week. S. John, and after him Ignatius, call it *, the Lord’s day. But then again Justin Martyr for the second Century, doth in two several passages call it no otherwise than *, Sunday, as then the Gentiles called it, and we call it now: and so Tertullian for the third, who useth both, and calls it sometimes diem solis, and sometimes Dominicum, as before was said. Which questionless neither of them would have done on what respect soever, had it been either contrary to the Word of God or scandalous unto his Church. So for the after ages, in the Edicts of Constantine, Valentinian, Valens, Gratian, Honorius, Arcadius, Theodosius, Christian Princes all, it hath no other name than Sunday, or dies solis; and many fair years after them, the Synod held at Dingulosinum in the lower Bavaria, Anno 772, calls it plainly Sunday; Festo die solis prophanis negotiis abstineto: of which Edicts we shall speak hereafter.

Thus also Aventine, for the latter Writers, who lived not till the Age last past, speaking of the battle fought near Cambry between Charles Martell, and Hilpericus King of France, saith that it happened on the thirteenth of the Calends of Aprill, quae tum dies solis ante Paschalia erat, being the Sunday before Easter. They therefore are more nice than wise, who out of a desire to have all things new would have new names for every day; or call them as sometimes they were, the first day of the week, the second day of the week, & sic de caeteris: and all for fear lest it be thought that we do still adore those Gods whom the Gentiles worshiped. S. Augustine, as it seems, had met with some this way affected, and thus disputes the case with Faustus Manichaeus. Deorum suorum nomina gentes imposuerunt diebus istis, etc. “The Gentiles, saith the Father, gave unto every day of the week, the name of one or other of their Gods, and so they did also unto every month. If then we keep the name of March, and not think of Mars; why may we not, saith he, preserve the name of Saturday, and not think of Saturn.” I add, why may we not then keep the name of Sunday, and not think of Phoebus, or Apollo, or by what other name soever, the old Poets call him. This, though it satisfied the Manichees, will not perhaps now satisfy some curious men who do as much dislike the names of the Months as of the days. To others I presume it may give some reason why we retain the name of Sunday, not only in our common speech, but in the Canons of the Church, and our Acts of Parliament: as being used indifferently by so many eminent persons in the Primitive Church, as also in an open Synod, as before was shown; from thence transmitted by our Fathers unto their posterity. Better by far, and far less danger to be feared, in calling it the Sunday, as the Gentiles did, and as our Ancestors have done before us; than calling it the Sabbath, as too many do, and on less authority; nay, contrary indeed to all antiquity, and Scripture.

CHAPTER - THAT IN THE FOURTH AGE FROM THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE TO SAINT AUSTINE, THE LORDS DAY WAS NOT TAKEN FOR A SABBATH DAY. (1) The Lords day first established by the Emperour Constantine. (2) What labors were permitted, and what restrained on the Lords day, by this Emporours Edict. (3) Of other holy dayes, and Saints dayes, instituted in the time of Constantine. (4) That weekely other dayes particularly the Wednesday and the Friday, were in this Age, and those before appointed for the meetings of the Congregation. (5) The Saturday as highly honored in the Eastern Churches, as the Lords day was. (6) The Fathers of the Easterne Churches, cry downe the Iewish Sabbath, though they held the Saturday. (7) The Lords day, in this Age, a day of feasting; and that it hath beene alwayes deemed haereticall, to hold fasts thereon. (9) Of recreation on the Lords day: and of what kind those dancings were, against the which the Fathers enveigh so sharpely. (10) Other Imperiall Edicts, about the keeping of the Lords day, and the other holy dayes. (11) The Orders, at this time in use, on the Lords day, and other dayes of publick meeting, in the Congregation. (12) The infinite differences betweene the Lords day, and the Sabbath. (1) HITHERTO have we spoken of the Lords day as taken up by the common consent of the Church: not instituted or established by any text of Scripture, or Edict of Emperor, or decree of Council; save that some few particular Councils did reflect upon it in the point of Easter. In that which followeth, we shall find both Emperors and Councils very frequent in ordering things about this day and the service of it. And first we have the Emperor Constantine, who being the first Christian Prince which publicly professed the Gospel, was the first also which made any law about the keeping of the Lord’s day or Sunday. Of him Eusebius tells us that thinking that the chiefest and most proper day for the devotion of his subjects, he presently declared his pleasure, *, “that every one who lived in the Roman Empire should take their ease, or rest, in that day weekly, which is entitled to our Savior.” Now where the soldiers in his camp were partly Christians and partly Gentiles, it was permitted unto them who professed the Gospel, upon the Sunday, so he calls it, freely to go unto the Churches and there offer up their prayers to Almighty God. But such as had continued still in their ancient errors, were ordered to assemble in the open fields, upon those days; and on a signal given, to make their prayers unto the Lord after a form by him prescribed. That form being in the Latin tongue, was this that followeth: Te solum Deum agnoscimus, te regum profitemur, te adjutorem invocamus, per te victorias consecuti sumus, per te hostes superavimus, a te & praesentem felicitatem consecutos fatemur, & futuram adepturos speramus: tui omnes supplices sumus; a te petimus, ut Constantinum Imperatorum nostrum una cumpys ejus liberis, quam diutissim: nobis salvum & victorem conserves. In English thus: “We do acknowledge thee to be the only God, we confess thee to be the King, we call upon thee as our helper and defender: by thee alone it is that we have got the victory, and subdued our enemies; to thee as we refer all our present happiness, so from thee also do we expect our future. Thee therefore we beseech, that thou wouldest please to keep in all health and safety our noble Emperor Constantine, with his hopeful progeny.” Nor was this only to be done in the fields of Rome, in patentibus suburbiorum campis, as the Edict ran: but after, by another proclamation he did command the same over all the Provinces of the Empire. *, as Eusebius hath it. So natural a power it is in a Christian Prince, to order things about religion, that he not only took upon him to command the day but also to prescribe the service; to those I mean who had no public Liturgy, or set form of prayer. (2) Nor did he only take upon him to command or appoint the day as to all his subjects; and to prescribe a form of prayer as unto the Gentiles, but to decree what work should be allowed upon it, and what intermitted in former times, though the Lord’s day, had got the credit as to be honored with the public meetings of the Congregation, yet was it not so strictly kept, no not in time of Divine Service, but that the public Magistrates, Judges and other Ministers of State were to attend those great employments they were called unto, without relation to this day or cessation on it: and so did other men which had less employments, and those not so necessary. These things this pious Emperor taking into consideration, and finding no necessity but that his Judges and other Public ministers might attend God’s service on that day, at least not be a means to keep others from it; and knowing that such as dwelt in Cities had sufficient leisure to frequent the Church; and that Artificers without any public discommodity might, for that time, forbear their ordinary labors: he ordered and appointed that all of them, in their several places should this day lay aside their own business to attend the Lord’s. But then withal considering that such as followed husbandry could not so well neglect the times of seeds and harvests, but that they were to take advantage of the fairest and most seasonable weather, as God pleased to send it, he left it free to them to follow their affairs on what day soever; lest otherwise they might lose those blessings which God, in his great bounty, had bestowed upon them. This mentioned in the very Edict he set forth about it. First for his Judges, Citizens or inhabitants of the greater towns, and all Artificers therein dwelling. Omnes Iudices, urbanae qua plebes, & cunctarum artium officia, venerabili die Solis quiescant. Next for the people of the Country, Rure tamen positi, libere licenterque agrorum culturae inserviant, quoniam frequenter evenit, ut non aptius alio die, frumenta fulcis, vinea scrobibus mandentur. And then the reason of this follows, Ne occasione momenti, pereat commodit ac coelesti provisione concessa. The tenor of the whole is this: “It is our pleasure that all Judges, inhabitants of Cities, and Artificers should on the venerable Sunday lay aside their businesses. As for the people of the Country that they with liberty and safety shall attend their husbandry on that day; because it happeneth many times, that no day is more fit than that, either for sowing corn or for planting vines: lest otherwise by neglect of convenient seasons they lose those benefits which their God had bestowed upon them.” This Edict did bear date in the Nones of March, Anno 321, being the 11th year of that Prince’s Empire; and long it did not stand till he himself was fain to explain his meaning in the first part of it. For whereas he intended only to restrain law suits and contentious pleadings, as being unfit for such a day, his Judges and like officers, finding a general restraint in the law of Edict, durst not engage themselves in the Cognizance of any civil cause what ever; no not so much as in the Manumission of a Bondslave. This coming to the Emperor’s notice, who was a friend of liberty, and could not but well understand how acceptable a thing it was to God that works of charity and mercy should not be restrained on any days, it pleased him to send out a second Edict in the July following, directed to Elpidius, who was then Praefectus Praetorio, as I take it; wherein he authorized his Ministers to perform that Office, any thing in the former Law unto the contrary notwithstanding. For so it runs, Sicut indignissimum videbatur, diem Solis venerationis suae celebrem, altercantibus jurgijs & noxys partium consentionibus, occupari; ita gratum est & jucundum, eo die, quae sunt maxime votiva, compleri.

Atque ideo emancipandi & manumittendi, die festo, cuncti licentiam habeant; & super his rebus, Acta non prohibeantur. “As we conceived it most unfitting that Sunday being a famous and a sacred day, should be taken up in wrangling suits and hurtful altercations: so is it a most grateful and most pleasing thing that those things should be done upon it which are most desired. Therefore it is our pleasure that all our ministers have leave to manumit and make free on that holy day; and enter all such Acts as concern the same.” So that not only husbandry was permitted in small Towns and Villages: but manumission, being a mere civil Act, and of no small ceremony, was by him suffered and allowed in the greater Cities. The first great work done by the first great Christian Prince was to declare his royal pleasure about this day; what things he thought most proper to permit, and what to disallow upon it: teaching all other Kings and Princes which have since succeeded, what they should also do on the same occasion. (3) Nor did this pious Prince confirm and regulate the Lord’s day only; but unto him we are indebted for many of those other Festivals which have been since observed in the Church of God. It had been formerly a custom in the Christian Church carefully to observe the times and days of their departure who had preferred the Gospel before their lives, and suffered many torments and at last death itself, for the faith of Christ. The church of Smyrna (and that’s the highest we need go) testifieth in an Epistle writ ad Philomelienses, that they did celebrate the day wherein the Reverend Bishop Polycarp did suffer Martyrdom, with joy and gladness and an holy Convocation. This was in Anno 170 or thereabouts. And in the following Age, S. Cyprian taking notice of such men as were imprisoned for the testimony of a good conscience, appointed that the days of their decease should be precisely noted, that so their memories might be celebrated with the holy Martyrs. Denique & dies eorum quibus excedunt, annotate, ut commemorationes eorum, inter memorias martyrum celebrare possimus, as there he hath it. But hitherto they were only bare memorials, (for more they durst not do in those times of trouble,) their sufferings only signified to the Congregation: and that they did unto this end, that by exhibiting to the people their infinite endurance for the truth and testimony of Religion, they also might be nourished in an equal constancy. After, when as the Church was in perfect peace, it pleased the Emperor Constantine to signify to all his Deputies and Lieutenants in the Roman Empire that they should have a care to see those the memorials of the Martyrs duly honored, and solemn times or Festivals to be appointed in the Churches to that end and purpose. *, as that Author hath it. And though these Festivals, and Saint’s days became not forthwith common over all the world, but were observed in those parts chiefly wherein the memory of the Saint, or Martyr, was in most esteem; in which respect Saint Hierome calls them, tempora in honore Martyrum, pro diversa regionum varietate, constituta: yet in a little tract of time, such of them as had been most eminent, as the Apostles, and Evangelists, were universally received and celebrated, even as now they are. I say as now they are, as they are now observed in the Church of England; and this I say upon the credit and authority of Theodoret, who, though he gives another reason and original of these institutions, informs us of these Festivals that they were modestae, castae, temperantiae plenae, performed with modesty, charity, and sobriety: not as the Festivals of the Gentiles were, in excess and riot. And not so only, but he affirms this of them: divinis canticis personantis, sacrisque sermonibus audiendis intentae, “that they were solemnized with spiritual Hymns, and religious Sermons; and that the people used to empty out their souls to God in fervent and affectionate Prayers, non sine lachrymis & suspirijs, even with sighs and tears. As for Theodoret, he lived and flourished in the year 420, and speaks of these Festivals (S. Peter and S. Thomas and S. Paul, with others which he names particularly) as things which had been settled and established a long time before, and therefore could not be much after the time of Constantine, who died not till the year 341 or thereabouts. As for the eighth book de Martyrib. where this passage is, it is the 12th of those entitled de curandie Grac. affect. And howsoever some exception hath been made against them, as that they were not his whose name they carry: yet find I no just proof thereof amongst our Critics. (4) Now as the Emperor Constantine did add the Annual Festivals of the Saints unto those other Anniversary feasts, which formerly had been observed in the Christian Church, so by this royal Edict did he settle and confirm those public meetings which had been formerly observed on each Friday weekly; the Wednesday standing on the same Basis, as before it did, which was the custom of the Church. Eusebius having told us of this Emperor’s Edict, about the honoring of the Sunday, adds that he also made the like about the Friday: * as the Author hath it. Sozomen adds that he enjoined also the like rest upon it, the like cessation both from judicature and all other businesses; and after gives this reason of it. *. “He honored the one, saith he, as being the day of our Redeemer’s resurrection, the other as the day of our Savior’s passion. So for the practice of the Church in the following times, that they used other days besides the Sundays is evident by many passages of Cyril of Jerusalem, where he makes mention of the Sermon preached the day before, * in his own Language; Catech. orat. 7. *. the morrow after the Lord’s day, Cat.14. & *. Catech.

Mystag.2. The like is very frequent in S. Ambrose also. Hesterno die de fonte disputavimus, De Sacram. lib.3.cap.I. Hesternus noster sermo ad sancti altaris sacramentum deductus est. lib.5.cap.I, and in other places.

The like in Chrysostome, as in many other places; too many to be pointed at in this place and time; for in his 18th Hom. on the 3rd of Genesis *, etc.

But this perhaps was only in respect of Lectures, or Expositions of the Scriptures, such as were often used in the greater Cities where there was much people and but little business; for I conceive not that they met every day in those times to receive the Sacraments. Of Wednesday and of Friday it is plain they did, (for of the Saturday we shall speak more fully in the next Section:) S. Basil names them all together, *, etc. It is saith he a profitable and pious thing, every day to communicate and to participate of the blessed body and blood of Christ our Savior; he having told us in plain terms that Whosoever eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath eternal life.” We notwithstanding do communicate but four times weekly, *, viz. on the Lord’s day, the Wednesday, the Friday, and the Saturday; unless on any other days, the memory of some Martyr be perhaps observed.”

Epiphanius goeth a little further, and he deriveth the Wednesday’s and the Friday’s Service even from the Apostles, ranking them in the same Antiquity, and grounding them upon the same authority that he doth the Sunday. *. Only it seems the difference was that whereas formerly it had been the custom not to administer the Sacrament on these two days (being both of them fasting days, and so accounted long before) until towards evening; it had been changed of late, and they did celebrate in the mornings, * as on the Lord’s day was accustomed. Whether the meetings on these days were of such antiquity as Epiphanius saith they were, I will not meddle. Certain it is that they were very ancient in the Church of God; as may appear by that of Origen and Tertullian; before remembered. So that if we consider either the preaching of the Word, the ministration of the Sacraments, or the public Prayers, the Sunday in the Eastern Churches had no great prerogative above other days, especially above the Wednesday and the Friday, save that the meetings were more solemn and the concourse of people greater than at other times, as it is most likely. The footsteps of this ancient custom are yet to be observed in this Church of England, by which it is appointed that on Wednesdays and Fridays weekly, though they be not holy days, the Minister at the accustomed hours of Service shall resort to Church and say the Litany prescribed in the book of Common Prayer. (5) As for the Saturday, that retained its wonted credit in the Eastern Church, little inferior to the Lord’s day if not plainly equal; not as a Sabbath, think not so; but as a day designed unto sacred meetings. The Constitutions of the Apostles, said to be writ by Clemens, one of Saint Peter’s first successors in the Church of Rome, appoint both days to be observed as solemn Festivals, both of them to be days of rest: that so the servant might have time to repair unto the Church for his institution. *. “Let servants, saith the Constitution, attend their business five days in the week; but for the Saturday (or Sabbath) and the Lord’s day, let them rest themselves, and repair to Church; that so they may be trained in the ways of Godliness.” Not that they should devote them wholly unto rest from labor, but only those set times of both which were appointed for the meetings of the Congregation. Yet this had an exception too, the Saturday before Easter day, whereupon Christ rested in the Grave, being exempt from these assemblies and destinated only unto grief and fasting. And though these constitutions in all likelihood were not writ by Clemens, there being many things there in which could not be in use of a long time after; yet ancient sure they were, as being mentioned in Epiphanius, as the Cardinal confesseth, a Graecis veteribus magni factos, much made of by the ancient Grecians, though not of such authority in the Church of Rome.

How their authority in this point is countenanced by Ignatius we have seen already; and we shall see the same more fully throughout all this Age. And first, beginning with the Synod held in Laodicea, a town of Phrygia, Anno 314, there passed a Canon, *, touching the reading of the Gospels with the other Scriptures upon the Saturday or Sabbath; that in the time of Lent there should be no oblation made *, but on the Saturday, and the Lord’s day only; neither that any Festival should then be observed in memory of any Martyrs, but that their names only should be commemorated, * upon the Lord’s day and the Sabbaths, thirty Prelates there assembled; it was the practice generally of the Eastern Churches, and of some Churches of the west. For in the Church of Millaine, which as before I said, in some certain things followed the Churches of the East; it seems the Saturday was held in a far esteem, and joined together with the Sunday. Crastino die Sabbato, & dominico, de orationis ordine dicemus; “To morrow being Saturday, and on the Lord’s day, we will speak unto you concerning prayer;” as S.

Ambrose hath it. And probably his often mention of yesterday, or hesternus dies remembered in the former Section, may have relation to the joint observance of these two days: and so may that which is reported then out of S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril, Eastern Doctors both. Sure I am Socrates counts both days for weekly Festivals, *, that on them both the Congregation used to be assembled and the whole Liturgy performed.

Which plainly shows that in the practice of those Churches they were both regarded, both alike observed. Gregory Nyssen speaks more home and unto the purpose. Some of the people had neglected to come unto the Church upon the Saturday, and on the Sunday he thus chides and rebukes them for it. *, etc. “With what face, saith the Father, wilt thou look upon the Lord’s day, which hast dishonored the Sabbath, knowest thou not that these days are sisters, and that who ever doth despise the one, doth affront the other?” Sisters indeed, and so accounted in those Churches, not only in regard of the public meetings but in this also, that they were both exempt from the Lenten Fast; of which, more anon. In the mean time, we may remember how Saturday is by S. Basil, made one of those four times, whereon the Christians of those parts did assemble weekly to receive the Sacrament, as before we noted. And finally it is said by Epiphanius that howsoever it was not so in the Isle of Cyprus, which it seems held more correspondence with the Church of Rome and Alexandria, than those of Asia; Yet in some places, *, they used to celebrate the holy Sacrament, and “hold their public meetings on the Sabbath day.” Not that the Eastern Churches, or any of the rest which observed that day, were inclined to Judaism; but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Jesus Christ the Lord of the Sabbath. The Author of the Homily de Semente hath informed us so. *, etc. “We are assembled on the Sabbath not as infected any whit with Judaism, for with their false Sabbaths we have no acquaintance; but we assemble on the same*, worshiping the Lord of the Sabbath, which is Jesus Christ.” Who was the Author of this Homily is not yet discovered, that I can hear of. I know it passeth under the name of Athanasius, and generally is ascribed unto him: but I am verily persuaded it was none of his. For besides that is rejected by Pet. Nannius in his Epistle dedicatory, prefixed before the works of that Reverend Prelate, this very passage is sufficient to make clear the point. This Author, whosoever he was, speaks of the keeping of the Sabbath, or meeting of the congregation on the Saturday: which was, it seems the custom of that place where the Author lived. But no such custom was observed in Alexandria, whereof Saint Athanasius was so long time Bishop: it being evident in Socrates, Eccl.hist.lib.5.cap.21; and so in Sozomen, lib.7.cap.19; that the Alexandrians had no ecclesiastical assemblies on the Saturday but were therein conformed to the Church of Rome. As for the Homily itself, we deny it not, but that it is a piece of good antiquity and credit written, as I conceive, by some Prelate of the Eastern Churches, where the observance of the Saturday was in constant use. But return unto our story. Put all that hath been said together, it will come to this: that whereas in the Eastern and the Western Churches several days were in commission for God’s public service, the Lord’s day, in both places was of the Quorum; and therefore had the greater worship, because more business. (6) As for the Saturday or Sabbath, although they held their public meetings on the same, yet did they not keep it like a Sabbath. The Fathers of this learned age knew that Sabbath had been abrogated, and professed as much. The Council of Laodicea before remembered, though it ascribe much to this day in reference to the Congregations then held upon it; yet it condemns the Jewish observations of the same*, etc. “It is not fit for Christians, saith the 29th Canon, to Judaize and do no manner of work on the Sabbath days, but to pursue their ordinary labors upon it.” Conceive it so far forth, as they were no impediment to the public meetings then appointed. And in the close of all, *. “If any should be found so to play as the Jews, let them be Anathema.” So Athanasius also stands as strongly for the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath. Not on the by , but in a whole discourse, writ and contrived especially for that end and purpose, entitled De Sabbato & circumcisione. One might conjecture by the title, by coupling of these two together, what his meaning was; that he conceived them both to be of the same condition. And in the homily De Semente, the Author tells of the New-moons and the Sabbaths, that they were vespers unto Christ, and to be in authority until the master came. *. “The Master being come, the Vesper grew out of all employment; the Sun being risen once, the lamp was darkened.” Two other of the Fathers which have said as much, and whereof we have spoken in a place more proper; add Nazianz. Orat. 41; S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat.4; and Epiphanius in the confutation of those several heretics which held the Sabbath for a necessary part of God’s public worship, and to be now observed as before it was. Of which kind, over and above the Ebionites, and Cerinthians, which before we spake of, were the Nazarai, in the second Century; who, as this Epiphanius tells us, differed both from the Jew and Christian. First from the Jew, in that they did believe in Christ: next from the Christian, * “in that they still retain the law, as Circumcision, and the Sabbath, and such things as those.” And those I have the rather noted in this place and time as being, so Saint Austine tells, the Ancestors or Original of the Symmachians; who held out till this very Age, and stood as much for Sabbaths and legal ceremonies as their founders did; whereof consult Saint Ambrose’ preface to the Galatians. Now as these Nazarens, or Symmachiani, had made a mixed religion of Jew and Christian, so did another sort of heretics, in these present times, contrive a miscellany of the Jew and Gentile: Idols and sacrifices they would not have; and yet they worshiped the fire and candle. *, etc. The Sabbath also they much reverenced, and stood upon the difference of unclean and clean; yet by no means would be induced to like of Circumcision. These they called Hypsistary; or rather so those doughty fellows pleased to call themselves.

Add here, that it was counted one of the great dotages of Appolinaris, and afterwards of all his sect, viz. that after the last resurrection every thing should be done again according to the former law: *, etc. “That we should be circumcised, and observe the Sabbath, and abstain from meats, and offer sacrifice, and finally of Christians become Jews again. Than which, saith Basil, who reports it, what can be more absurd, or more repugnant to the Gospel.” By which it is most plain and certain, that though the Christians of the East, retained the Saturday for a day of public meeting; yet they did never mean it to be a Sabbath, reckoning them all for heretics that so observed it. (7) Next let us look upon the Sunday, what they did on that. For though it pleased the Emperor by his royal edict to permit works of husbandry in the Country, and manumissions in the Cities on that sacred day; yet probably there were some pure and pious souls who would not take the benefit of the declaration, or think themselves beholding to him for so injurious and profane a dispensation. This we will search into exactly, that so the truth may be discovered. And first beginning with the Council of Eliberis, (a Town of Spain) in the beginning of this Age, it was thus decreed: Si quis in civitate positus, per tres dominicas ecclesiam non accesserit, tanto tempore abstineat, et correptus esse videatur. “If any inhabitant of the Cities absent himself from Church three Lord’s days together, let him be kept so long from the holy Sacrament that he may seem corrected for it.” Where note, Si quis in civitate positus, the Canon reacheth unto such only as dwelt in Cities, near the Church, and had no great business: those of the Country being left unto their husbandry and the like affairs; no otherwise than the Emperor’s Edict which came after this. And in the Council of Laodicea not long after, which clearly gave the Lord’s day place before the Sabbath, it is commanded that the Christians should not Judaize on the Sabbath day but that they should prefer the Lord’s day before it and rest thereon from labor, if at least they could, but as Christians still. The Canon is imperfect as it stands in the Greek text of Binius’ edition; no sense to be collected from it. But the translation of Dionysius Exiguus, which he acknowledged to be more near the Greek than the other two, makes the meaning up: “Diem dominicum praeferentes ociari oportet, si modo possint; preferring the Lord’s day before the Sabbath, let them rest upon it; if at least they can.” And this agreeably both unto Zonaras, and Balsamon, who do so report it, [*:] nor doubt we but they saw the truest and most perfect copies. Thus then saith Zonaras. “It is appointed by this Canon, that none abstain from labor on the Sabbath day, which plainly was a Jewish custom, and an anathema laid on those who offend herein*, etc. but they are willed to rest from labor on the Lord’s day, in honor of the resurrection of our Lord and Savior. But here we must observe that the Canon adds, *, in case they may. For by the civil law it is precisely ordered, that every man shall rest that day *, the hinds and husband-men excepted.” His reason is the very same, with that expressed before in the Emperor’s Edict. *, etc. “for unto them it is permitted to work and travail on that day, because perhaps if they neglect it, they may not find another day so fit and serviceable for their occasions.” The like saith Balsamon, and more: but him we will reserve for the 12th Century, at what time he lived. S. Hierome long time after this tells us of his Egyptian Monks, diebus dominicis orationi tantum & lectionibus vacare, that they designed the Lord’s day wholly unto prayer, and reading of the holy Scriptures; and that they did the like upon other days, completis opusculis, when their task was finished. This plainly shows that it was otherwise with the common people. For what need Hierome have observed it as a thing notable in his Monks, and peculiar to them, that they spent all the Lord’s day in religious exercises, had other men so done as well as they. But Hierome tells us more than this of Paula, a most devout and pious woman, who lived in Bethelehem, accompanied with many Virgins and poor Widows, in manner of a Nunnery. Of whom he saith, that every Lord’s day they repaired to the Church of God: Et inde pariter revertentes instabant operi distributo, & vel sibi vel coeteris vestimenta faciebant, “& after their return from thence, they set themselves to their tasks, which was the making of garments for themselves or others:” A thing which questionless so good a woman had not done, and much less ordered it to be done by others, had it been then accounted an unlawful Act. And finally Saint Chrysostome, though in his popular discourses he seem to intimate to the people that God from the beginning did insinuate to them that they should set apart, *, one day in every week to his public worship. Hom.10. in Genesis & that he calls upon them often *, to destinate that one day, and that day wholly, unto those employments, as Hom.5. in Mat.I. yet he confesseth at the last, that after the dismissing of the Congregation, every man might apply himself to his lawful business.

Only he seems to offend with them, that they went presently to the works of their vocations as soon as they came out of the house of God, and did not meditate on the Word delivered unto them. Therefore he wooeth them unto this, that presently upon their coming home, they would take the Bible into their hands, and recapitulate with their wives and children, that which had been delivered from the Word of God: * and afterwards go about their worldly business. As for the time appointed to these public exercises, it seems not to be very long. Chrysostome in the place before remembered, saith that it was *, a very small portion of the day: Origen more precisely hath laid it out, and limited the same, ad unam aut duas horas ex die integro, but to an hour, or two at most, no great space of time. Nor indeed could they hold them long, the Sermons being most times exceeding short, as may appear by those of the ancient Fathers which are still extant in our hands; and the Liturgy not so full, as now it is. (8) Let it then go for granted, that such as dwelt in populous cities (for of the Husbandman there is no question to be made), might lawfully apply themselves to their several businesses, the exercises being ended and the assembly broken up: may we conceive it lawful also, for any man to follow his honest pleasures on the remainder of that day; to feast it with his friends and neighbors, to dance or sport, or to be merry in a civil manner. There is a little question of it? For feasting, first we must take notice how execrable a thing it was always held to fast the Sunday; though some now place a great part of their piety in their fond abstinence on that day. In this respect Tertullian tells us touching the Christians in his time, that they did hold it an impiety to fast the Lord’s day, die dominico jejunium nefas esse ducimus, as before we noted. Such an impiety that the very Montanists, though otherwise frequent in their fasts, did yet except this day and the former Sabbath out of their austerities, as the same Author doth inform us adv. Psychicos. What was Ignatius’ censure of the Sunday’s Fast, we have seen already. In the declining third age arose the Manichees, and they revived the former dotage. Dominica jejunare non possumus, quia Manichaeos ob istius diei jejunia, merito damnamus. “We fast not on the Lord’s day, saith S. Ambrose, but rather do condemn the Manichees for fasting on it.” Now what this Father said, he made good by practice.

Baronius tells us out of Paulinus, who wrote the story of his life, that he did never dine but on the Saturday, the Sunday, or the memorial of some Martyr; and that upon those days, he did not only cherish and relieve the poor, sed & viri clarissimi exciperentur, but entertained great persons, men of special eminence. Vincentius Deputy of Gaul, and count Arbogastis, are there said by name to have been often at his table upon those days before remembered; and doubt we not but they had all things fit for such eminent persons. The like hath been affirmed by S. Austin also. Die dominica jejunare scandalum est magnum, etc. “It is a great offense or scandal to fast on the Lord’s day, in these times especially, since the most damnable heresy of the Manichees came into the world; who have imposed it on their followers as the Law of God, and thereby made the Lord’s day fast the more abominable.” Now for an instance of his entertainments also upon this day, see l.22.de civitate dei,c.8. This probably occasioned Pope Meltiades, who lived in the beginning of this present Century, to publish a decree, Ne Dominica, neve feria quinta jejunaretur, that no man should presume to fast upon the Sunday, or the Thursday. Not on the Sunday, as the day of the Resurrection, to cry down the Manichees; nor on the Thursday, as a day of special credit amongst the Gentiles, the better to comply with them in those perilous times. After arose up one Eutactus (for so I rather choose to call him with the learned Cardinal, than yield to Socrates, who falsely doth impute these follies unto Eustathius:) and he would fast the Sunday too, but on another ground: on pretense of abstinence. A folly presently condemned in a Provincial Synod held at Gangra of Paphlagonia, wherein it was determined thus; *, if any fasted on the Lord’s day, on pretense of abstinence, he should be anathema. Next sprung up one Aerius, no good Sundays man; but one that went not on so good a ground as Eutactus did. He stood, good man, upon his Christian liberty; and needs must fast upon the Lord’s day, only because the Church had determined otherwise. Of him S. Austin tells us in the general, that he cried down all settled and appointed fasts, and taught his followers this: that every man might fast as he saw occasion, ne videatur sub lege, lest else he should be thought to be under the Law. More punctually Epiphanius tells us that to express this liberty, they used to fast upon the Sunday, and feast it (as some do of late) upon the Wednesday and the Friday, ancient fasting days: * as that author hath it. Add that S. Austin tells us of this Aerius, that amongst other of his heresies he taught this for one, Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia discerna debere, that there should be no difference between Priests and Bishops; A pregnant evidence that those who set themselves against the Hierarchy of the Church are the most likely men of all to overthrow all orders in the civil state. Now as the Manichees did use to fast the Sunday, so were they therein imitated by the Priscillianists, manichaeorum simillimos, the very picture of the Manichees, as S. Austine calls them; save that these last did use to fast on the Christmas also, and therein went beyond their pattern. And this they did, as Pope Leo tells us, quia Christum dominum in vera hominis natura natum esse non credunt, because they could not be persuaded, that Christ the Lord had took upon him our human nature. To meet with these proud sectaries, for such they were, there was a council called at Saragossa, Caesarea Augusta the Latins call it; wherein the Fathers censured and anathematized all such as fasted on the Lord’s day, causa temporis, aut persuasionis, aut superstitionis; whether it were in reference unto any time, or mispersuasion, or superstition. In reference unto any times? this seems to make the Sunday’s fast unlawful in the time of Lent, and so it was accounted without all question. For this look Epiphanius Expos. fid.

Cathol. Numbers 22; S. Ambr. de Elia & jejunio, cap.10; S. Hierome cpl. ad Lucinum; S. Chrysostome Hom.11.in Gen.2. In two of which Four fathers, Chrysostome and Ambrose, the Saturday is excepted also. S.

Austin Epl. 8. concil. Agathens. can.12; Aurelianens.4.can.2; Humberti Resp. ad libellum Nicetae; and last of all Rupertus, who lived in the beginning of the 12th Century, to descend no lower; who withal tells us, “that from the first Sunday in Lent unto Easter day, are 42 days just, whereof the Church fasteth only the 36, it being prohibited by the Canon to fast upon the day of the Resurrection. Vt igitur nostri solennitas jejunij dominico magis coaptetur exemplo, quatuor dies qui hanc dominicam praecedunt, superadditi sunt. “Therefore, saith he, that the solemnity of our fast might come more near the Lord’s example; the four days which occur between Shrovetuesday and the first Sunday in Lent, were added to make up the number.” But to come back unto the times where before we left, partly in detestation of the heretics before remembered, but principally in honor of the resurrection, the council held at Carthage Anno 398 did decree it thus: Qui die dominico studiose jejunat, non credatur Catholicus, that he which of set purpose did fast the Sunday should be held no Catholic. (9) For honest recreations next, I find not any thing to persuade me that they were not lawful, since those which in themselves were of no good name, nor otherwise were prohibited in this present Age, than as they were an hindrance to the public service of the Church. For so it was adjudged in the Council of Carthage, before remembered. Qui die solenni, praetermisso ecclesiae solenni conventu, ad spectacula vadit, excommunicetur. “He which upon a solemn day shall leave the service of the Church to go unto the common shows, be he excommunicate.” Where, by the way, this Canon reacheth unto those also who are offenders in this kind, as well on any of the other festivals and solemn days, as upon the Sunday; and therefore both alike considerable in the present business. But hereof, and the spectacula here prohibited, we shall have better opportunity to speak in the following Age. And here it is to be observed, that as Saint Chrysostome, before, confessed it to be lawful for a man to look unto his worldly business on the Lord’s day after the congregation was dismissed: so here the Fathers seem to dispense with those who went unto the common shows, being worldly pleasures, in case they did not pretermit God’s public service.

Therefore we may safely conclude, that they conceived it not unlawful for any man to follow his honest pleasures, such as were harmless in themselves and of good report, after the breaking up of the congregation.

Of this sort questionless, were shooting and all manly exercises, walking abroad or riding forth to take the air, civil discourse, good company, and ingenuous mirth: by any of the which the spirits may be quickened and the body strengthened. Whether that dancing was allowed is a thing more questionable; and probably as the dancings were in the former times, it might not be suffered; nay, which is more, it had been infinite scandal to the Church if they had permitted it. For we may please to know that in the dancings used of old, throughout the principal Cities of the Roman Empire, there was much impurity and immodesty, such as was not to be beheld by a Christian eye. Sometimes they danced stark naked, and not privately alone, but in public feasts. This Cicero objects against Lucius Piso, quod in convivio saltaret nudus; the same he also casts in the teeth of Verres: and Deiotarus was accused of the like immodesty, whereof perhaps he was not guilty. As for the Women, they had armed themselves with the like strange impudency; and though they danced not naked in the open streets, yet would be hired to attend naked at public feasts; and after prostitute themselves unto those guests for entertainment of the which they were thither brought, where of see Athenaeus Dipnos.l.12; & Sueton. in Tiberio, c.41,43. And for their dancings in the public, they studied all those cunning and provoking Arts by which they might entice young men to wantonness and inflame their lusts, using lascivious gestures, and mingling with their dances most immodest songs; nay, which is more than this, sometimes of purpose laying open to the eye and view of the spectator, those parts which womanhood and common honesty would not have uncovered. Saint Ambrose so describes them, and from him we take it. An quicquam est tam pronum ad libidines, quam inconditis motibus, ea quae natura abscondit, vel disciplina velavit, membrorum operta nudare, ludere oculis, rotare cervicem, comam spargere? “What, saith he, is of greater force to excite men’s lust, than by unseemly motion to make bare those parts which either nature hath hidden or education taught us how to cover; to fling about their necks, and to toss about their hair in a wanton manner.” And in another place he is more particular. Mulieres in plateis inverecundos sub conspectu adolescentulorum intemperantium choros ducunt, jactantes comam, trahentes tunicas, scissae amictus, nudae lacertos, plaudentes manibus, personantes vocibus, saltantes pedibus, irritantes in se juvenum libidines motu histrionico, petulanti oculo, dedecoroso ludibrio. “The women, saith the father, even in the sight of wanton and lascivious youths, dance immodest dances, tossing about their hair, drawing aside their coats that so they might lay open what should not be seen, their garments open in many places for that purpose also, their arms quite bare: clapping their hands, capering with their feet, chanting obscene and filthy songs (for afterwards he speaks de obscoenis cantibus) finally stirring up the lusts of ungoverned men by those uncomely motions, wanton looks, and shameful spectacles. Saint Basil in his tract de luxu & ebrietate, describes them much after the same manner; whereof see that father. Yet think not that all women were so lewdly given, or so immodest in their dancings: but only common women which most used those arts to increase their custom; such as were mustered up by Strato King of the Sidonians to attend his banquetings; or such loose trulls as Messalina, and others mentioned in the Poet, who practiced those lascivious dances to inflame their paramours.

Now to these common public dancings, the people in the Roman Empire had been much accustomed; especially in their height of fortune, wherein they were extremely riotous and luxurious. And unto these too many innocent souls, both young men and women, in the first ages of the Church, used to repair sometimes for their recreation, only to look upon the sport; and seeing those uncomely gestures, and uncivil sights, went back, sometimes possessed with unchaste desires and loose affections, which might perhaps break out at last in dishonest actions. This made the Fathers of this Age, and of some that followed, inveigh as generally against all dancings as most unlawful in themselves; so more particularly, against the sport itself and the beholding of the same, upon those days which were appointed to God’s worship. And to these kind of dancings, and to none but these, must we refer those declamations which are so frequent in their writings, whether in reference to the thing, or unto the times. Two only in this Century have spoken of dancing as it reflects upon the day: Saint Chrysostome and Ephrem Syrus. Saint Chrysostome, though last in time, shall be first in place, “*, etc. Therefore, saith he, we ought to solemnize this day with spiritual honor, not making riotous feasts thereon, swimming in wine, *, drinking to drunkenness, or in wanton dancings; but in relieving of our poor and distressed brethren.” Where note that I have rendered *, not simply, dancing, but with wanton dancing, according to the nature of the word which signifieth such dancing as was mixed with songs, according to the fashion in use, *, choros agito, salto, tripudio, proprie cum cantu, as in the lexicon; and for the quality of the songs which in those times they used in dancing, that is shown before. So that not dancing, simply, but immodest dancing, such as was then in use, is by him prohibited. And to that purpose, Ephrem Syrus, if the work be his. Festivitates dominicas honorare contendite, etc. “Endeavor earnestly, saith he, to honor the Lord’s day, not in a worldly sort, but after a spiritual manner, not as the Gentiles keep their feasts, but as Christians should.” Amongst which customs of the Gentiles that are there forbidden, one and the principal is this: non choreas ducamus, that we lead no dances; that is no such immodest and unseemly dancings as were most practiced by the Gentiles, and could not stand with that discreet behavior which pertained to Christians. This evident by that which Saint Ambrose tells us: Notum est omnibus, nugaces & turpes saltationes ab episcopis solere compesci: It is well known, saith he, how carefully the Bishops do restrain all toying, light, and beastly kind of dances. So that in case the dancings be not toying, light, nor beastly, as were the dances of the Gentiles whom they reprehended; neither the fathers did intend them, nor the rulers of the Church restrain them. (10) For the Imperial constitutions of this present Age, they strike all of them upon one and the self same string with that of Constantine, before remembered: save that the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, who were all partners in the Empire, set out an edict to prohibit all public shows upon the Sunday. Nullus, die Solis, spectaculum praebeat, nec divinam venerationem, consecta solennitate, confundas. Such was the Letter of the Law, which being afterwards enlarged by Theodosius the younger, who lived in the next Century, we shall meet with there. The other Edicts which concern the business that is now in hand were only explanations and additions unto that of Constantine: one in relation to the matter, the other in reference to the time. First, in relation to the matter, whereas all Judges were restrained by the law of Constantine from sitting on that day in the open Court; there was a clause, now added touching Arbitrators: that none should arbitrate any litigious cause, or take cognizance of any pecuniary business, on the Sunday; Debitum publicum, privatumve, nullus efflagitet: nec apud ipsos quidem arbitros, vel in judicijs flagitatos, vel sponte delectos, ulla sit agnitio jurgiorum: “Let no man sue upon the Sunday, for any public or private debt: neither let any Arbitrator, whether appointed in open Court, or otherwise chosen by the parties, take cognizance on the same of any brangling and litigious businesses:” a penalty being inflicted upon them that transgressed herein. This published by the same three Emperors, Honorius, and Euodius being that year consuls, which was in Anno 384 as the former was. Afterwards Valentinian and Valens Emperors were pleased to add, neminem christianum ab exactoribus conveniri volumus; that they would have no Christians brought upon that day before the officers of the Exchequer. In reference to the time, it was thought good by Valentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius, all three Emperors together, to make some other Festivals capable of the same exemption. For whereas formerly all the time of harvest and of Autumn, was exempt from pleadings; as that the Calends of January or the newyear’s day, as now we call it, had anciently been honored with the same immunity: these added thereunto the days on which the two great Cities of Rome and Constantinople had been built, the seven days before Easter day and the seven that followed, together with every Sunday in its course; yea and the birth-days of themselves, with those on which each of them had began his Empire: Sanctos quoque Pascha dies qui septene vel praecedunt numero vel sequuntur in eadem observatione numeramus: nec non & dies Solis (so they call it all) qui repetito inter se calculo revolvuntur. Parem necesse est haberi severentiam etiam nostris diebus, qui vel lucis, auspicia, vel imperij ortus protulere. “It is our pleasure that the holy time of Easter, for seven days space before and seven days after, should be observed in the same manner; as all the Sundays also in their several order and succession.

It is meet also that the like reverence be afforded to those days in which we either were first born, or began our empires. Dated VII. Id. Aug. Timasius and Promotus Consuls, which was 389. So that in this regard, the sacred day had no more privilege than the civil, but were all alike; the emperor’s day as much respected as the Lord’s. (11) Now as the days were thus established, so was the form of worship on those days established, brought unto more perfection than it had been formerly; when their assemblies were prohibited, and their meetings dangerous, or at least not so safe and free as in this fourth Century. For in these times, if not before, the Priests that waited at the Altar attired themselves in a distinct habit at the ministration, from what they used to wear on other days: the color white, and the significance thereof to denote that holiness wherewith the Priests of God ought to be apparelled; such as the Surplice now in use in the Church of England. Witness S. Hierome for the West, that in the ministration, they used a different habit from that of ordinary times. Religio divina alterum habitum habet in ministerio, alterum in usu vitaque communi: so for the general he informs us. For the particular next, in a reply unto Pelagius, who it seems disliked it, he asks him what offense it could be to God that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, or those of any other inferior order, in administratione sacrificiorum candida veste processerint, did in the ministration of the Eucharist, bestir themselves in a white Vesture. And so Saint Chrysostome for the East, telling the Priests of Antioch unto how high a calling the Lord had called them, and how great power they had to repel unworthy men from the Lord’s Table; adds that they were to reckon that for their Crown and glory, and not that they were privileged to go about the Church in a white garment. *. Nor did the Priests only thus avow his calling. The people wanted not some outward signs and ceremonies wherewith to honor their Redeemer, and testify unto the world that they were his servants: and that by bowing of the knee, which in those parts and times was the greatest sign both of humility and subjection. Bowing the knee, in honor of their Savior, at the name of Jesus; and reverently kneeling or adoring, when they received the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. S. Ambrose tells us of the first, in his sixth Book de opere Hexaemeri, where speaking of the office of each several member, he makes the bowing of the knee at the Name of Jesus, the proper duty of that part. Flexibile genu quo prae coeteris domini mitigatur offensa, etc. The knee, saith he, is flexible, by which especially the anger of the Lord is mitigated, his displeasure pacified, and his grace obtained. Hoc enim patris summi erga, filium donum est, ut in nomine J E S V omne genu curvetur.

For this, saith he, did the most Mighty Father give as a special gift to his only son, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. This makes the matter plain enough, we need go no further; yet somewhat to this purpose may be seen also in S. Hierome in his comment on the 46th of Isaiah, which reverence as they used at other times, so most especially may they be thought to have observed it in the public meetings of the Congregation; men testifying (as our Canon hath it) by these outward ceremonies and gestures, their inward humility, Christian resolution, and due acknowledgement that the Lord Jesus Christ the true and eternal Son of God is the only Savior of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of God to mankind for this life and the life to come, are fully and wholy comprised. For kneeling or adoring at the instant of receiving the holy Sacrament, the same. S. Ambrose on those words Adore his footstool, doth expound it thus: Per scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysterijs adoramus. By the footstool here, we are to understand the Earth, and by the Earth the flesh of Christ, which we adore in the holy mysteries: which expressly shows what was the custom of these times. And so S. Chrysostome tells his Audience, “that the great King hath made ready his Table, [*], the Angels ministering at the same, the King himself in presence, why then stand they still? In case they are provided of a wedding garment, why do they not fall down, and then communicate? *. Adora & communica as the Latin renders it. Where if the word adoration seem a little strange, we may take notice that it is so used by Bishop Jewell. The Sacraments, saith he in that sort i.e. in respect of that which they signify, and not in respect of that which they are in themselves, are the flesh of Christ and are so understood, and believed and adored. And in another place of the same 8th Article, Nor do we only adore Christ, as very God; but we do also worship and reverence the Sacrament, and holy mysteries of Christ’s body: yet so that we adore them not with godly honor, as we do Christ himself: See more hereof in Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, Catech.5; where adoration is expressly mentioned: and for the close of all, that which is told us by S. Austin, how in his time the Gentiles charged it on the Christians, that they did worship Ceres and Bacchus; which was occasioned questionless by reason of their kneeling or adoring, when they received the bread and wine in the holy Sacrament. Not that this use of kneeling or adoring was not more ancient in the Church, for such a custom may be gathered both out of Origen and Tertullian, in the age before; but that this age affords us the most clear and perfect evidence for the proof thereof. And howsoever in these times, and many Ages following after, the people used not to stand at the public prayers, both on the Lord’s day, and the Pentecost, as before I noted; yet on those days if they received the blessed Sacrament, they either used to bow their bodies, or prostrate themselves, or make some other kind of Adoration of no less reverence than kneeling, which comes all to one. So for the music used in the Congregation, it grew more exquisite in these times than it had been formerly; that which before was only a melodious kind of pronunciation, being now ordered into a more exact and artificial harmony. This change was principally occasioned by a Canon of the Council of Laodicea in the first entrance of this age. For where before it was permitted unto all promiscuously, to sing in the Church, it was observed that in such dissonance of voices, and most of them unskillful in the notes of music, there was no small jarring and unpleasant sounds. This Council thereupon ordained, *, that none should sing hereafter in the Congregation, but such as were Canonically appointed to it, and skillful in it. By means whereof before the shutting up of this fourth Century, the music of the Church became very perfect and harmonious; suavi & artificiosa voce cantata, as S. Austin tells us. So perfect and harmonious, that it did work exceedingly on the affections of the hearers, and did movere animos ardentius in flammam pietatis, inflame their minds with a more lively flame of piety; taking them prisoners by the ears, and so conducting them unto the glories of God’s kingdom. S. Austin attributes a great cause of his conversion to the powers thereof, calling to mind those frequent tears quas fudi at cantus ecclisiae tuae, which had been drawn from him by this sacred music, by which his soul was humbled and his affections raised to an height of godliness. The like he also tells us, in his ninth Book of Confessions, and sixth Chapter. Nor doubt we but it did produce the same effect on divers others; who coming to the Churches as he then did, to be partakers of the music, returned prepared in mind and well disposed in their intentions, to be converted unto God. Now that the Church might be frequented at the times appointed, and so all secret Conventicles stopped, in these divided times wherein so many heresies did domineer, and that the itching ears of men might not persuade them to such Churches: where God had not placed them, so to discourage their own proper minister: it pleased the Fathers in the Council of Saragossa, Anno 368, or thereabout to decree it thus: First, Ne latibulus cubiculorum & montium habitent qui in suspicionibus perseverent: “that none who were suspected (of Priscillianism,) which was the humor that then reigned, should lurk in secret corners, either in houses or in hills, but follow the example and direction of the Priests of God.” And secondly, ad alienas villas, agendorum conventuum causa non conveniant; “that none should go to other places under pretense of joining there to the assembly, but keep themselves unto their own.” Which prudent Constitutions, upon the selfsame pious grounds, are still preserved amongst us in the Church of England. (12) Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord’s day stands; on custom first, and voluntary consecration of it to religious meetings; that custom countenanced by the authority of the Church of God which tacitly approved the same; and finally confirmed and ratified by Christian Princes throughout their Empires. And as the day, so rest from labors, and restraint from business upon that day received its greatest strength from the supreme magistrate, as long as he retained that power which to him belongs as after from the Canons and decrees of Councils, the Decretals of Popes, and orders of particular Prelates, when the sole managing of Ecclesiastical affairs was committed to them. I hope it was not so with the former Sabbath, which neither took original from custom, that people being not so forward to give God a day; nor required any countenance or authority from the Kings of Israel, to confirm and ratify it. The Lord had spoke the word, that he would have one day in Seven; precisely the seventh day from the World’s Creation, to be a day of rest unto all his people: which said, there was no more to do but gladly to submit and obey his pleasure; nec quicquam reliquum erat praeter obsequy gloriam, in the greatest Prince. And this done all at once, not by degrees, by little and little, as he could see the people affected to it, or as he found it fittest for them, like a probation Law made to continue till the next session, and then on further liking, to hold good for ever: but by a plain and peremptory order that it should be so, without further trial. But thus it was not done in our present business. The Lord’s day had no such command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly to God’s people, to pitch on this or any other for the public use. And being taken up amongst them, and made a day of meeting in the congregation for religious exercises; yet for 300 years there was neither Law to bind them to it, nor any rest from labor or from worldly business, required upon it. And when it seemed good unto Christian Princes, the nursing Fathers of God’s church, to lay restraints upon their people, yet at the first they were not general, but only thus: that certain men, in certain places, should lay aside their ordinary and daily works to attend God’s service in the Church; those whose employments were most toilsome, and most repugnant to the true nature of a Sabbath, being allowed to follow and pursue their labors, because most necessary to the Common- wealth. And in the following times, when as the Prince and Prelate, in their several places, endeavored to restrain them from that also which formerly they had permitted, and interdicted almost all kind of bodily labor upon that day; it was not brought about without much struggling, and on opposition of the people: more than a thousand years being past, after Christ’s ascension, before the Lord’s day had attained that state in which now it standeth; as will appear at full in the following story. And being brought unto that state, wherein now it stands, it doth not stand so firmly and on such sure grounds, but that those powers which raised it up may take it lower if they please, yea take it quite away, as unto the time, and settle it on any other day as to them seems best, which is the doctrine of some Schoolmen, and diverse Protestant writers of great name and credit in the world. A power which no man will presume to say was ever challenged by the Jews, over the Sabbath. Besides, all things are plainly contrary in these two days, as to the purpose and intent of the institution.

For in the Sabbath, that which was principally aimed at was rest from labor, that neither they nor any that belonged unto them should do any manner of work upon that day, but sit still and rest themselves. Their meditating on God’s Word, or on his goodness, manifest in the world’s Creation, was to that an accessory: and as for reading of the Law in the Congregation, that was not taken up in more than a thousand years after the Law was given; and being taken up, came in by ecclesiastical ordinance only, no divine authority. But in the institution of the Lord’s day, that which was principally aimed at was the performance of religious and Christian duties, hearing the Word, receiving of the Sacraments, praising the Lord for all his mercies, and praying to him jointly with the Congregation for the continuance of the same Rest and cessation from the works of labor, came not in till afterwards; and then but as an accessory to the former duties; and that not settled and established in a thousand years, as before was said; when all the proper and peculiar duties of the day had been at their perfection a long time before. So that if we regard either institution or the authority by which they were so instituted; the end and purpose at the which they principally aimed, or the proceedings in the settling and confirming of them: the difference will be found so great, that of the Lord’s day, no man affirm in sense and reason that it is a Sabbath, or so to be observed as the Sabbath was. And certainly if not before, yet now at least it had been seasonable, to have translated the Lord’s day into the nature of a Sabbath, had it at all been thought a necessary duty that it should be so. Before the Church consisted much of servants, who being obnoxious to their Masters, could not so fitly lay aside their business, to attend the public service of the Congregation: but needs it must have brought some scandal unto the Gospel; and no small danger unto those who did profess it. But now, when peace and full tranquility was restored unto the Church, and that almost all people generally had embraced religion: how easy had it been to have imposed on all men equally a restraint from labors, that so all of them might together apply themselves wholly to religious exercises, the servant without fear of his Master’s anger, the Master without danger of being betrayed by a faithless servant.

A pregnant evidence, that neither in these times nor in those before, the Christians ever made it a matter of conscience to forbear their labors upon any day, further than as they were restrained by supreme authority: which licensing the most toilsome labors on this day, and restraining those which were most easy, most plainly manifested that the Lord’s day was not meant for a Sabbath day.

CHAPTER - THE GREAT IMPROVEMENT OF THE LORDS DAY, IN THE FIFT AND SIXT AGES, MAKE IT NOT A SABBATH. (1) In what estate the Lords day stood in S. Austines time. (2) Stage-playes, and publike shewes prohibited on the Lords day, and the other holy dayes; by Imperiall Edicts. (3) The base and beastly nature of the Stage-playes at those times in use. (4) The barbarous, and blood quality of the Spectacula, or shewes at this time prohibited. (5) Neither all civill businesse, nor all kind of pleasures, restrained on the Lords day, by the Emperour Leo; as some give it out. (6) The French and Spaniards in the sixt Age, begin to Judaize about the Lords day: and of restraint of husbandry, on that day, in that age first made. (7) The so much cited Canon of the Councell of Mascon, proves no Lords-day- Sabbath. (8) Of publicke honors done in these Ages, to the Lords day, by Prince and Prelate. (9) No evening service on the Lords day, till these present ages. (10) Of publick orders now established, for the better regulating of the Lords day-meetings. (11) The Lords day not more reckoned of, than the greater festivals: and of the other holy dayes, in these ages instituted. (12) All businesse and recreation not by Law prohibited, are in themselves as Lawfull on the Lords day, as on any other. (1) WE are now come unto the times wherein the Church began to settle, having with much ado got the better hand of Gentile-ism, and mastered those stiff heresies of the Arians, Macedonians, and such other as descended from them; Unto those times wherein the troubles which before distracted her peace and quiet being well appeased, all things began to grow together in a perfect harmony: what time the faithful being united better than before in points of judgment, became more uniform in matters of devotion; and in that uniformity did agree together to give the Lord’s day all the honor of an holy festival. Yet was not this done all at once but by degrees, the fifth and sixth Centuries being fully spent before it came unto that height which hath since continued. The Emperors and the Prelates in these times had the same affections; both earnest to advance this day above all other: and to the Edicts of the one, and Ecclesiastical constitutions of the other, it stands indebted for many of those privileges and exemptions which it still enjoyeth. But by degrees, as now I said, and not all at once: For in S. Austin’s time, who lived in the beginning of this fifth Century it was no otherwise with the Lord’s day than as it was before, in the former Age, accounted one of those set days and probably the principal, which was designed and set apart for God’s public worship.

Amongst the writings of that Father which are his unquestionably, we find not much that doth conduce to our present business: but what we find we shall communicate, with as much brevity as we can. The Sunday’s fast he doth abominate as a public scandal. Quis deum non offendit, si velit cum scandalo totius ecclesiae, die dominico jejunare. The exercise of the day, he describes in brief, in this form that followeth: Venit Pascha, atque ipso die dominico, mane, frequens populus praesens erat. Facto silentio, divinarum Scripturarum lecta sunt solennia, etc. “Easter was come and on the Lord’s day in the morning the people had assembled themselves together. All being silent and attent, those lessons out of holy Scripture which were appointed for the time were read unto them. When we were come unto that part of the public service which was allotted for the Sermon, I spake unto them what was proper for the present festival and most agreeable to the time: Service being done I took the man along to dinner (a man he means, that had recovered very strangely in the Church that morning), who told us all the story of those sad calamities which had befallen him.” This is not much, but in this little there are two things worth our observation.

First, that the Sermon in those times was not accounted either the only, or the principal part of God’s public service, but only had a place in the Common Liturgy; which place was probably the same, which it still retains, post Scripturarum solennia, after the reading of the Gospel. Next that it was not thought unlawful in this Father’s time to talk of secular and human affairs upon this day as some now imagine; or to call friends or strangers to our Table, as it is supposed: S. Austin being one of so strict a life, that he would rather have put off the invitation and the story both to another day, had he so conceived it. Nor doth the Father speak of Sunday as if it were the only festival that was to be observed of a Christian man. Other festivities there were which he tells us of. First generally, Nos quoque & dominicum diem, & Pascha, solenniter celebramus, & quaslibet alias Christianas dierum festivitates. The Lord’s day, Easter, and all other Christian festivals were alike to him. And he enumerates some particulars too, the resurrection, passion, and ascension of our Lord and Savior, together with the coming of the holy Ghost, which constantly were celebrated, anniversaria solennitate. Not that there were no other festivals then observed in the Christian Church, but that those four were reckoned to be Apostolical; and had been generally received in all ages past. As for the Sacrament, it was not tied to any day but was administered indifferently upon all alike; except it were in some few places where it had been restrained to this day alone. Alij quotidie communicant corpori & sanguini dominico, alij certis diebus accipiunt: alibi Sabbato tantum & dominico, as he there informs us. “Some, saith the Father, do every day communicate, receiving the Lord’s body and blood; and others only upon certain and appointed times: in some parts only on the Sabbath and upon the Sunday; in others on the Sunday only.” As for those works ascribed unto him which either are not his, or at least are questionable, they inform us thus: The tract de rectitudine Cathol. Conversationis, adviseth us to be attent and silent all the time of Divine Service, not telling tales nor falling into jarres and quarrels, as being to answer such of us as offend therein, for a double fault: Dum nec ipse verbum Dei audit, nec alios andire permittit, as neither hearkening to the Word of God ourselves, nor permitting others. In the 251st Sermon, inscribed De tempore, we are commanded to lay aside all worldly businesses, in solennitatibus sanctorum, & maxime in dominicis diebus, “upon the festivals of the Saints, but the Lord’s day specially: that we may be the readier for divine employments.” Where note, that whosoever made the Sermon, it was his purpose, that on the Saint’s days men were to forbear all worldly businesses, and not upon the Lord’s day only, though on that especially. And in the same it is affirmed, “that the Lord’s day was instituted by Doctors of the Church, Apostles and Apostolical men; the honors of the Jewish Sabbath being by them transferred unto it.” Sancti ecclesiae Doctores omnem Judaici Sabbatismi gloriam in illam transferre decreverunt. Particularly it is enjoined, ut a vespera diei Sabbati, usque in vesperam diei dominici, sequestrati a rurali opere, etc. Solo divino cultui vacemus: that from the Saturday evening until Sunday night, men should abstain from husbandry and all other business, and only give themselves to the service of God.” It seems some used to hunt on the Lord’s day then; for there it is prohibited as a devilish exercise: Nullus [in die dominico] in venatione se occupet, & diabolico mancipetur officio, with command enough. Nay in the 244th of those De tempore, it is enjoined above all things, with an ante omnia, that no man meddle with his wife, either upon the Lord’s day, or the other holy days.

Ante omnia quoties dies dominicus, aut aliae festivitates veniunt, uxorem suam nullus agnoscat; which I the rather note, though not worth the noting, that those who are possessed with so poor a fancy, (and some such there be) would please to be as careful of the holy days, as of the Sundays, being alike expressed in the Prohibition. One may conjecture easily, both by the style and by the state of things then being in the Christian Church, that neither of these Sermons (not to say any thing of the rest which concern us not) could be writ by Austin; the latter, every thing therein considered, by no man of wisdom. (2) I say as things then were in the Christian Church, that Sermon was not likely to be Saint Austin’s. It had been too much rashness in him to restrain men from husbandry, the Emperor’s Edict which permitted it, being still in force: or to prohibit hunting, being in itself a lawful sport; when such as in themselves were extremely evil and an occasion of much sin, were not yet put down. The Circus and Theater were frequented hitherto, as well upon the Lord’s day as on any other; and they were first to be removed before it could be seasonable to inhibit a lawful pleasure. Somewhat to this effect was done in the Age before; the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, having made a law that no man should exhibit any public show upon the Sunday, as before we noted. But this prevailed not at the first.

And thereupon the Fathers of the Council of Carthage, in the first year of this fifth Century, did then and there decree by public order to make petition to the Emperor then being: ut spectacula theatrorum, coeterorumque ludorum, die dominica, vel coeteris religionis Christianae diebus solennibus, amoveantur, etc. Their suit was double, first that the shows exhibited on the theaters, and other places then used, might no more be suffered on the Lord’s day, or any other festival of the Christian Church, especially upon the Octaves of the feast of Easter, what time the people used to go in greater numbers unto the Circus or show-place than the house of God. Then that for other days, no man might be compelled to repair unto them (as they had been formerly), as being absolutely repugnant unto God’s commandments: but that all people should be left at liberty to go or not to go, as they would themselves. Nec oportere quenquam christianorum ad haec spectacula cogi, etc. Sed udi oportet homo in libera voluntate subsistat, sibi divinitus concessa; so the Canon. The Emperor Theodosius thereupon enacted that on the Lord’s day, on the feast of Christ’s Nativity, and after to the Epiphany or twelfth day, as we call it commonly, as also on the feast of Easter, and from thence to Whitsontide, the Circuses and Theaters in all places should be shut up: that so all faithful Christian people might wholly bend themselves to the service of God.

Dominice quitotius septimane primus est dies; & Natale, atque Epiphaniorum Christi, Paschae etiam & Quinquagesimae diebus etc. Omni theatrorum atque Circensium voluptate per universas urbes earumdem populus denegata; totae Christianorum & fidelium mentes dei cultibus occupenter. So far the letter of the law, which was enacted at Constantinople, the first of February Anno 425, Theodosius the second time, and Valentinian being that year Consuls. Where still observe, how equally the principal festivities, and the Lord’s day, were matched together: that being held unlawful for the one, which was conceived so of the other.

And so it stood until the Emperor Leo, by two several Edicts, advanced the Lord’s day higher than before it was, and made it singular above other festivals as in some other things, of which more anon; so in this particular.

For in an Edict by him sent unto Amasius, at that time Captain of his Guard, or Praefectus Praetorio, he enacts it thus: First generally, Dies festos, dies altissimae majestati dedicatos, nullis volamus voluptatibus occupari; “that he would have the holy days, which had been dedicated to the supreme majesty; not to be taken up with pleasures. What, would he have no pleasures used at all on the holy days? No, he saith not so, but only that they should not wholly be taken up with sports and pleasures; no time being spared for pious and religious duties. Nor doth he bar all pleasures on the Sunday neither, as we shall see in the law itself, but only base, obscene, and voluptuous pleasures. Then more particularly for the Lord’s day thus, in reference to the point in hand, that neither theater nor Cirque fight nor combatings with wild beasts should be used thereon; and if the birth day or inauguration of the Emperor fell upon the same, that the solemnities thereof should be referred to another day: no less a penalty than loss of dignity and confiscation of estate being laid on them that should offend against his pleasure. But for the better satisfaction, take so much of the law itself as concerns this business. Nihil eadem die vendicet scena theatralis, aut circense certamem, aut ferarum lachrymosa spectacula:

Etiam si in nostrum ortum aut natalem celebranda solennitas incideris, differatur. Amissionem militiae; proscriptionemque patrimonij sustinebit, si quis unquam spectaculis hoc die interesse [praesumpserit.] Given at Constantinople, Martian and Zeno being consuls; 469 of our Savior’s birth. (3) Now for the things prohibited in these several Edicts, we will take notice of two chiefly: the sports accustomed to be shown on the stage or theater, and those Spectacula wherein men with beasts, and sometimes men with men, did use to fight together in the cirque or show-place: that we may know the better what these Princes aimed at, and what the fathers mean in their frequent invectives against plays and shows. And first for that which first is named, the scene or stage-plays, though they arose from poor beginnings, yet they attained at last to an infinite impudence such as no modest eye could endure to see, or care to hear. The whole contexture of the Poems, wanton and lascivious; the speeches most extremely sordid, and obscene; the action such, as did not so much personate, as perform, all base kind of vices. Their women, as their parts were framed, did many times act naked on the open stage; and sometimes did perform the last acts of lust, even in the sight of all spectators; than which what greater scorn could be given to nature, what more immodest spectacle could be represented to the eye of heaven. This Caesar Bullinger assures us, and withal makes it the chief cause, why both profane and sacred Authors did cry down the stage as being a place of such uncleanness: Authores omnes cum sacri tum profani, spurcitiem scenae exagitant, non modo quod fabulae obscenae in sena agerentur, sed etiam quod motus gestusque essens impudici, atque adeo prostibula ipsa in scenam saepe venirent, & scena prostarent. So he: Not hath he done them wrong, or delivered any thing, without good authority. Lactantius and Tertullian have affirmed as much, and from them he had it: moulding up into one relation what they had severally reported. First for their Women acting naked, Lactantius saith that so it was in all their plays devoted to the memory of their Goddess Flora. Exuuntur vestibus populo flagitante meretrices, quae tunc mimorum funguntur officio, etc. “The whores, which used to act those parts, (for who else would do it) were by the people importuned to put off their clothes, which they did accordingly; and being naked personated, as the Mimics used, all shameless and immodest gestures; till the most impudent eye amongst them was glutted with so foul a spectacle.” Then for the other filthiness, Tertullian tells us that the common prostitutes, such as received the filth of all the town, like the common sewers, performed those beastly acts on the public stage; and which was yet more shameful, in the sight and presence of the selfsame sex. Ipsa etiam prostibula, publicae libidinis hostiae, in scena proferuntur, plus misera in presentia foeminarum, as that Author hath it. And sure there must be in them some extreme impurities; when Salvian a godly Bishop of this Age, hath told us of them that such they were, Vt ea non solum dicere, sed etiam recordari, aliquis sine pollutione non possit: that none could speak, no not so much as think of them, without some infection. Such that whereas all other crimes, of what kind soever, murder, adultery, and theft, and sacrilege, and others of that heinous nature might without any breach of Modesty, be accused and censured: Solae impuritates theatrorum sunt, quae honeste non possunt vel accusari, the baseness of the theaters was so transcendent, that no man could accuse them, but must put off modesty. No marvel therefore if the fathers both of this and the former Ages, used to declaim so much against them, and to cry them down; at least to wean the people from them as being the bane of chastity, the Shipwreck of the Soul, the devil’s temples, the scandal of the world, and the shame of nature. No marvel if the Council held in Carthage in the Age before, or any of the Christian writers of these present times, Salvian and Chrysostome and the rest, so highly censured those who left the Church and public service of the Lord, to go to those impure delights and unmanlike spectacles: or that the Fathers in the same place assembled in this present century agreed so well together to petition the Emperors then being, to redress this mischief; or lastly that the Emperors of these times sent out their Edicts to prohibit such unchristian sports. (4) As wicked, as unchristian were those other shows, against which the self same Fathers do inveigh, against the which the foresaid Councils did petition, and the good Emperors before remembered made their several laws; though of a very different nature: those worthily abominated for their filthy baseness; and these as much to be detested for their inhumanity. It was the custom of the great ones in the State of Rome to court the favor of the people by entertaining them with several shows, which in the end became replete with all kind of cruelty; which fashion afterwards was retained among the Emperors, the better to content the vulgar and keep them in a good opinion of the present change. Sometimes they entertained their humors by presenting them with diverse sorts of cruel and outlandish beasts which being brought into the place appointed, were chased and hunted up and down by such as were condemned to die, or otherwise would adventure for reward and hire. In which it happened many times that many a man was made a prey unto Bears and Lions, and other beasts of the like fierce and cruel nature; and therefore in the Emperors’ law before recited are justly called ferarum lachrymosa spectacula; a most proper Epithet. Sometimes again they would present them with a show of fencers, not such as played at Cudgels or with swords rebated, only to show their activeness and teach men how to use their weapons, but such as in good earnest were to fight it out and not give over till the victory was made good by death. And these I take to be Cirque-fights, or the Circense certamem, principally in the law prohibited. Tertullian tells us of the first, ferarum voluptati satis non fieri, nisi & feris humana corpora dissiparentur; that they conceived the beasts had not sport enough, unless they tore in pieces the wretched bodies of poor men. And to the other we may well apply the words of Cyprian, Quid potest inhumanius, quid acerbius dici? disciplina est ut perimere quis possit gloria quod peremit. “What, saith the Father, can be told that is more cruel, more inhumane. Murder is grown into an Art, and they that kill most, have the greatest honor.” And so indeed they had, there being rewards designed for them that came off with victory: liberty, if they had been bondmen; if Freemen, sometimes money and sometimes a garland of palm-tree, which being wound about with certain woolen ribbons called Lemnisci had generally the name of Palmae Lemniscatae. With this Tertullian doth upbraid the Roman people, that whereas sometimes they would cry out to have a notable murderer cast unto the Lions: Fidem gladiatori atroci rudem petunt, & pileum praemium conferunt; the selfsame men would have some cruel swash-buckler or Gladiator rewarded with a Rod and cap, the signs of freedom. These barbarous and blood fights, being so far different from the spirit of meekness which was the badge and proper cognizance of a Christian, were therefore bitterly inveighed against by the ancient writers, the Reverend Fathers of the Church; and such as hearkened not to their exhortations esteemed as men given over to a reprobate sense; such as had cast away their livery and forsook their Master. The nature of these fights, and the opinion had of those which did frequent them, we cannot better show than by the story of Alipius, as S. Austin tells it; and is briefly this. Quidam amici ejus & condiscipuli, etc. “Some friends of his meeting him as he came from dinner, with a familiar kind of violence, forced him, against his will, to go with them into the Amphitheater (for there these sports were sometimes held) crudelium & funestorum ludorum diebus, upon a day designed to these cruel pastimes. He told them by the way that though they haled his body with them, yet should his eyes and soul be free from these bloody spectacles, cum talia aversaretur & detestaretur, which of himself he so detested. But thither he went and took his place, and presently closed his eyes that he might not see those dismal sights which were before him.

When as the fight waxed hot, & omnia fervebant immanis finis voluptatibus, and all were taken up with those unmerciful delights, upon a sudden shout occasioned in the fight, he let look his eyes to see what it meant: Et percussus est graviori vulnere in anima, quam ille in corpore; ceciditque miserabilius, quam ille, quo cadente factus est clamor. By means whereof, he became smitten with a greater wound in his soul, than the poor fellow in his body; and fell more miserably by far, than he upon whose death the said noise was raised. How so? Vt enim vidit illum sanguinem, immanitatem simul ebibit, etc. For presently as soon as he beheld the blood, he sucked in cruelty and drew in the furies of the place, being delighted with the wickedness of the sport and made drunk, as it were, with those blood spectacles.” Such plays and shows as these were not unlawful to be seen on the Lord’s day only, but on all days else. And such and none but such were the plays and shows against the which the Fathers do inveigh with so much bitterness: which as they were unworthy of a Christian eye, so as religion did prevail they began to vanish and finally were put down. I mean these last by Theodoricus King of the Goths, in Italy. Our plays and theirs, our shows and theirs, yea, and our dancings too compared with theirs, are no more of kin than Alexander the Coppersmith was with Alexander the Great King of Macedon. Nay if Baronius tells us true as I think he doth, these Plays and Cirque-fights were not prohibited by the Emperor Leo, because he thought them not as lawful to be performed upon the Lord’s day as any other, but for a more particular reason: He had a purpose to avenge himself of Asper and Ardaburius, two great and powerful men that had conspired against his safety; and for the execution of that purpose made choice of such a time, when the Circensian sports were to be exhibited. Which therefore he prohibited at this time to be presented on the Sunday; because though his revenge was just, yet the effusion of so much Christian blood on that sacred day might be a blemish to religion. Ne licet justa esset ultio, tamen diem sacrum ignominia videri posset labefactasse. So far the Cardinal. (5) A second thing which this Emperor did, in the advancing of the Lord’s day, was in relation unto Civil and legal businesses. It was before appointed by the Emperor Constantine that Judges should not sit that day in the open Court; the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius adding thereunto that none should arbitrate in any brawling and litigious cause upon the same. And whereas Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius had privileged other days as well as Sundays from the suits of Court, which days are formerly remembered in their proper place: The Emperor Theodosius the younger was pleased to add the feast of Christ’s Nativity, and so to the Epiphany or twelfth-tide as we use to call it, together with seven days before and seven days after: [Diem natalis domini, & epiphaniae, septem qui praecedunt, & septem qui sequuntur] making this festival with the rest before remembered, in this case equal with the Sunday. Where by the way we may observe of what antiquity the feast of the Epiphany is to be accounted, as having got unto such an height in this Emperor’s time (he entered on the Empire Anno 408) as to be privileged in the self-same manner as Christmas was. And not in this respect alone, in respect of pleadings, but in a following law of his Anno 425 he declared his pleasure that this day, with the other principal feasts as before we noted, was not to be profaned as it had been formerly by the Cirques and Theaters. For the antiquity thereof more might be said, were not this sufficient. Only I add that in the Eastern Churches from the times of old, they used to lengthen out the feast of Christmas for 12 days together, not ending the solemnities of the same till the Epiphany was gone over: from whence in likelihood that custom came at last to these Western parts!

Nativitatem domini Epiphaniae continuantes, duas illas festivitates unam faciunt. So Otho. Frisnigensis tells us of them. But to proceed, it seems that either these Edicts were not well observed, or else the ministers of the Courts used to meet together for dispatch of business on that day, though the Judges did not. Therefore it seemed good to this Emperor Leo, in the year and day above recited, to declare his pleasure thereupon in this form that followeth: Dies festos, dies altissima majestati dedicatos, etc. “It is our will that the holy days, being dedicated to the most high God, should not be spent, or wholly taken up in pleasures, or otherwise profaned with vexatious suits. Particularly for the Lord’s day, that it be exempt from executions, citations, entering into bonds, appearances, pleadings, and such like; that criers be not heard upon it, and such as go to Law lay aside their actions, taking truce a while to see if they can otherwise compose their differences.” For so it passeth in Edict. Dominicum itaque ita semper honorabilem decernimus & venerandum, ut a cunctis executionibus excusetur. Nulla quenquam urgeat admonitio, nulla fideijussionis flagitetur exactio, taceat apparitio, advocatio delitescat, sit idem dies, a cognitionibus alienus, praeconis horrida vox fileat, respirent a controversijs litigantis, & habeant faederis intervallum, etc. I have the rather here laid down the Law itself, that we may see how punctual the good Emperor was in silencing those troublesome suits and all preparatives or appurtenances thereunto, that so men might with quieter minds repair unto the place of God’s public service. Yet was not the Edict so strict, that neither any kind of Pleasures were allowed upon that day, as may be thought by the beginning of the Law; nor any kind of secular and civil business to be done upon it. The Emperor Constantine allowed of manumission and so did Theodosius too.

Die dominico emancipare & manumittere licet; reliquae causae vel lites quiescant, so the latter Emperor. Nor do we find, but that this Emperor Leo well allowed thereof, Sure we are that he well allowed of other civil business when he appointed in this very Edict, that such as went to law might meet together on this day, to compose their differences; to show their evidences and compare their writings. And sure I am that he prohibited not all kind of pleasures, but only such as were of an obscene and unworthy nature. For so it followeth in the Law: first in relation unto businesses, ad sese simul veniant adversarij non timentes, pacta conferant, transactiones loquantur: “Let the several parties meet together (upon the Sunday), compare their Covenants, and declare their bargains. Next in relation unto pleasures, that he would have no man abuse the rest of that sacred day in filthy pleasures.” For so it followeth in the law, Nec tamen hujus religiosae diei ocia relaxantes, obscenis quemquam patimur voluptatibus detineri. Where note, not simple voluptates, but obscenae voluptates; not pleasures, but obscene and filthy pleasures, are by him prohibited, such as the Scena theatralis, therein after mentioned: nor civil business of all sorts, but brangling and litigious businesses are by him forbidden, as the Law makes evident. And thus must Theodorus Lecor be interpreted, who tells us of this Emperor Leo, how he ordained *, that the Lord’s day should be kept holy by all sorts of people, that it should be a non-lee day, a day of rest and ease unto them; which is no otherwise to be understood, than as the Law itself intended: however the words of Theodorus seem to be more general. Nor was it long before this Edict or the matter it had found good entertainment in the Christian world, the rather since those Churches which lay further off and were not under the command of the Roman Emperor, taking perhaps their hint from hence, had made a Canon to that purpose. For in a Council held in Arragon, Anno 516, being some 47 years after Leo’s Edict, it was decreed that neither Bishop, Priest, or any other of the Clergy (the Clergy at that time were possessed of some seats of judicature) should pronounce sentence in any cause, which should that day be brought before them. Nullus Episcoporum aut presbyterorum vel Clericorum, propositum cujuscunque causae negotium, die dominico audeat judicare. This was in Anno 516, as before I said; the second year of Amalaricus, King of the Goths in Spain. (6) Nor stayed they here. The people of this sixth age wherein now we are, began to Judaize a little in the imposing of so strict a rest upon this day, especially in the Western Churches, which naturally are more inclined to superstition, than the Eastern nations. Wherein they had so far proceeded that “it was held at last unlawful to travel on the Lord’s day with wagons or horses, to dress meat, or make clean the house, or meddle with any manner of domestic businesses.” The third Council held at Orleans, Anno 540, doth inform us so; and plainly thereupon determined that since these prohibitions above said, Ad Iudaicam magis quam ad Christianam observantiam pertinere probantur, did favor far more of the Jew, than of the Christian: Die dominico quod ante licuit, licere, that therefore whatever had formerly been lawful on that day, should be lawful still. Yet so, that it was thought convenient, that men should rest that day from husbandry, and the vintage; from sowing, reaping, hedging, and such servile works: quo facilius ad ecclesiam venientes, orationis gratia vacent, that so they might have better leisure to go unto the Church and there say their Prayers. This was the first restraint, which hitherto we have observed whereby the Husbandman was restrained from the plough and vintage, or any work that did concern him. And this was yielded, as it seems to give them some content at least, which aimed at greater and more slavish prohibitions than those here allowed of; and would not otherwise be satisfied than by grant of this. Nay, so far had this superstition, or superstitious conceit about this day prevailed amongst the Goths in Spain, a sad and melancholic people, mingled and married with the Jews who then therein dwelt, that in their dotage on this day they went before the Jews their neighbors; the Sabbath not so rigorously observed by one as was the Lord’s day by the other. The Romans in this age had utterly defeated the Vandals and their power in Africa, becoming so bad neighbors to the Goths themselves. To stop them in those prosperous courses, Thende the Gothic King, Anno 543, makes over into Africa with a complete Army. The Armies near together, and occasion fair, the Romans on a Sunday set upon them, and put them all unto the sword: the Goths, as formerly the Jews, never so much as laying hand upon their weapons, or doing any thing at all in their own defense; only in reverence to the day. The general History of Spain so relates the story, although more at large. A superstition of so sudden and so quick a growth that whereas till this present age, we cannot find that any manner of Husbandry or country labors were forbidden as upon this day; it was now thought unlawful on the same, to take a sword in hand for one’s own defense. Better such doctrines had been crushed and such Teachers silenced in the first beginnings, than that their Jewish speculations should in fine produce such sad and miserable effects. Nor was Spain only thus infected, where the Jews now lived: the French we see began to be so inclined. Not only in prohibiting things lawful, which before we specified; and to the course whereof the Council held at Orleans gave so wise a check: but by imputing such calamities as had fallen amongst them to the neglect or ill observance of this day. A flash of lightning or some other fire from heaven, as it was conceived, had on the Lord’s day made great spoil of men and houses in the City of Limoges. This, Gregory of Tours, who lived about the end of this sixth Century, pronounceth to have fallen upon them, ob diei dominici injuriam, because some of them used to work upon the Sunday. But how could he tell that; or who made him acquainted with God’s secret counsels. Had Gregory been Bishop of Limoges, as he was of Tours; it may be Limoges might have scaped so fierce a censure, and only Tours have suffered in it. For presently he adds, in Turonico vero nonnulli ab hoc igne, sed non die dominico, adusti sunt: “that even in Tours itself many had perished by the self same fire; but being it fell not on the Sunday, as it did at Limoges, therefore that misery fell on them for some other reason.” Indeed he tells us of this day, that being it was the day whereon God made the light, and after was the witness of our Savior’s resurrection:

Ideo omni fide a Christianie observari debet, ne fiat in eo omne opus publicum; therefore it was to be observed of every Christian, no manner of public business to be done upon it. A piece of new Divinity, and never heard of till this age; nor in any afterwards. (7) Not heard of till this age, but in this it was. For in the 24th year of Gunthram, King of the Burgundians, Anno 588, there was a Council called at Mascon, a town situate in the Duchy of Burgundy, as we now distinguish it: wherein were present Priscus, Evantuis, Praetextatus, and many other reverend and learned Prelates. They taking into consideration how much the Lord’s day was of late neglected, for remedy thereof ordained that it should be observed more carefully for the times to come: which Canon I shall therefore set down at large, because it hath been often produced as a principal ground of those precise observances which some amongst us have endeavored to force upon the consciences of weak and ignorant men. It is as followeth: Videmus populum Christianum temerario more diem dominicum contemptui tradere, etc. “It is observed that Christian people do very rashly slight and neglect the Lord’s day; giving themselves thereon, as on other days, to continual labors, etc. Therefore let every Christian, in case he carry not that name in vain, give care to our instruction; knowing that we have care that you should do well, as well as power to bridle you that you do not ill. It followeth, Custodite diem dominicum qui nos denuo peperit, etc. Keep the Lord’s day, the day of our new birth, whereon we were delivered from the snares of sin. Let no man meddle in litigious controversies, or deal in actions, or law suits; or put himself at all upon such an exigent, that needs he must prepare his Oxen for their daily work; but exercise yourselves in hymns, and singing praise unto God, being intent thereon both in mind and body. If any have a Church at hand, let him go unto it, and there pour forth his soul in tears and prayers; his eyes and hands being all that day lifted up to God. It is the everlasting day of rest, insinuated to us under the shadow of the Seventh day or Sabbath in the Law and Prophets: and therefore it is very meet that we should celebrate this day with one accord: whereon we have been made what at first we were not. Let us then offer unto God our free and voluntary service, by whose great goodness we are freed from the Gaol of error: not that the Lord exacts it of us, that we should celebrate this day in a corporal abstinence or rest from labor; who only looks that we do yield obedience to his holy will, by which contemning earthly things, he may conduct us to the heaven of his infinite mercy. How ever if any man shall set at naught this our exhortation, he be assured that God shall punish him as he hath deserved; and that he shall be also subject unto the censures of the Church. In case he be a Lawyer, he shall lose his cause; If that he be an husbandman, or servant, he shall be corporally punished for it: but if a Clergy man, or Monk, he shall be six months separated from the Congregation.” Add here, that two years after this, being the second year of the second Clotaire King of France, there was a Synod holden at Auxerre, a town of Campaigne (concilium Antisiodorense in the Latin writers), wherein it was decreed as in this of Mascon, Non licet die dominico boves jungere, vel alia opera exercere; “that no man should be suffered to yoke his Oxen, or do any manner of work upon the Sunday.”

This is the Canon so much urged (I mean that of Mascon) to prove that we must spend the Lord’s day wholly in religious exercises and that there is no part thereof which is to be employed unto other uses. But there are many things to be considered before we yield unto this Canon or the authority thereof: some of them being of that nature that those who most insist upon it must be fain to traverse. For first it was contrived of purpose, with so great a strictness to meet the better with those men which so extremely had neglected that sacred day. A stick that bends too much one way cannot be brought to any straightness till it be bent as much the other. This Synod secondly, was Provincial only, and therefore can oblige none other but those for whom it was intended; or such who after did submit unto it by taking it into their Canon. Nor will some part thereof be approved by them who most stand upon it, none being bound hereby to repair to Church to magnify the name of God in the Congregation, but such as have some Church at hand; and what will then become of those who have a mile, two, three, or more, to their parish Churches, & no Chapel nearer? They are permitted by the Canon to abide at home. As for religious duties, here are none expressed as proper for the Congregation but Psalms and hymns, and singing praise unto the Lord, and pouring forth our souls unto him in tears and prayers; and then what shall we do for preaching, for preaching of the Word, which we so much call for. Besides, King Gunthram, on whose authority this Council met, in his Confirmatory letters doth extend this Canon as well unto the other holy days, as unto the Sunday: commanding all his Subjects, Vigore hujus decreti & definitionis generalis, by virtue of his present mandate, that on the Lord’s day, vel in quibuscunque alijs solennitatibus, and all solemn festivals whatsoever, they should abstain from every kind of bodily labor save what belonged to dressing meat. But that which needs must most afflict them is that the Council doth profess this abstinence from bodily Labor which is there decreed to be no ordinances of the Lord’s, that he exacteth no such duty from us; and that it is an ecclesiastical exhortation only, and no more but so. And if no more but so, it were too great an undertaking to bring all nations of the world to yield unto the prescript of a private and particular Canon, made only for a private and particular cause; and if no more but so, it concludes no Sabbath. (8) Yet, notwithstanding, these restraints from work and labor, the Church did never so resolve it, that any work was in itself unlawful on the Lord’s day; though to advance God’s public service, it was thought good that men should be restrained from some kind of work that so they might the better attend their prayers and follow their devotions. It’s true these centuries, the fifth and sixth, were fully bent to give the Lord’s day all fit honor: not only in prohibiting unlawful pleasures, but in commanding a forbearance of some lawful business, such as they found to yield most hindrance to religious duties. Yea and some works of piety they affixed unto it for its greater honor. The Prisoners in the common Gaols had formerly been kept in too strictly. It was commanded by Honorius and Theodosius, at that time Emperors, Anno 412, that they should be permitted omnibus diebus dominicis, every Lord’s day to walk abroad with a guard upon them; as well to crave the charity of well disposed persons, as to repair unto the Baths for the refreshing of their bodies. Nor did he only so command it, but set a mulct of 20 pound in gold on all such public ministers as should disobey, the Bishops of the Church being trusted to see it done. Where note, that going to the Baths on the Lord’s day was not thought unlawful, though it required, no question, some corporal labor; for had it been so thought, as some thought it afterwards, the Prelates of the Church would not have taken it upon them to see the Emperor’s will fulfilled and the law obeyed. A second honor affixed in these Ages to the Lord’s day is that it was conceived the most proper day for giving holy Orders in the Church of God; and a law made by Leo then Pope of Rome, and generally since taken up in the Western Church, that they should be conferred upon no day else.

There had been some regard of Sunday in the times before, and so much Leo doth acknowledge. Quod ergo a patribus nostris propensiore cura novimus servatum esse, a vobis quoq volumus custodiri, ut non passim diebus omnibus sacerdotalis ordinatio celebretur. “That which our Fathers heretofore with such care observed, we would that you observe in the selfsame manner; viz. that you confer not holy Orders on all days indifferently.” But that which was before a voluntary Act is by him made necessary: and a law given to all the Churches under his obedience, Vt his qui consecrandi sunt, nunquam benedictiones nisi in die resurrectionis dominicae tribuantur, “that ordinations should be celebrated on the Lord’s day only.” And certainly he gives a good reason why it should be so except in extraordinary and emergent cases, wherein the law admits of a dispensation. “For on that day, saith he, The holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles, and thereby gave us, as it were, this celestial rule, that on that day alone we should confer spiritual orders, in quo collata sunt omnia dona gratiarum, in which the Lord conferred upon his Church all spiritual graces.” Nay that this business might be done with the more solemnity and preparation, it was appointed that those men who were to be invested with holy Orders should continue fasting from the Eve before; that spending all that time in prayer and humbling of themselves before the Lord, they might be better fitted to receive his Graces. For much about these times, the service of the Lord’s day was enlarged and multiplied; the Evenings of the day being honored with religious meetings, as the Mornings formerly. Yea, and the Eves before were reckoned as a part or parcel of the Lord’s day following; Cui a vespere sabbati initium constat ascribi, as the same Decretal informs us. The 251st Sermon de tempore, ascribed unto Saint Austin, doth affirm as much, as before we noted. Note that this Leo entered on the chair of Rome Anno 440 of our Savior’s birth, and did continue in the same full 20 years; within which space of time he set out this decretal, but in what year particularly, that I cannot find. (9) I say that now the Evenings of the Lord’s day began to have the honor of religious meetings, for ab initio non fuit sic, it was not so from the beginning. Nor had it been so now, but that almost all sorts of people were restrained from work, as well by the Imperial Edicts as by the constitutions of particular Churches; by means whereof the afternoon was left at large to be disposed of for the best increase of Christian Piety. Nor probably had the Church conceived it necessary, had not the admiration which was then generally had of the Monastic kind of life, facilitated the way unto it. For whereas they had bound themselves to set hours of prayer, Mane hora tertia, sexta, nona, vespere, noctis medio, “at prime or dawning of the day, at six of the clock, at nine; and afterwards at three in the afternoon, and at the evening, and at midnight,” as S. Hierome tells us, the people generally became much affected with their strict devotions, and seemed not unwilling to conform unto them, as far at least, as might consist with their vocations.

Upon this willingness of the people, the service of the Church became more frequent than before, and was performed thrice every day in the greatest Churches, where there were many Priests and Deacons to attend the same; namely, at six, and nine, before noon; and at some certain time appointed in the evening, for the afternoon; according as now we use it in our Cathedral and Collegiate Churches. But in inferior towns and petit villages, where possibly the people could not every day attend so often, it was conceived sufficient that there should be the morning and the evening prayer, sung or said publicly in their Churches, that such as would might come to Church for their devotions; and so it stands by the appointment of the Rubric in our Common Prayer Book. Only the Sundays and the holy days were to be honored with two several meetings in the morning: the one at six of the Clock, which simply was the morning service; the other at nine for the administration of the holy Sacrament, and Preaching of the Word to the congregation. This did occasion the distinction of the first and second Service, as we call them still;though now, by reason of the people’s sloth, and backwardness in coming to the Church of God, they are in most places joined together. So whereas those of the monastic life did use to solemnize the Eve or Vigils of the Lord’s day, and of other festivals, with the peculiar and preparatory service to the day itself: that profitable and pious custom, began about these times to be taken up and generally received in the Christian Church. Of this there is much mention to be found in Cassian, as Institut.lib.,2,c.18.l,3; c.9. Collat.20.c.20; and in other places. This gave the hint to Leo, whosoever made that sermon ascribed to Austin, which before we spake of, to make the Eve before a part or parcel of the day; because some part of the Divine offices of the day were begun upon it. And hence it is that in these Ages, and in those that followed (but in none before), we meet with the distinction of matutinae & vespertinae precationes, matins & Evensong, as we call it, the Canons of the Church about these times beginning to oblige men to the one, as well as formerly to the other. The Council held in Arragon hereupon ordained, Vt omnis clerus die Sabbati, ad vesperam, paratus sit etc. “That all the Clergy be in readiness on the Saturday vespers that so they may be prepared with the more solemnity to celebrate the Lord’s day in the congregation.” And not so only, sed ut diebus omnibus vesperas & matutinas celebrent, but that they diligently say the morning and the evening service every day continually. So for the matins on the Sunday, Gregory of Tours informs us of them, Motum est signum ad matutinas, Erat enim dies dominica; how the bell rung to Mattins for it was a Sunday. I have translated it the bell, according to the custom of these ages whereof now we write; wherein the use of bells was first taken up, for gathering of the people to the house of God: (there being mention in the life and history of S. Loup or Lupus, who lived in the fifth Century) of a great bell that hung in the Church of Sens in France, whereof he was Bishop, ad convocandum populum for calling of the congregation. Afterwards they were rung on holy-day Eves to give the people notice of the feast at hand, and to advertise them that it was time to leave off their businesses, Solebant vesperi, initia feriarum campanis praenunciare; so he that wrote the life of S. Codegundus. (10) Well then, the bells are rung and all the people met together: what is expected at their hands? That they behave themselves there, like the Saints of God, in fervent prayers, in frequent Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual songs, hearing God’s holy Word, receiving of the Sacraments. These we have touched upon before, as things that had been always used from the beginnings of the Church. Collections for the poor had been sometimes used on this day, before; but now about these times the Offertory began to be an ordinary part of God’s public worship. Pope Leo seems to intimate it, in his fifth Sermon de collectis: Et quia die dominico proxima futura est collectio, vos omnes voluntariae devotioni praeparare etc; and gives them warning of it that they may be ready. For our behavior in the Church, it was first ordered by Saint Paul, that all things be done reverently,* because of the Angels; according to which ground and warrant, it was appointed in these ages that every man should stand up at the reading of the Gospel and the Gloria Patri; that none depart the Church till the service ended. Pope Anastasius, who lived in the beginning of the fifth Age, is said to have decreed the one. Dum S.S. Evangelia in ecclesia recitantur, sacerdotes & coeteri omnes praesentes, non sedentes sed venerabiliter curvi, in conspectu sancti evangelij stantes dominica verba attente audiant, & fideliter adorent. The Priests and all else present are enjoined to stand (their bodies bowed a little in sign of reverence) during the reading of the Gospel, but by no means to hear it sitting; adding some joyful acclamation at the end thereof such as it is that of “Glory be to thee O Lord”: for that I take to be the meaning of the adoration, or the fideliter adorent there remembered. So for the Gloria Patri, that form of giving to the Lord the glory which belongs unto him, we find in Cassian that they used to stand upon their feet at the doing of it. In clausula psalmi; omnes astantes pronunciant magno clamore, Gloria patri, etc. That at the end of every Psalm they all stood up, and with a loud voice pronounced the Gloria Patri, that gesture being thought most natural and most proper for it. No constitution needed to enjoin those duties which natural discretion of itself could dictate. As for the last it seemed the people in those parts used to depart the Church, some of them, before the service ended and the blessing given, for otherwise there had been no Canon to command the contrary.

Ex malis moribus bonae nascuntur leges, the old saying is. And out of this ill custom did arise a law, made in a Synod held in Agatha which is now called Agde, a town of Gallia Narbonensis, the 22nd of the reign of Alaricus King of the Visigoths, or Western Goths Anno 506; that on the Lord’s day all Lay people should be present at the public liturgy, and none depart before the blessing. Missas die dominico secularibus audire speciali ordine praecipimus:, ita ut egredi ante benedictionem sacerdotis, populus non praesumat; So the Canon hath it. According unto which it is provided in the Canons of the Church of England that none depart out of the Church during the time of service and Sermon without some reasonable or urgent cause. The benediction given, and the assembly broken up, the people might go home, no doubt; and being there make merry with their friends and neighbors such as came either to them of their own accord, or otherwise had been invited. Gregory of Tours informs us of a certain Presbyter which thrust himself into the Bishopric of the Arverni immediately upon the death of Sidonius Apollinaris, who died about the year 487; and that to gain the people’s favor, on the next Lord’s day after, Iussit cunctos cives praeparato epulo invitari, he had invited all the principal Citizens to a solemn feast. Whatever might be said of him that made the invitation, no doubt but there were many pious and religious men which accepted of it. Of recreations after dinner, until evening prayers, and after evening prayer till the time of supper; there is no question to be made but all were practiced which were not prohibited, nam quod non prohibetur, permissum est, as Tertullian hath it. (11) Yet notwithstanding all these honors publicly done unto the Lord’s day, as before was said, it never grew so great that it could swallow up all the other festivals. The Saturday continued hitherto a day of special meeting for the Congregation in all the Churches of the East, and in those of Egypt. Cassian hath informed us so, Institut.l.3.c.2; & l.9.c.12; as also l.2.c.6; & Collat.l.3.c.1. The Alexandrians only of all the people of Egypt observed it not, being therein conformed to the Church of Rome, as before we noted in the third Chapter of this part, section 5. But for the Churches of Constantinople, and those near unto it, it is said by Sozomen that they assembled in the Church both on the Saturday or Sabbath, and on the first day of the week. Or as his own words are, *. Socrates doth affirm as much, l.6.c.8; both they and Cassian being contemporaries, and living about the year 430. The like saith Anastatius Synaita, who flourished in the sixth Century, Anno 540 or thereabouts, that Saturday as well as Sunday were *, holy and festival days, both of them: one of them in relation to the rest of God; the other to the resurrection of our Lord and Savior. So for the Western Churches and the Alexandrian, the greater festivals stood upon it, and would by no means yield the place unto the Sunday. It happened once, as it may often, that Christmas day fell on the Monday, which much perplexed Theophilus, then Partriarch of Alexandria; he knew not well which way to take in a case so doubtful. That Christmas Eve was to be fasted, he knew well enough; and well enough he knew that fasting on the Sunday had been oft condemned in the times before him. At last he resolved to compose the business, & paucos dactylos sumentes etc. by eating a few grapes to avoid the imputation of heretical abstinence, and yet withal to fast it out as the day following did require. Where plainly, Christmas had the better. This happened in the year 411, or thereabouts; since when the Church had fallen on a finer temper; viz. when any festival falls upon the Monday, to keep the fast thereof on the Saturday night. So for the Western Churches it was thus ordered in the Synod of Agatha, or Agde a town in France, Anno 420, that “in case any man should build a private oratory or a Chapel of Ease for his proper use, it was permitted that on the ordinary festivals [Sundays and other holy days of inferior sort] he might have mass and other divine Offices performed therein, propter familiae suae fatigationem, for the ease and accomodation of his family.

But on the feasts of Easter, Christmas, the Epiphany, holy Thursday, Whitsontide and the nativity of S. John the Baptist, and other the greater festivals, if more such there were:” non nisi in civitatibus vel parochij, teneant, they should repair unto the cities, or their Parish Churches. And in the Synod of Auvergne, Anno 541, it was decreed also to the same purpose, that Priests and deacons not being beneficed abroad, or within the Cities, might upon ordinary days, help to serve the cure in the Country villages. Festivitates praecipuas, domini natale, Pascha, Pentecosten, & si que sunt festivitates reliquae, nullatenus alibi nisi cum episcopo suo in civitate teneant. “But on the greater festivals, Christmas, and Whitsontide, and Easter, and others the more principal feasts, they should not celebrate any where but with their Bishop in the City.” This clearly shows how high the Annual festivals, those chiefly of the greater sort, were in esteem above the weekly. Nor did these Ages so adhere to the former festivals or other days appointed for religious duties, as not to institute any but what they found. For to the fifth Century we are indebted for the feasts of our Savior, Circumcision, S.Stephen, S. Michael the Arch-Angel, and the nativity of S.

John the Baptist: as to the sixth, for that of the Purification of the Virgin Mary, or the presenting of our Savior in the holy temple, when Simeon took him into his Arms and blessed God for him; on which last motive it was instituted by Justinian first, and by him called festum *. To these two Ages also do we stand indebted both for the litany itself, as a form of prayer; and for processions which is one especial use thereof, in the Rogation week, as we still do call it. Processions had been used of old in the interring of the Martyrs, as Tertullian intimates. These and the prayers accustomed being perfected by Mamercus Bishop of Vienne in France, about the year 456, and by him fitted to those present miseries which then had fallen upon that people, attained to that opinion that they were used also by Sidonius Bishop of Auverne, being then visited with the like, if not greater miseries. And in the year 506, it was determined in a Council held at Orleans that the whole Church should bestow yearly at the feast of Pentecost, three days in that processionary kinds of service. So it continues still in the Church of England, the Litany thereof being so complete that I dare boldly say that from the death of the Apostles till this very day there never was a form of prayer so exact and absolute. (12) Thus we have brought the Lord’s day to the highest pitch; the highest pitch that hitherto it had enjoyed, both in relation unto rest from worldly business, and to the full performance of religious duties. Whatever was done afterwards in pursuit hereof consisted specially in beating down the opposition of the common people, who were not easily induced to lay by their business; next in a descant, as it were, on the former plain-song, the adding of particular restrictions, as occasion was, which were before contained though not plainly specified, both in the Edicts of the former Emperors, and Constitutions of the Churches, before remembered. Yet all this while we find not any one who did observe it as Sabbath, or which taught others so to do; nor any who affirmed that any manner of work was unlawful on it, further than as it was prohibited by the Prince, or Prelate; that so the people might assemble with their greater comfort; not anyone who preached or published that any pastime, sports, or recreations, of an honest name, which in themselves were lawful on the other days, were not so on this. And thereupon we may resolve, as well of lawful businesses as of lawful pleasures; that such as have not been forbidden by supreme authority, whether in proclamations of the Prince, or Constitutions of the Church, or Acts of Parliament, or any such like declaration of those higher powers to which the Lord hath made us subject, are to be counted lawful still. It matters not, in case we find it not recorded in particular terms, that we may lawfully apply ourselves to some kind of business, or recreate ourselves in every kind of honest pleasure, at those particular hours and times which are left at large and have not been designed to God’s public service. All that we are to look for, is to see how far we are restrained from labor or from recreations on the holy days, and what authority it is which hath so restrained us, that we may come to know our duty and conform unto it. The Canons of particular Churches have no power to do it, further than they have been admitted into the Church wherein we live; for then being made a part of her Canon also, they have power to bind us to observance. As little power there is to be allowed unto the declarations and Edicts of particular Princes, but in their own dominions only. Kings are God’s Deputies on the Earth, but in those places only where the Lord hath set them; their power no greater than their empire, and though they may command in their own estates, yet it is extra sphaeram activitatis, to prescribe laws to nations not subject to them. A King of France can make no law to bind us in England. Much less must we ascribe unto the dictates and directions of particular men, which being themselves subject unto public order, are to be hearkened to no further than by their life and doctrine they do preach obedience unto the public ordinances under which they live. For were it otherwise, every private man of name and credit would play the tyrant with the liberty of his Christian brethren, and nothing should be lawful but what he allowed of; especially if the pretense be fair and specious, such as the keeping of a Sabbath to the Lord our God; the holding of an holy convocation to the King of heaven. Example we had of it lately in the Goths of Spain; and that strange bondage into which some pragmatic and popular men had brought the French, had not the Council held at Orleans given a check unto it? And with examples of this kind we must begin the story of the following Ages.

CHAPTER - THAT IN THE NEXT SIX HUNDRED YEERES, FROM POPE GREGORY FORWARDS, THE LORDS DAY WAS NOT RECKONED OF, AS A SABBATH. (1) Pope Gregories care to set the Lords day free from some Jewish rigours, at that time obtruded on the Church. (2) Strange fancies taken up, by some few men, about the Lords day, in those darker Ages. (3) Scriptures, and Miracles, in these times found out, to justifie the keeping of the Lords day holy. (4) That in the judgement of the most learned men in these sixe Ages, the Lords day hath no other ground, than the Authoritie of the Church. (5) With how much difficultie the people of these Westerne parts were barred, from following their Husbandrie, and Courts of Law, on the Lords day. (6) Husbandrie not restrained on the Lords day in the Easterne parts, until the time of Leo Philosophus. (7) Markets, and Handy-crafts, restrained with no lesse opposition, than the Plough, and pleading. (8) Severall casus reservati in the Lawes themselves, wherein men were permitted to attend those businesses, on the Lords day, which the Lawes restrained. (9) Of divers great and publike actions, done, in these Ages, on the Lords day. (10) Dancing, and other sports, no otherwise prohibited on the Lords day, than as they were an hinderance to Gods publike service. (11) The other holy dayes as much esteemed of, and observed, as the Lords day was. (12) The publike hallowing of the Lords day, and the other holy dayes, in these present Ages. (13) No Sabbath all these Ages heard of, either on Saturday, or Sunday: And how it stood with Saturday, in the Easterne Churches. (1) WE are now come to the declining Ages of the Church, after the first 600 years were fully ended; and in the entrance on the seventh, some men had gone about to possess the people of Rome with two dangerous fancies:

One, That it was not lawful to do any manner of work upon the Saturday, or the old Sabbath; ita ut die Sabbati aliquid operari prohiberent; The other, ut Dominicorum die nullus debeat lavari, That no man ought to bathe himself on the Lord’s day, or their new Sabbath. With such a race of Christened Jews, or Judaizing Christians, was the Church then troubled.

Against these dangerous Doctrines did Pope Gregory write his Letter to the Roman Citizens, styling the first no other than the Preachers of Antichrist, one of whose properties it shall be, saith he, that he will have the Sabbath and the Lord’s day both so kept as that no manner of work shall be done on either; qui veniens, diem Sabbatum atque Dominicum, ab omni faciet opere custodire, as the Father hath it. Where note that to compel or teach the people that they must do no manner of work on the Lord’s day is a mark of Antichrist. And why should Antichrist keep both days in so strict a manner? “Because, saith he, he will persuade the people that he shall die, and rise again; therefore he means to have the Lord’s day in especial honor: and he will keep the Sabbath too, that so he may the better allure the Jews to adhere unto him.” Against the other he thus reasoneth: Et si quidem pro luxuria, & voluptate, quis lavari appetit, hoc fiers nec reliquo quolibet die concedimus, etc. “If any man desires to bathe himself, only out of a luxurious and voluptuous purpose (observe this well), this we conceive not to be lawful upon any day; but if he do it only for the necessary refreshing of his body, then neither is it fit it should be forbidden upon the Sunday. For if it be a sin to bathe, or wash all the body on the Lord’s day, then must it be a sin to wash the face upon that day; if it be lawful to be done in any part, why then, necessity requiring, is it unlawful for the whole?” It seems then by Saint Gregory’s doctrine, that in hot weather one may lawfully go into the water on the Lord’s day, and there wade or swim, either to wash or cool his body, as well as upon any other. Note also here that not the quality of the day, but the condition of the thing is to be considered in the denominating of a lawful or unlawful act; that things unlawful in themselves, or tending to unlawful ends, are unfit for all days; and that what ever thing is fit for any day is, of itself, as fit for Sunday. Finally, he concludes with this: Dominicorum vero die a labore terreno cessandum est, etc. “We ought to rest indeed on the Lord’s day from earthly labors, and by all means abide in prayers; that if by human negligence, any thing hath escaped in the six former days, it may be expiated by our prayers on the day of the Resurrection.” This was the salve, by him applied to those dangerous sores; and such effect it wrought upon them that for the present, and long after, we find not any who prohibited working on the Saturday. But at the last it seems some did; who thereupon were censured and condemned by another Gregory, of that name the seventh. Damnavit docentes, non licere die Sabbati operas facere; as the Law informs us, De consecratsone distinct.3.cap.Pervenit. But this was not till Anno 1074 or after, almost 500 years after the times where now we are. As for the other fancy, that of not going to the Baths on the Lord’s day, it seems he crushed that too as for that particular: though otherwise the like conceit did break out again, as men began to entertain strange thoughts and superstitious doctrines about this day; especially in these declining Ages of the Church, wherein so many errors both in faith and manners, did in fine defile it, that it was black indeed, but with little comeliness. The Church, as in too many things not proper to this place and purpose, it did encroach upon the Jew; much of the ceremonies, and Priestly habit, in these times established, being thence derived: so is it not to be admired, if in some things, particular both Men and Synods began to Judaize a little, in our present business; making the Lord’s day no less rigidly to be observed than the Jewish Sabbath, if it were not more. (2) For in the following Age, and in the latter end thereof, when Learning was now almost come to its lowest ebb, there was a Synod held at Fruili, by the command of Pepin then King of France; a Town now in the Territory of the State of Venice. The principal motive of that meeting was to confirm the Doctrine of the holy Trinity and the incarnation of the Word; which in those times had been disputed. The President thereof, Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquilegia, Anno 791 of our Redemption. There, in relation to this day, it was thus decreed: Diem dominicum inchoante noctis initio, i.e. vespere Sabbati, quando signum insonuerit, etc. “We constitute and appoint that all Christian men (that is to say all Christian men who lived within the Canon’s reach) should with all reverence and devotion honor the Lord’s day, beginning on the evening of the day before, at the first ringing of the Bell: and that they do abstain therein especially from all kinds of sin, as also from all carnal acts, Etiam a propriis conjugibus, even from the company of their Wives, and all earthly labors; and that they go unto the Church devoutly, laying aside all Suits of Law, that so they may in love and charity praise God’s Name together.” You may remember that some such device as this was fathered formerly on Saint Austin, but with little reason. Such trim conceits as these had not then been thought of. And though it be affirmed in the Preamble to these Constitutions: Nec novae regulae instituimus, nec supervacuas rerum adinventiones inhianter sectamur; that they did neither make new Rules, or follow vain and needless fancies; Sed sacris paternorum Canonum recensitis foliis, etc. but that they took example by the ancient Canons: yet look who will into all Canons of the Church for the times before, and he shall find no such example. For my part, I should rather think that it was put into the Canon, in succeeding times, by some misadventure: that some, observing a restraint, ab omni carnali, of all carnal acts, might as by way of question write in the Margin, etiam a propriis conjugibus? from whence, by ignorance or negligence of the Collectors, it might be put into the Text.

Yet if it were so passed at first, and if it chance that any be so minded (and some such there be), as to conceive the Canon to be pure and pious, and the intent thereof not to be neglected; they are to be advertised that the holy days must be observed in the self-same manner: It was determined so before, by the false Saint Austin. And somewhat to this purpose saith this Synod now, That all the greater Festivals must with all reverence be observed and honored: and that such holy days as by the Priests were bidden in the Congregation, Omnibus modis sunt custodienda, were by all ways and means to be kept amongst them; that is, by all those ways and means which in the said Canon were before remembered. In this the Christian plainly out-went the Jew; amongst whose many superstitions there is none such found. It’s true indeed the Jews accounted it unlawful to marry on the Sabbath day, or on the evening of the Sabbath, or on the first day of the week, lest (say the Rabbins) they should pollute the Sabbath by dressing meat. Conformably whereunto, it was decreed in a Synod held in Aken or Aquisgranum, Anno 833, “nec nuptias reverentia tantae solennitatis celebrari visum est, that in a reverence to the Lord’s day, it should no more be lawful to marry, or be married upon the same.” The Jews, as formerly we showed, have now by order from their Rabbins restrained themselves on their Sabbath day from knocking with their hands upon a table to still a child; from making figures in the air, or drawing letters in the ground, or in dust and ashes, and such like niceties. And some such teachers, Olaus King of Norway had no question met with, Anno 1028. For being taken up one Sunday, in some serious thoughts, and having in his hand a small walking stick, he took his knife and whittled it, as men do sometimes, when as their minds are troubled, or intent on business. And when it had been told him, as by way of jest, how he had trespassed therein against the Sabbath, he gathered the small chips together, put them upon his hand, and set fire unto them. Vt viz. in se ulcisceretur, quod contra divinum praeceptum incautus admisisset; that so, saith Crantzius, he might revenge that on himself, which unawares he had committed against God’s Commandments. Crantzius, it seems, did well enough approve this folly: for in the entrance on this story, he reckoneth this inter alia virtutum suarum praeconia, amongst the monuments of his piety, and sets it up as an especial instance of that Prince’s sanctity. Lastly, whereas the modern Jews are of opinion that all the while their Sabbath lasts, the souls in hell have liberty to range abroad, and are released of all their torments, so, lest in any superstitious fancy they should have preeminence, it was delivered of the souls in Purgatory, by Petrus Damiani, who lived in Anno 1056: “Domenico die refrigerium poenar um habuisse, that every Lord’s day they were manumitted from their pains, and fluttered up and down the lake Avernus in the shape of birds.” (3) Indeed the marvel is the less, that these and such like Jewish fancies should in those times begin to shew themselves in the Christian Church: considering that now some had begun to think that the Lord’s day was founded on the fourth Commandment; and all observances of the same grounded upon the Law of GOD. As long as it was taken only for an Ecclesiastical institution, and had no other ground upon which to stand than the authority of the Church, we find not any of these rigors annexed unto it. But being once conceived to have its warrant from the Scripture, the Scripture presently was ransacked; and whatsoever did concern the old Jewish Sabbath, was applied thereto. It had been ordered formerly that men should be restrained on the Lord’s day from some kind of labors, that so they might assemble in the greater numbers; the Princes and the Prelates both conceiving it convenient that it should be so. But in these Ages there were Texts produced to make it necessary. Thus Clotaire King of France grounded his Edict of restraint from servile labors on this day on the holy Scripture: quia hoc lex prohibet, & Sacra Scriptura in omnibus contradicit, because the Law forbids it, and the holy Scripture contradicts it. And Charles the Great builds also on the self-same ground, Statuimus secundum quod in lege dominus praecepit, etc. “We do ordain, according as the L O R D commands us, that on the Lord’s day none presume to do any servile business.” Thus finally, the Emperor Leo Philosophus, in a Constitution to that purpose, of which more hereafter, declares that he did so determine, secundum quod Sp. Sancto ab ipsoque institutis Apostolis placuit, according to the Dictate of the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles by him tutored. So also, when the Fathers of the Church had thought it requisite that men should cease from labor on the Saturday in the afternoon, that they might be the better fitted for their devotions the next day; some would not rest, till they had found a Scripture for it. Observemus diem Dominicum fratres, sicut antiquis praeceptum est de Sabbato, etc. Let us observe the Lord’s day, as it is commanded; from even to even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath. The 251st Sermon, inscribed de tempore, which I conceive to have been writ about these Times, hath resolved it so. And lastly, that we go no further, the superstitious act of the good King Olaus burning his hand, as formerly was related, was then conceived to be a very just revenge upon himself because he had offended, although unawares, contra divinum Praeceptum, against God’s Commandment. Nor were these rigorous fancies left to the naked World, but they had miracles to confirm them. It is reported by Vincentius and Antoninus, that Austregisilus, one who had probably preached such Doctrine, restored a Miller by his power, whose hand had cleaved unto his Hatchet as he was mending of his Mill on the Lord’s day; for now you must take notice that in the Times in which they two lived, grinding had been prohibited on the Lord’s day by the Canon Laws. As also how Sulpitius had caused a poor man’s hand to wither, only for cleaving wood on the Lord’s day (no great Crime assuredly, save that some parallel must be found for him, which gathered sticks on the former Sabbath); and after, of his special goodness, made him whole again. Of these, the first was made Arch-bishop of Burges, Anno 627, Sulpitius being successor unto him in his See; and, as it seems too, in his power of working miracles. Such miracles, as these they who lift to credit miracles>, shall find another of them in Gregorius Turonensis, Miracul.l.2.c.6. And some we shall hereafter meet with, when we come to England; forged purposely, as no doubt these were, to countenance some new device about the keeping of this day; there being no new Gospel preached, but must have miracles to attended it for the greater state. (4) But howsoever it came to pass, that those four Princes, especially Leo, who was himself a Scholar, and Charles the Great, who had as learned men about him as the times then bred, were thus persuaded of this day that all restraints from work and labor on the same were to be found expressly in the Word of God; yet was the Church and the most learned Men therein of another mind. Nor is it utterly impossible but that those Princes might make use of some pretense or ground of Scripture, the better to incline the people to yield obedience unto those restraints which were laid upon them.

First, for the Church, and men of special eminence in the same for place and learning, there is no quesion to be made but they were otherwise persuaded. Isidore Arch-bishop of Seville, who goes highest, makes it an Apostolical sanction only, no divine Commandment: a day designed by the Apostles for religious exercises, in honor of our Savior’s resurrection, on that day performed. Diem dominicum Apostoli ideo religiosa solennitate sanxerunt, quia in eo redemptor noster a mortuis resurrexit. And adds, “that it was therefore called the Lord’s day, to this end and purpose: that resting in the same from all earthly Acts, and the temptations of the world, we might intend God’s holy worship; giving this day due honor for the hope of the resurrection, which we have therein.” The same, verbatim, is repeated by Bede, lib.de Offic; and by Rabanus Maurus lib. de institut.

Cleric.l.2.c.24; and finally by Alcuinus de divin. Offic. cap.24; which plainly shows that all those took it only for an Apostolical usage, an observation which grew up by custom, rather than upon commandment. Sure I am that Alcuinus, one of principal credit with Charles the Great, who lived about the end of the eighth Century, as did this Isidore in the beginning of the seventh, saith clearly that the observation of the former Sabbath had been translated very fitly to the Lord’s day, by the customs and consent of Christian people. For speaking how the Sabbath was accounted holy in the former times, and that the Jews resting thereon from all manner of work did only give themselves to meditation and to feasting; he adds, cujus observationem mos Christianus ad diem dominicum competentius transtulit; “the observation of the which, was by the custom of the Christians translated very fitly unto the Sunday.” Where plainly mos Christianus, the custom of the Christians, doth imply no precept, no order or command from the Apostles that it should be so, and much less any precept in the Old Testament which should still oblige. And sure I am, Rabanus Maurus speaks only as by way of exhortation, as not being armed with any warrant from the Apostles, or other Argument from Scripture:

Where he adviseth us, A vespera diei Sabbati usque ad vesperam diei dominici, sequestrati a rurali opere & omni negotio, solo divino cultui vacemus: “That from the Eve on Saturday until Sunday night, being wholly sequestered from husbandry and all other business, we should devote ourselves to the service of God:” which are the self-same words in the Homily de tempore ascribed to Austin. Where no man will presume to say that either rest from husbandry, and such other business, or the beginning of the Lord’s day on the Eve before, were introduced by any precept of the Apostles, considering how long it was before either of them had been used in the Christian Church. And so Hesychius Bishop of Jerusalem, who flourished at the self-same time with Isidore, speaks of it only as a custom, or matter of fact, descending by tradition from the Apostles. Apostolorum sequentes traditionem, diem dominicum conventibus divinis sequestramus: which was the most he could say for the original thereof; indeed who could more? And as for Isidore himself whom the others followed, it’s clear that they esteemed the Lord’s day for no other than a common holiday, by far inferior unto Easter. Pascha festivitatum omnium prima est. The feast of Easter, is, saith he, the most principal Feast. Then followeth Pentecost, Epiphany, Palm-Sunday, Maundy-thursday, and in the last place Dies dominicus, the Lord’s day: Which questionless he had not placed in so low a room, had he conceived it instituted by any precept or injunction of those blessed Spirits. So in a Council held at Paris, Anno 819, it was determined positively that keeping of the Lord’s day had no other ground than custom only, and that this custom did descend ex Apostolorum traditione, immo ecclesiae autoritate, at most from Apostolical tradition, but indeed rather from the Authority of holy Church. And whereas courts of Law, or Law days, had formerly been prohibited on this day that so men might in peace and concord go to Church together; the several Councils, that of Friburg, Anno 895, and that of Erpford, Anno 932, though then the times were at the darkest, ascribe it not to any Law or Text of Scripture, but only to the ancient Canons. Secundum sanctorum statuta patrum, saith the first, Can. 26. Secundum Canonicam institutionem, saith the second, Cap.2. And howsoever some have said that Alexander, Pope of Rome, of that Name the third, refers the keeping of the Lord’s day to Divine Commandment, yet they that look upon him well can find no such matter. He saith indeed that both the Old and New Testament depute the seventh day to the rest of man; but for the keeping of it holy, both that and other days appointed for God’s public service, ecclesia decreverit observanda: that he ascribes alone to the Church’s order. Decret.l.2.ti.9. de feriis .cap.3. The like may be affirmed also of restraint from labor, that it is grounded only on the authority of the Church and of Christian Princes; how ever in some Regal and Imperial Edicts, there be some show or color added from the Law of\parGOD. (5) I say some show or color added from the Law of God. For as before I said, it is not utterly impossible but that those Princes might make use of some pretense or show of Scripture, the better to incline the people, to yield obedience unto those restraints which were laid upon them. The Synod held at Mascons, and that in Auxerre, both before remembered, expressly had prohibited all works of husbandry on this day; the former having added for enforcing of it not only Ecclesiastical censures, but corporal and civil punishments. But yet this was not found enough to wean the people from their works, their ordinary labors used before upon that day; and it is no marvel. The Jews were hardly brought unto it, though they had heard GOD thundering from the holy mountain that they should do no manner of work upon their Sabbath, it being added thereunto that whosoever should offend therein, he should die the death. And certainly it was very long before that either Prince or Prelate, or both joined together, with all their power and policy could prevail upon them, either to lay aside their labors or forbear their Law days; as may appear by several Edicts of Emperors, Decrees of Popes, and Canons of particular Councils, which have successively been made in restraint thereof. The Synod of Chalons, Anno 662, wherein were 44 Bishops, and amongst them S. Owen Arch- Bishop of Roane , concluded as had been before, [non nova condentes, sed vetera renovantes] that on the Lord’s day no man should presume to sow or plough, or reap, vel quicquid ad ruris culturam pertinet, or deal in any thing that belonged to husbandry; and this on pain of Ecclesiastical censure and correction. But when this did no good, Clothaire the third of France (for he I think it was who set out that Law), beginning with the Word of God and ending with a threat of severe chastisement, doth command the same. Die domenico nemo servilia opera praesumat facere, quia hoc lex prohibet, & Sacra Scriptura in omnibus contradicit, as before was said. “If any do offend herein, in case he be a bondman, let him be soundly bastinadoed; in case a freeman, let him be thrice admonished of it; if he offend again, the third part of his patrimony was to be confiscated; and finally, if that prevailed not, he was to be convented before the Governor, and made a Bondslave.” So for the realm of Germany, a Council held at Dingulosinum in the lower Bavaria, Anno 772, (the Town is now called Dengolfel, not far from Lindaw) did determine thus. “Festo die Solis, otio divino intentus, prophanis negotiis abstineto, upon the Sunday (so they call it) let every man abstain from profane employments, and be intent upon God’s worship. If any man shall work his Cart this day, or busy himself in any such like work, jumenta ejus publica sunto, his Team shall presently be forfeited to the public use. And if stubbornly they persist to provoke God’s anger, be they sold for Bond-men.” So, Aventine reports the Canon. And somewhat like to this was ordered by Theodorius King of the Bavarians, viz. Si quis die dominico, etc. “If any man, upon the Lord’s day, shall yoke his Oxen, and drive forth his Wagon, dextrum bovem perdat, his right hand Ox shall be forthwith forfeit; if he make Hay or carry it in; if he mow Corn or carry it in, let him be once or twice admonished; and if he amend not thereupon, let him receive no less than fifteen stripes.”

Yet notwithstanding all this care, when Charles the Great being King of France, had mastered Germany, which was 789 or thereabouts; there had been little reformation in this point amongst them. Therefore that Prince first published his own Regal Edict, grounding himself secundum quod in lege praecepit dominus, upon the Prescript of God’s Law; and there commands that all men do abstain from the works of Husbandry. Which Edict since it speaks of more particulars at that time prohibited, we will speak more thereof anon. That not prevailing, as it seems, he caused five several Synods to be assembled at one time, Anno 813 at Mainz, at Rheims, at Tours, at Chalons, and Arles: in all of which it was concluded against the Husbandman; and many others more, as we shall see in the next Section. And yet we find some grudging still of the old disease; as is apparent by a Synod held at Rome, Anno 826 under Eugenius the second, chap.30; another in the same place, Anno 853, under Leo the fourth, Can.30; the like in that of Compeigne, held by Alexander the third, what time he lived an exile in the Realm of France. So for restraint of Law-days, or Courts of judgment, those chiefly that determined of men’s lives, it was not brought about in these Western parts without great difficulty. Witness, besides the several Imperial Edicts before remembered, Conc. Mogunt.

Anno 813, Can.37; Rhemens. Can. 35; Turonens.Can.40; Arelatens Can.16; being four of those Councils which were called by Charles, as before was said; as also that of Aken, Anno 836.Can.20. And though it was determined in the Roman Synod under Leo the 4th that no suspected person should receive judgment on that day, a clause being added in the Canon, legibus infirmari judicium eo die depromptum, that all Acts sped upon that day, were void in Law; yet more than 300 years after it was so resolved of, was Alexander the third, in Council of Compeigne before remembered, enforced particularly to revive it, and then and there to set it down, Ne aliquis ad mortem vel ad poenam judicitur, that no man should upon that day be doomed to death, or otherwise condemed unto bodily punishment. So difficult a thing it was to wean the people from their labors and other civil business unto which they had been accustomed; there being nothing to enforce or induce them to it but human authority. (6) On the same reason, as it seems, Leo Philosophus Emperor of Constantinople, did make use of Scripture, when in conformity with the Western Churches, he purposed to restrain the works of Husbandry on that day, which till his time had been permitted. The Emperor Constantine had ordained, as before was shown, that all Artificers, and such as dwelt in Cities, should on the Sunday leave their Trades; but by the same Edict gave license to the Husbandman to pursue his business, as well upon that day as on any other. But contrary, this Leo, surnamed Philosophus (he began his reign Anno 886) grounding himself, for so he tells us, on the authority of the Holy Ghost, and of the Apostles (but where he found that warrant from the Holy Ghost and from the holy Apostles, that he tells us not), restrained the Husbandman from his work, as well as men of other callings.

Nicephorus mistakes the man, and attributes it to the former Leo, whom before we spake of in our 4th Chapter. Quo tempore primus etiam Leo constutione lata, ut dies dominicus ab omnibus absque labore omni, per otium transigeretur, festusque & venerabilis esset, quemadmodum & divis Apostolis visum est, praecepit. At this time did the Emperor Leo first set out his Law, “That the Lord’s day should be of all men spent in rest, without any labor, that it should be an holy and a festival day as it seemed good to the Apostles.” Where the last clause, together with the substance of the Edict, makes the matter plain that he mistook the man, though he hit the business, the former Leo using no such motive in all his Edict. But take it from the Emperor himself, who having told us first “that the Lord’s day was to be honored with rest from labor,” adds next, that he had seen a Law (he means that of Constantine), quae non omnes simul operari prohibendos, nonnullosque uti operentur, indulgendum censuit, which not having restrained all works but permitted some, did upon no sufficient reason dishonor that so sacred day. Then followeth, Statuimus nos etiam, quod Sp. Sancto ab ipsoque institutis Apostolis placuit, ut omnes in die Sacro, etc. a labore vacent. Neque Agricolae, etc. “It is our will, saith he, according to the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, and of the Apostles by him directed, that on that sacred Day whereon we were restored unto our integrity, all men should rest themselves and surcease from labor; neither the Husbandmen nor others putting their hand, that Day, to prohibited work. For if the Jews did so much reverence their Sabbath, which only was a shadow of ours; are not we which inhabit Light and the Truth of Grace, obliged to honor that day which the L O R D hath honored, and hath therein delivered us both from dishonor and from Death? Are not we bound to keep it singularly and inviolably, sufficiently contented with a liberal grant of all the rest; and not encroaching on that one, which GOD hath chosen for his service? Nay, were it not a wretchless slighting and contempt of all Religion, to make that Day common; and think that we may do thereon, as we do on others.” So far this Emperor determines of it first, and disputes it afterwards, I only note it for the close, that it was near years from our Savior’s Birth, if not quite so much, before restraint of Husbandry on this day had been first thought of in the East: and probably being thus restrained did find no more obedience there, than it had done before in the Western parts. (7) As great a difficulty did it prove to restrain other things in these times projected, although they carried it at the last. The Emperor Constantine had before commanded, that all Artificers in the Cities should surcease from labor on the Lord’s day; as well as those whom he employed in his Seats of justice, and questionless he found obedience answerable to his expectation. But when the Western parts became a prey to new Kings and nations, and that those Kings and Nations had admitted the laws of Christ, yet did they not conceive it necessary to submit themselves to the laws of Constantine, and therefore followed their employment as before they did.

And so it stood until the time of Charles the Great, who in the year published his Regal Edict in this form that followeth. Statuimus, secundum quod & in lege dominus praecepit, etc. “We do ordain, according as it is commanded in the Law of GOD, that no man do any servile work on the Lord’s day. [This in the general had been before commanded by his Father Pepin in the Council holden in Friuli; but he now explicates himself in these particulars.] That is to say “that neither men employ themselves in works of Husbandry, in dressing of their Vines, plouging their Lands, making their Hay, fencing their grounds, grubbing or felling Trees, working in Mines, building of Houses, planting their Gardens; nor that they plead that day, nor go forth on hunting; and that it be not lawful for the women to weave, or dress Cloth, to make Garments, or Needle-work, to card their Wool, beat Hemp, wash clothes in public, or shear Sheep; but that they come unto the Church, to divine Service, and magnify the Lord their God for those good things which on that Day he hath done for them.” After considering with himself that Fairs and Markets on this day were an especial means to keep men from Church, he set out his Imperial Edict, De rundinis concedendis, as to prohibit Fairs and Markets, as my Author tells me. Nor did he trust so far to his own Edict as not to strengthen it (as the times then were) by the authority of the Church, and therefore caused those five Councils before remembered to be assembled at one time, in four of which it was determined against all servile works and Law-days, as also ut mercatus in iis minime sit, that no Markets should be kept upon them; Concil. Mogunt. Can.37 Ne mercata exerceant, Rhemens. Can. 35. and so in those of Tours, 40. and Arles 16. That of Chalons which was the fifth, did only intimate that whereas the Lord’s day had been much neglected, the better keeping of the same was to be established authentica constitutione, by some Authentical constituion of the Emperor himself. But whatsoever care this Emperor took to see his will performed, and the Lord’s day sanctified, it seems his successor Ludovicus was remiss enough; which being found, as found it was, the people fell again to their former labors, ploughing and Marketing and Law-days, as before they did. The Council held at Paris, Anno 829 which was but sixteen years after the holding of the aforesaid Synods, much complains thereof, and withal adds that many of the Prelates assembled there knew both by fame and by their own proper knowledge, Quosdam in hoc die ruralia opera exercentes, fulmine interemptos, “that certain men following their Husbandry on that day had been killed with Lightning; and others with a strange convulsion of their joints, had miserably perished; whereby say they, it is apparent that GOD was very much offended with their so great neglect of that holy day.”

Rather with their so great neglect of their Superiors; in that nor Declaration of their King, nor Constitution of the Church, could work so far upon them, as to gain obedience in things conducing to God’s service.

Had working on that day been so much offensive in the sight of God, likely it is we might have heard of some such judgments in the times before; but being not prohibited, it was not unlawful. Now being made unlawful, because prohibited, GOD smote them for their frequent workings at times which were designed to another use; not in relation to the day, but their disobedience. Therefore the Council did advise that first of all the Priests and Prelates, then that Kings, Princes, and all faithful people would do their best endeavor for the restoring of that day to its ancient luster, which had so foully been neglected. Next they addressed themselves particularly to Ludovick and Lotharius, then the Roman Emperors: Ut cunctis metum incutiant, that by some sharp injunction they would strike a terror into all their Subjects, that for the times to come none should presume to plough, or hold Law- days, or Market, as of late was used. This probably occasioned the said two Emperors, 853 to call a Synod at Rome under Leo the fourth, where it was ordered more precisely than in former times, Vt die Dominica nullus audeat mercationes, nec in cibariis rebus, aut quaelibet opera rustica facere, “That no man should from thenceforth dare to make any Markets on the Lord’s day, no not for things that were to eat; neither to do any kind of work that belonged to Husbandry.” Which Canon being made at Rome, confirmed at Compeigne, and afterwards incorporated, as it was, into the body of the Canon Law (whereof see Decretal.l.2.tit.9. de feriis cap.2;) became to be admitted without further question in most parts of Christendom; especially when the Popes had attained their height, and brought all Christian Princes to be at their devotion. For then the people who before had most opposed it, might justly have said, Behold two Kings stood not before him, how then shall we stand? Out of which consternation all men presently obeyed, Tradesmen of all sorts being brought to lay by their labors; and amongst those, the Miller, though his work was easiest, and least of all required his presence. Nec aliquis a vespera diei Sabbati, usque ad vesperam diei dominicae, ad molendina aquarum vel ad aliqua alia molere audeat. So was it ordered in the Council of Angeirs, (of which see Bothellus) Anno 1282, wherein the Barber also was forbidden to use his Trade. (8) Yet were not those restraints so strict as that there was no liberty to be allowed of, either for business or pleasure! A time there was for both, and that time made use of: there being in the Imperial Edicts, and Constitutions of the Church, yea and the Decretals of the Popes, many reservations whereby the people might have liberty to enjoy themselves. They had been else in worse condition than the Jews before. In the Edict of Charles the Great before remembered, though otherwise precise enough, there were three several kinds of carriages allowed and licensed on the Lord’s day: i.e.

Hortalia carra, vel victualia, vel si forte necesse erit corpus cujuslibet ducere ad Sepulchrum; that is to say, carriage of gardening ware, and Carts of victuals, and such as are to carry a dead Corpse to burial. So faith in the Edict, as it is reported by the Magdeburgians, Cent.8.cap.6. But in Bochellus I have met with another reading. “For he, instead of tria carraria opera, which we have rendered three kinds of Carriages; doth read carnalia opera, three kinds of secular or carnal businesses: and then instead of carra hortalia, Carts of gardening ware: carra hostilia, which I conceive to be opera hostilia, actions belonging to the wars in time of hostility. This last perhaps more probable, because it is forbidden in the Law itself, Ne quis hortum laboret, that men forbear gardening upon the Sunday.” So Theodolphus Aurelianensis, who lived about the year 836, having first put it down for a positive Rule that the Lord’s day ought with such care to be observed. Vt praeter orationes & missarum sollenia, & ea quae ad vescendum pertinent, nil aliud fiat; “that besides Prayer, and hearing Mass, and such things as belong to food, there is directly nothing that may be done: admits of an exception or reservation. Nam si necessitas fuerit navigandi vel itinerandi, licentia datur. “For if (saith he) there be a necessary occasion, either of setting sail, or going a journey; this may be allowed of, in case they pretermit not Mass and Prayers.” This I find extant as a Canon of the 6. General Council holden in Constantinople; but since both this and all the rest of the same stamp (there are nine in all), are thought not to belong of right unto it, I have chose rather to refer it to this Theodolphus, though a private man, amongst whose works I find it in the great Bibliotheca Patrum Tom.9. Thus in a Synod held at Coy, within the Realm and Diocese of Oviedo, Anno 1050, it was decreed, That all men should repair to Church on the Lord’s day, and there hear Matins, Mass, and other the canonical hours; as also, Opus servile non exerceant, nec sectentur itinera, that they should do no servile work, nor take any journey.

Yet with exceptions four or five, namely unless it were for devotions’ sake, or to bury the dead, or to visit the sick; or finally pro secreto regis, vel Saracenorum impetu, on special business of the King’s, or to make head against the Saracens. The King was much beholding to them that they would take such care of his State affairs; more than some Princes might be now, in case their business were at the disposing of particular men. So had it been decreed by several Emperors, yea and by several Councils too; which for the East parts was confirmed by Emanuel Cominenus, the Eastern Emperor, Anno 1174. *, “that all access to the Tribunal should be quite shut up; that none of those who sat in judgment should sit on any cause that day. Yet this not absolutely, but *, etc. unless the King shall please on any new emergent cause, as many times business comes unlooked for, to appoint it otherwise. Thus also for the works of labor, fishing had been restrained on the Lord’s day as a toilsome Act; and on the other holy days as well as that; yet did it please Pope Alexander the third (he entered on the chair of Rome, Anno 1160), to order by his Decretal that on the Lord’s day and the rest, it might be lawful unto those who dwelt upon the Coast, Si halecia terre inclinarint, eorum captioni, ingruente necessitate, intendere, to set themselves unto their fishing, in case the Herring came within their reach and the time was seasonable. Provided that they sent a convenient portion unto the Churches round about them, and unto the poor. Nay even the works of handycrafts were in some sort suffered. For whereas in the Council of Laodicea it was determined that men should rest on the Lord’s day, *, from all their handy work, and repair to the Church. Balsamon tells us in his Glosse, that so it was resolved amongst them, *, not absolutely; but *, if with convenience they could. For still, saith he (he lived in Anno 1191), in case men labor on that day, *, either because of want or any other necessity, they are held excusable.

Lastly, whereas Pope Gregory the 9th had on the Sundays and the holy days commanded ut homines & jumenta omnia quiescant, that there should be a general restraint from labor, both of man and beast; there was a reservation also, Nisi urgens necessitas instet, vel nisi pauperibus, vel ecclesiae, gratis fiat; unless on great necessity, or some good Office to be done unto the poor, or to the Church. (9) Nor were there reservations and exceptions only in point of business, and nothing found in point of practice; but there are many passages, especially of the greatest persons and most public actions, left upon record to let us know what liberty they assumed unto themselves, as well on this day as the rest. And in such only shall I instance, as being most exemplary, and therefore most conducing to my present purpose. And first we read of a great battle, fought on Palm-Sunday, Anno 718 between Charles Martell, Grandmaster of the household to the King of France, and Hilpericus the King himself; wherein the victory fell to Charles: and yet we read not there of any sin, to fight that day. Upon the Sunday before Lent, Anno 835, Ludovick the Emperor, surnamed Pius, or the godly, together with his Prelates, and others which had been present with him at the assembly held at Theonville, went on his journey to Metz; nor do we find that it did derogate at all from his name and piety. Upon the Sunday after Whitsontide, Anno 844, Ludowick, son unto Lotharius the Emperor, made his solemn entrance into Rome, the Roman Citizens attending him with their Flags and Ensigns; the Pope and Clergy staying his coming in S.

Peter’s Church, there to entertain him. Upon a Sunday, Anno 1014, Henry the Emperor, duodecim senatoribus vallatus, environed with 12 of the Roman Senators, came to S. Peter’s Church, and there was crowned together with his wife by the Pope then being. On Easter day, in ipsa die paschalis solennitatis, Anno 1027, Conrade the Emperor was solemnly inaugurated by Pope John; Canutus King of England, and Rodolph King of the Burgundians, being then both present, and the next Sunday after began his journey towards Germany. Upon Palm Sunday, Anno 1084, Wivert, Arch-bishop of Ravenna, was solemnly inthronized in the Chair of Rome: and the next Sunday after, being Easter day, Henry the third Imperiali dignitate sublimatus est, was crowned Emperor. On Passion Sunday, Anno 1148 Lewis the King of France afterwards Canonized for a Saint, made his first entry into Jerusalem with all his Army; and yet we read not any where, that it was laid in bar against him, to put by his Sainting; as possibly it might be now, were it yet to do. What should I speak of Councils on this day assembled, as that of Chartres, Anno 1146 for the recovery of the holy Land; of Tours, on Trinity Sunday, as we call it now, Anno 1164 against Octavian the Pseudo-Pope; that of Ferrara, upon Passion Sunday, Anno 1177 against Frederick the Emperor; or that of Paris, Anno 1226, summoned by Stephen then Bishop there, on the fourth Sunday in Lent, for the condemning of certain dangerous and erroneous positions at that time on foot. I have the rather instanced in these particulars, partly because they happened about these times, when Prince and Prelate were most intent in laying more and more restraints upon their people, for the more honor of this day; and partly because being all of them public actions, and such as moved not forwards but by divers wheels, they did require a greater number of people to attend them. And howsoever Councils, in themselves, be of an ecclesiastical nature; and that the crowning of a King in the Act itself, be mixed of sacred and of civil; yet in the train and great attendance that belongs unto them, the pomp, the triumphs, and concourse of so many people, they are merely secular. And secular although they were, yet we may well persuade ourselves, that neither Actor or Spectator thought themselves guilty, any wise, of offering any the least wrong to the Lord’s day, though those solemnities, no question, might without any prejudice have been put off to another time. No more did those who did attend the Princes before remembered, in their magnificent entries into Rome, and Metz; or the other military entrance into Jerusalem, which were mere Secular Acts, and had not the least mixture, either of Ecclesiastical or sacred Nature. (10) For Recreations in these times, there is no question to be made but all were lawful to be used on the Lord’s day which were accounted lawful upon other days and had not been prohibited by authority: and we find none prohibited but dancing only. Not that all kind of dancing was by Law restrained; but either the abuse thereof, at times unseasonable, when men should have been present in the Church of God; or else immodest, shameless dancings, such as were those, against the which the Fathers did inveigh so sharply in the Primitive times. In reference to the first, Damascen tells us of some men who only wished for the Lord’s day, ut ab opere feriati vitiis operam dent, that being quitted from their labors, they might enjoy the better their sinful pleasures. “For look into the streets (saith he) upon other days, and there is no man to be found; Die Dominico egredere, atque alios cithara canentes, alios applaudentes, & saltantes, etc.

But look abroad on the Lord’s day, and you shall find some singing to the Harp, others applauding of the Music; some dancing, others jeering of their Neighbors, alios denique luctantes reperies; and some also Wrestling. It followeth; Praeco ad Ecclesiam vocat? omnes segnitie torpent, & moras nectunt; Cithara aut tuba personuit? omnes tanquam aliis instructi currunt.

Doth the Clerk call unto the Church? they have a feaver-lurdane, and they cannot stir: Doth the Harp or Trumpet call them to their Pastimes? they fly, as they had wings, to help them.” They that can find in this a prohibition, either of Music, Dancing, public Sports, or man-like Exercises, such as Wrestling is, on the Lord’s day, must certainly have better eyes than Lynceus, and more wit than Oedipus. Plainly they prove the contrary to what some allege them; and show most clearly that the Recreations then remembered were allowed of publicly; otherwise none durst use them, as we see they did in the open streets. Only the Father seems offended that they preferred their Pastimes before their Prayers; that they made little or no haste to Church, and ran upon the spur to their Recreations; that where God’s public service was to be first considered in the Lord’s day, and after, on spare times, men’s private pleasures; these had quite changed the course of nature and loved the Lord’s day more for pleasure than for devotion.

This is the most that can be made from this place of Damascen; and this makes more for Dancing, and for Recreation, that it doth against them in case they be not used at unfitting hours. Much of this nature is the Canon produced by some to condemn Dancing on the Lord’s day, as unlawful utterly: Which being looked into, condemns alone immodest and unseemly Dancings, such as no Canon could allow of upon any day, of what name soever. A Canon made by Pope Eugenius, in a Synod held at Rome, Anno 826, what time both Prince and Prelates did agree together to raise the Lord’s day to as high a pitch as they fairly might. Now in this Synod there were made those Canons which concern this Day: the first, prohibitive of Business, and the works of Labor; the second, against Process, in Causes criminal; the third, ne mulieres Festia diebus vanis ludis vacent, that women do not give themselves on the holy days unto Wanton Sports: and is as followeth. Sunt quidam, & maxime mulieres, qui Festis & sacris diebus, etc. “Certain there are, but chiefly women, which on the holy days and Festivals of the blessed Martyrs, upon the which they ought to rest, have no great list to come to Church as they ought to do; sed balando, & surpia verba decantando, etc. but spend the time in Dancing, and in shameless Songs, leading and holding out their Dances as the Pagans used, and in that manner come to the Congregation. These, if they come unto the Church with few sins about them, return back with more; and therefore are to be admonished by the Parish Priest that they must only come to the Church to say their Prayers; such as do otherwise destroying not themselves alone, but their Neighbors also. Now in this Canon, there are these three things to be considered: First, That these women used not to come unto the Church with that sobriety and gravity which was fitting, as they should have done, but Dancing, Singing, Sporting, as the Pagans used, when they repaired unto their Temples; Secondly, That these Dancings were accompanied with immodest Songs, and therefore as unfit for any day as they were for Sunday: and thirdly, That these kind of Dancings were not prohibited on the Lord’s day only, but on all holy days. Such also was the Canon of the third Council of Toledo, Anno 589, which afterwards became a part of the Canon Law; though, by the over-sight of the Collector, it is there said to be the fourth: and this will make as little to the purpose as the other did. It is this that followeth: Irreligiosa consuetudo est, quam vulgus per sanctorum Solennitates & Festivitates agere consuevit. Populi qui Divina Officia debent attendere, saltationibus turpibus invigilant, Cantica non solum mala canentes, sed et am-Religiosorum Officiis perstrepunt. Hoc enim ut ab omni Hispania [the Decrete reads ab omnibus Provinciis] depellatur, Sacerdotum ac Iudicum, a Sancto Concilio curae committitur. “There is an irreligious Custom taken up by the common people, that on the Festivals of the Saints, those which should be attent on the Divine Service give themselves wholly to lascivious and shameless Dances; and do not only sing unseemly Songs, but disturb the Service of the Church. Which mischief, that it may be soon removed out of all the Country, the Council leaves it to the care of the Priests and Judges.” Such Dances, and employed to so bad a purpose, there is none could tolerate; and yet this generally was upon the holy days, Saint’s days I mean, as well as Sundays: Whereby we see the Church had no less care of one than of the other. (11) And so indeed it had, not in this alone, but in all things else; the holy days, as we now distinguish them, being in most points equal to the Sunday, and in some superior. Leo the Emperor, by his Edict, had shut up the Theater, and the Cirque or Show-place, on the Lord’s day. The like is willed expressly in the first general Council holden at Constantinople, Anno 692, for the whole Easter Week. Nequaquam ergo his diebus, equorum cursus, vel aliquod publicum fiat spectaculum; That neither Horse-Races in the Cirque, or any other public Shows, be performed therein. So the Canon hath it. The Emperor Charles restrained the Husbandman and the Tradesman from following their usual work on the Lord’s day. The Council of Meaux, [Meldease in the Latin Writers] Anno 840, doth the same for the said Easter Week, and in more particulars: it being ordered by that Synod that men forbear, during the time above remembered, ab omni opere Rurali, Fabrili, Carpentario, Gynaeceo, Coementario, Pictorio, Venatorio, Forensi, Mercatorio, Audientiale, ac Sacramentis exigendis; from Husbandry, the Craft of Smiths, and Carpenters, from Needle-work, Cementing, Painting, Hunting, Pleadings, Merchandize, Casting of Accounts, and from taking Oaths. For matters of another nature, Benedictines had but three Messe of Pottage upon other days: die vero Dominico, & in praecipuis Festivitatibus; but on the Lord’s day, and the principal Festivals, a fourth was added; as saith Theodomare the Abbot, in an Epistle to Charles the Great. So also Law-Suits and courts of Judgment were to be laid aside and quite shut up on the Lord’s day, as many Emperors and Councils had determined severally. The Council held at Friburg, Anno 895 did resolve the same of holy days, or Saint’s days, and the time of Lent. Nullus omnino secularis diebus Dominicis, vel Sanctorum in festis, sen Quadragesimae, aut jejuniorum, placitum habere, sed nec populum illo praesumat coercere: “Let not the Secular Judge presume to hold any Plea, or Law-day, either upon the Lord’s day, or in the time of Lent, or any time of public fast; nor force the people on the same to be assembled, as the Canon goeth. The very same with that of the Council of Erford, Anno 932.cap.2. But what need private and particular Synods be produced as witnesses herein, when we have Emperors, Popes, and Patriarchs to affirm the same. To take them in the order in which they lived: Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Anno 858, thus reckoneth up the Festivals of especial note, viz. “Seven days before Easter, and seven days after Christmas, Epiphany, *, the Feasts of the Apostles, and the Lord’s day. And then he adds, *, that on those days, they neither suffer public Shows, nor Courts of Justice.” Emanuel Cominenus next, Emperor of Constantinople, Anno 1174. *, etc. “We do ordain, saith he, that these days following be exempt from labor, viz. the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Holy-Rood day (and so he reckoneth all the rest, in those parts observed), together with all the Sundays in the year; and that in them there be not any access to the Seats of Judgment. The like, Pope Gregory the ninth, Anno 1228, determineth in the Decretal; where numbering up the holy days, he concludes at last, That neither any Process hold, nor Sentence be in force, pronounced on any of those days, though both parts mutually should consent unto it. Consentientibus etiam partibus, nec Processus habitus teneat, nec Sententit quam contingit diebus hujusmodi promulgari. So the Law resolves it. Now lest the Feast of Whitsontide might not have some respect, as well as Easter, it was determined in the Council held at Engelheim, Anno 948, That Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday in the Whitsun-Week, non minus quam dies Dominicus solenniter honorentur, should no less solemnly be observed, than the Lord’s day was. So when that Otho, Bishop of Bamberg, had planted the Faith of Christ in Pomerania, and was to give account thereof to the Pope then being, he certifieth him by his Letters, Anno 1124, That having christened them, and built them Churches, he left them three injunctions for their Christian carriage. First, That they eat no flesh on Fridays; secondly, That they rest the Lord’s day, ab omni opera malo, from every evil work, repairing to the Church for religious duties; and thirdly, Sanctorum solennitates cum vigiliis omni diligentia observent, that they keep carefully the Saint’s days, with the Eves attendant. So that in all these outward matters we find fair equality; save that in one respect, the principal Festivals had preeminence above the Sunday. For, whereas Fishermen were permitted, by the Decretal of Pope Alexander the third, as before was said, Diebus Dominicis & aliis Festis, on the Lord’s day and other holy days to fish for Herring in some cases; there was a special exception of the greater Festivals. Praeterquam in majoribus anni solennitatibus, as the order was.

But not to deal in generals only; Isidore, Arch-bishop of Seville, in the beginning of the seventh Century, making a Catalogue of the principal Festivals, begins his List with Easter, and ends it with the Lord’s day, as before we noted in the fifth Section of this Chapter. Now lest it should be thought that in sacred matters and points of substance, the other holy days were not as much regarded as the Lord’s day was; the Council held at Mentz , Anno 813, did not appoint it thus: That if the Bishop were infirm, or not at home, Non desit tamen diebus Dominicis, & Festivitatibus, qui Verbum Dei praedicet, juxta quod populus intelligat; yet there should still be some to preach God’s Word unto the people, according unto their capacities, both on the Lord’s day and the other Festivals. Indeed, why should not both be observed alike; the Saint’s days being dedicated unto God, as the Lord’s day is; and standing both of them on the same authority: on the authority of the Church, for the particular institution; on the authority of God’s Law, for the general Warrant. It was commanded by the Lord, and written in the heart of man by the Pen of Nature, that certain times should be appointed for God’s public worship: the choosing of the times was left to the Church’s power, and she designed the Saint’s days as she did the Lord’s; both his, and both allotted to his service only. This made Saint Bernard ground them all, the Lord’s day and the other holy days, on the fourth Commandment; the third in the Account of the Church of Rome. Spirituale obsequium Deo praebetur in observantia Sanctarum Solennitatum, unde tertium Praeceptum contexitur: Observa diem Sabbati, i.e. in Sacris feriis te exerce. “There is, saith he, a spiritual service due to God in the observation of the holy solemnities, from whence the third Commandment was given: Observe the Sabbath day, i.e. exercise thyself in the holy Festivals, as thou oughtest to do.” So Saint Bernard in his third Sermon, Super salve Regina. (12 The Lord’s day, and the holy days, or Saint’s days, being of so near a kin; we must next see what care was taken by the Church, in these present Ages, for hallowing them unto the Lord. The times were certainly devout; and therefore the less question to be made but that the holy days were employed as they ought to be: in hearing the Word of God, receiving of the Sacraments, and pouring forth their prayers unto him. The sixth General Council, holden at Constantinople, appointed That those to whom the Cure of the Church was trusted, should on all days, *, especially on the Lord’s day, instruct the Clergy and the people out of the holy Scriptures in the ways of godliness. I say the Clergy and the people; for in these times, the Revenue of the Church being great, and the Offerings liberal, there were, besides the Parish Priest, who had Cure of Souls, many assisting Ministers of inferior Orders which lived upon God’s holy Altar. Somewhat to this purpose of preaching every Sunday, yea, and Saint’s days too, in the Congregation, we have seen before established in the Council at Mentz, Anno 813. So for receiving of the Sacrament: whereas some would that it should be administered every day, singulis in anno diebus, as Bertram hath it, lib. de corp. & sangu. Christi: Rabanus Maurus, who lived 824, leaves it as a thing indifferent; advising all men notwithstanding, in case there be no lawful let, to communicate every Lord’s day. Quotidie Eucharistiae communionen percipere nec vitupero nec laudo, omnibus tamen Dominicis diebus communicandum hortor, si tamen mens in affectu peccandi non sit, as his words there are. And whereas this good custom had been long neglected, it was appointed that the Sacrament should be administered every Lord’s day, by the Council at Aken, Anno 836. Ne forte quo longe est a Sacramentis quibus est redemptus, etc. “Lest, saith the Council, they which keep so much distance from the Sacraments of their redemption, be kept as much at a distance from the fruition of their salvation.” As for the holy days, or Saint’s days, there needed no such Canon to enjoin on them the celebration of the Sacrament, which was annexed to them of course. So likewise for the public Prayers, besides what scatteringly hath been said in former places, the Council held at Friburg, Anno 895 hath determined thus:

Diebus Dominicis & Sanctorum Festis, vigiliis & orationibus insistendum est, & ad missas cuilibet Christiano cum oblationibus currendum; “That on the Lord’s day and the Festivals of the Saints, every Christian was to be intent upon his devotions, to watch and pray, and go to Mass, and there make his offering. It’s true, the Service of the Church being in the Latin; and in those times that Language being in some Provinces quite worn out; and in some others grown into a different Dialect from what it was; that part of God’s worship which was public Prayer served not so much to comfort and to edification, as it should have done. As for the outward adjuncts of God’s public service: on the Church’s part, the principal was that of Music which, in these Ages, grew to a perfect height. We showed before that vocal Music in the Church is no less ancient than the Liturgy of the Church itself: which, as it was begun in Ignatius’ time, after the manner of Plain-song, or a melodious kind of pronunciation, as before was said; so, in S. Austin’s time, it became so excellent, that it drew many to the Church; and consequently, many to the Faith. Now, to that vocal Music which was then in use, and of which formerly we spake; it pleased the Church, in the beginning of these Ages, to add Instrumental: the Organ being added to the Voice, by Pope Vitalian, Anno 653, almost 1000 years ago, and long before the aberration of the Church from its pristine piety.

And certainly it was not done without good advice: there being nothing of that kind more powerful than Melody, both Vocal and Instrumental, for raising of men’s hearts and sweetening their affections towards God; Not any thing, wherein the Militant Church here on Earth, hath more resemblance to the Church in Heaven Triumphant, than in that sacred and harmonious way of singing praise and Allelujas to the Lord our God, which is, and hath of long been used in the Church of Christ. (13) To bring this Chapter to an end: in all that hath been said, touching the keeping of the Lord’s day, we find not any thing like a Sabbath, either in the practice of the Church, or Writings of particular men; how-ever these last Ages grew to such an height, in restraint of labors on this day, that they might seem to have a mind to revive that part of the fourth Commandment, Thou shalt do no manner of work upon it. For where they tell us of this day, as before was said, that it was taken up by custom on the authority of the Church; at most, on Apostolical tradition; this makes it plain, that they intended no such matter as a Sabbath day; though, that the Congregation might assemble in the greater numbers, and men might join together in all Christian duties with the greater force, it pleased the Church, and principal Powers thereof, to restrain men from corporal labors and bind them to repair to the House of God. Or, if they did intend the Lord’s day for a Sabbath day; it’s plain they must have made more Sabbaths than one day in seven; those holy days which universally were observed in the Christian Church being no otherwise to be kept, than the Lord’s day was; and those increasing in these Ages to so great a number that they became a burden to the common people. Nor it is likely, that, being once free from the bondage of the Jewish Sabbath, they would submit themselves unto another of their own devising; and do therewith, as the Idolaters of old with their wooden gods, first make them, and then presently fall down and worship them. Rather, they took a course to restrain the Jews from sanctifying their Sabbath and other Legal Festivals as before they used.

Statutum est de Iudaeus, in the 12th Council of Toledo, Anno 681. Ne Sabbata, caeterasque Festivitates ritus sui, celebrare praesumant: “It is determined of the Jews, that they presume no more to celebrate their Sabbath, and the other Festivals of their Religion. And not so only: Sed ut diebus Dominicis & ab opere cessent; But that they should refrain from labor on the Lord’s day also. Of any Sabbath to be kept in the Christian Church, some few might dream perhaps, such filthy dreams as Saint Jude speaks of: but they did only dream thereof; they saw no such matter. They which had better Visions could perceive no Sabbath but, in this life, a Sabbath, or a rest from sin; and in the life to come, a Sabbath, or a rest from misery. Plainly, Rupertus so conceived it; as great a Clerk as any, in the times wherein he lived; which was in the beginning of the twelfth Century. Nam sicut signum Circumcisionis incarnationem, etc. “For, saith he, the sign of Circumcision fore-showed the incarnation of our Lord and Savior; the offering of the Paschal Lamb, his death and passion: Sic sabbatismus ille requiem annunciabat, quae post hanc vitam posita est sanctis & electis: So did the Sabbath signify that eternal rest, which after this life is provided for the Saints and elect of God. And more than this:

Spiritualis homo non uno die Hebdomadis, sed omni tempore Sabbatizare satagit; The true spiritual man keeps not his Sabbath once a week, but at all times what ever, every hour and minute. What then? Would he have no day set apart for God’s public service? no: but not the Sabbath. Because (saith he) we are not to rejoice in this World that perisheth, but in the sure and certain hope of the Resurrection; therefore we ought not to rest the seventh day, in sloth and idleness: but we dispose ourselves to Prayers, and hearing of the Word of God upon the first day of the Week, on the which Christ rose: Cum summa cura providentes, ut tam illo quam caeteris diebus feriati semper simus a servili opere peccati. Provided always, that upon that, and all days else, we keep ourselves free from the servile acts of sin.”

This was the Sabbath which they principally looked for in this present life; never applying that name to the Lord’s day in any of those Monuments of Learning they have left behind them. The first who ever used it to denote the Lord’s day (the first that I have met with in all this search), is one Petrus Alfonsus (he lived about the times that Rupertus did:), who calls the Lord’s day by the name of the Christian Sabbath. Dies Dominica, dies viz.

Resurrectionis, quae suae salvationis causa extitit, Christianorum Sabbatum est. But this no otherwise to be construed than by Analogy and resemblance; no otherwise than the Feast of Easter is called the Christian Passover; and Whitsontide, the Christian Pentecost. As for the Saturday, the old Sabbath day, though it continued not a Sabbath, yet it was still held in an high esteem in the Eastern Churches: counted a Festival day, or at least no Fast, and honored with the meetings of the Congregation. In reference to the first, we find how it was charged on the Church of Rome, by the sixth Council of Constantinople, Anno 692, That in the holy time of Lent, *, they used to fast the Saturday: which was directly contrary to the Canons of the Apostles, as they there allege. This also was objected by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, against Pope Nicholas of Rome, Anno 867 and after that, by Michael of Constantinople, against Leo the ninth, Anno 1053. Which plainly shows that in the Eastern Churches they observed it otherwise. And in relation to the other, we find that whereas in the principal Church of Constantinople the holy Sacrament was celebrated only on the greater Feasts, as also on the Saturdays and the Sundays, [Sabbatis & Dominicis] and not on other days, as at Rome it was:

Constantine, surnamed Monomachus, Anno 1054, enriched it with Revenue, and bestowed much fair Place upon it; that so they might be able every day to perform that Office. Which proves sufficiently that Saturday was always one, in all public duties, and that it kept even pace with Sunday. But it was otherwise of old in the Church of Rome, where they did laboborare & jejunare, as Humbertus saith in his defense of Leo the ninth against Nicetas. And this with little opposition or interruption, save that which had been made in the City of Rome in the beginning of the seventh Century, and was soon crushed by Gregory then Bishop there, as before we noted. And howsoever Urban, of that name the second, did consecrate it to the Weekly Service of the Blessed Virgin, and instituted in the Council held at Clermont, Anno 1095, that our Lady’s Office [Officium B. Mariae] should be said upon it; Eandemque Sabbato quoque die, praecipua devotione, populum Christianum colere debere; and that upon that day all Christian folk should worship her with their best devotions; yet it continued still, as before it was, a day of Fasting and of Working. So that in all this time, in 1200 years, we have found no Sabbath; nor do we think to meet with any in the times that follow, either amongst the School-men, or amongst the Protestants, which next shall come upon the Stage.

CHAPTER - WHAT IS THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SCHOOL-MEN AND OF THE PROTESTANTS; AND WHAT THE PRACTICE OF THOSE CHURCHES, IN THIS LORDS DAY BUSINESSE. (1) That in the judgement of the Schoole-men, the keeping of one day in seven, is not the moral part of the fourth Commandement. (2) As also that the Lords day is not founded on Divine Authoritie, but the Authoritie of the Church. (3) A Catalogue of the holy days drawne up, in the Councell of Lyons : and the new doctrine of the Schooles, touching the naturall sanctitie of the holy dayes. (4) In what estate the Lords day stood, in matter of restraint from labor, at the Reformation. (5) The Reformatours finde great fault, both with the said new doctrine, and restraints from labor on the Lords day. (6) That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines, the sanctifying of one day in seven, is not the morall part of the fourth Commandement. (7) As also that the Lords day hath no other ground on which to stand, than the Authority of the Church. (8) And that the Church hath power to change the day, and to transferre it to some other. (9) What is the practice of the Roman, Lutheran, and chiefely the Calvinian Churches on the Lords day, in matter of devotion, rest from labor, and sufference of lawfull pleasures. (10) Dancing cryed downe by Calvin, and the French Churches; not in relation to the Lords day, but the sport it selfe. (11) In What estate the Lords day stands in the Easterne Churches : And that, the Saturday is observed by the Ethiopians, as the Lords day is. (1) WE are now come unto an Age wherein the Learning of the World began to make a different show from what it did: to such a period of time in which was made the greatest alteration in the whole fabric of the Church that ever any time could speak of. The School-men, who sprung up in the beginning of the thirteenth Age, contracted Learning, which before was diffused and scattered, into fine subtleties and distinctions; The Protestants, in the beginning of the sixteenth, endeavoring to destroy those Buildings which with such diligence and curiosity had been erected by the Schoolmen; though they consented well enough in the present business, so far as it concerned the institution either of the Lord’s day or the Sabbath. Of these, and what they taught and did, in reference to the point in hand, we are now to speak; taking along with us such other things of special note as happened in the Christian World, by which we may learn any thing that concerns our business. And first, beginning with the School-men; they tell us generally, of the Sabbath, that it was a Ceremony; and that the fourth Commandment is of a different nature from the other nine: That whereas all the other Precepts of the Decalogue are simply Moral, the fourth, which is the third in their account, is partly Moral, partly Ceremonial. Morale quidem quantum ad hoc, quod homo deputet aliquod tempus vitae suae, ad vacandum divinis, etc. “Moral it is, in this regard, that men must set apart some particular time for God’s public service, it being natural to man to destinate particular times to particular actions: as for his Dinner, for his Sleep, and such other actions. Sed in quantum in hoc Praecepto determinatur speciale tempus in signum Creationis Mundi, sic est Praeceptum Ceremoniale. But in as much as that there is a day appointed in the Law itself, in token of God’s Rest, and the World’s Creation; in that respect the Law is Ceremonial.” And Ceremonial too they make it, in reference to the Allegory, our Savior’s resting in the Grave that day; and in relation to the Analogical meaning of it, as it prefigureth our eternal Rest in the Heaven of Glories. Finally, they conclude of the fourth Commandment that it is placed in the Decalogue, in quantum est Praeceptum Morale, non in quantum est Ceremoniale; only so far forth as it is Moral, and not as Ceremonial: that is, that we are bound by the fourth Commandment to destinate some time to God’s public service, which is simply Moral; but not the seventh day, which is plainly Ceremonial. Aquinas so resolves it for all the rest: his judgment in this point (if Doctor Prideaux’ note be true, as I have no reason but to think so), being universally embraced, and followed by all the School-men, of what Sect soever. So that in him we have them all; all of them consonant in this point, to make up the harmony, however dissonant enough in many others. But yet, that this consent may appear the more full and perfect, we will take notice of two others, men famous in the Schools and eminent for the times in which they lived. First, Bonaventure, who lived in the same time with Aquinas, and died the same year with him, which was 1274, hath determined thus: Intelligendum est quod Praeceptum illud habet aliquid, quod est mere morale, etc. “It is to be conceived, saith he, that in the fourth Commandment there is something which is simply Moral, something again that is plainly ceremonial, and something mixed.

The sanctifying of a day is Moral; the sanctifying of a seventh day, ceremonial: rest from the works of labor being mixed of both.” Quod praecipit Deus sanctificationem, est Praeceptum morale! Est & in hoc praecepto aliquid ceremoniale, ut figuratio diei septimae. Item continetur aliquid quod est partim morale, partim ceremoniale, ut cessatio ab operibus. Lastly, Tostatus, Bishop of Avila in Spain, hath resolved the same: Aliquid est in eo juris naturalis, aliquid legalis: that in the fourth Commandment there is something natural and something legal; that it is partly moral and partly ceremonial. Naturale est quod dum Deum colimus, ab aliis abstineamus, etc. “Moral & natural it is that for the time we worship God, to abstain from every thing of what kind soever which may divert our thoughts from that holy action.” But that we should design, in every week, one day unto that employment; and that the whole day be thereto appointed; and that in all that day a man shall do no manner of work: those things he reckoneth there to be ceremonial. (2) So for the Lord’s day, it is thus determined by Aquinas that it depends on the authority of the Church, the custom and consent of God’s faithful servants, and not on any obligation laid upon us by the fourth Commandment. Dies Dominicae observantiae in nova lege, succedit observantiae Sabbati, non ex vi praecepti legis, sed ex constitutione Ecclesiae & consuetudine populi Christiani. What followeth thereupon? Et ideo non est ita arcta prohibitio operandi, in die Dominica, sicut in die Sabbati. “Therefore, saith he, the prohibition of doing no work on the Lord’s day is not so rigorous and severe, as upon the Sabbath: many things being licensed on the one which were forbidden on the other; as dressing meat and others of that kind and nature.” And not so only, but he gives us a dispensatur facilius in nova lege, an easier hope of dispensation under the Gospel in case upon necessity we meddle with prohibited labors, than possibly could have been gotten under the Law. The like Tostatus tells us, though in different words; save that he doth extend the prohibition as well to all the feasts of the Old Testament as all the holy days of the new; and neither to the Sabbath nor the Lords day only. In veteri lege major fuit strictio in observatione festorum, quam in nova lege. How so? In omnibus enim festivitatibus nostris quantacunque sint, etc. “ Because, saith he, in all our Festivals how great soever, whether they be the Lord’s days, or the Feasts of Easter, or any of the higher rank, it is permitted to dress meat, and to kindle fire, etc. “ As for the grounds whereon they stood, he makes this difference between them: that the Jews’ Sabbath had its warrant from divine Commandment; but that the Lord’s day, though it came in the place thereof, is founded only on ecclesiastical constitution. Colebatur Sabbatum ex mandato Dei, cujus loco successit dies Dominica, & tamen manifestum est, quod observatio diei dominicae, non est de jure divino, sed de jure humano Canonico. “The Sabbath was observed, saith he, by the Lord’s Commandment, unto the place whereof the Lord’s day succeeded; yet notwithstanding it is manifest that the observing of the Lord’s day is not instituted by the Law of God, but the Canon Law, or constitution of the Church.” This is plain enough, and this he proves, because the Church hath still a power mutare illum diem, vel totaliter tollere, either to change the day, or take it utterly away, and to dispense touching the keeping of the same; which possibly it neither could, nor ought to do, were the Lord’s day of any other institution than the Church’s only. They only have the power to repeal a Law, which had power to make it. Qui habet institutionem, habet destitutionem, as is the Bishop’s plea in a Quare Impedit. As for the first of these two powers, that by the Church the day may be transferred, and abrogated, Suarez hath thus distinguished in it: verum id esse absolute, non practice: that is, as I conceive his meaning, that such a power is absolutely in the Church; though not convenient now to be put in practice.

According to that of S. Paul, which probably was the ground of the distinction, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.

This is the general tendry of the Roman Schools, that which is publicly avowed and made good amongst them. And howsoever Petrus de Anchorana, and Nicholas Abbot of Palermo, two learned Canonists; as also Angelus de Clavasio, and Silvester de Prierate, two as learned Casuists; seem to defend the institution of the Lord’s day to have its ground and warrant on divine authority; yet did the general current of the Schools, and of the Canonists also, run the other way. And in that current still it holds, the Jesuits and most learned men in the Church of Rome following the general and received opinion of the Schoolmen; whereof see Bellarm. de cultu Sancti.l.3.c.II; Estius in 3.Sent.dist.37.Sect 13; but specially Azorius, in his Institut. Moral. part.2.cap.2; who gives us an whole Catalogue of them which hold the Lord’s day to be founded only on the authority of the Church. Touching the other power, the power of dispensation, there is not any thing more certain than that the Church both may and doth dispense with such as have therein offended against her Canons. The Canons in themselves do profess as much, there being many casus reservati, as before we said; expressed particularly in those Laws and Constitutions which have been made about the keeping of this Day and the other Festivals; wherein a dispensation lyeth if we disobey them. Many of these we specified in the former Ages; and some occur in these whereof now we write. It pleased Pope Gregory the ninth, Anno 1228 to inhibit all contentious suits on the Lord’s day and the other Festivals; and to inhibit them so far, that judgment given on any of them should be counted void, etiam consentientibus partibus, although both parties were consenting. Yet was it with this clause, or reservation; nisi vel necessitas urgeat, vel pietas suadeat; unless necessity enforced, or piety persuaded that it should be done. So in a Synod holden on Valladolit [apus vallem Oleti] in the parts of Spain, Anno 1322 a general restraint was ratified that had been formerly in force: quod nullus in diebus Dominicis & Festivis, agros colere audeat, aut manualia artificia exercere praesumat, “that none should henceforth follow Husbandry, or exercise himself in Mechanic Trades upon the Lord’s day or the other holy days.” Yet was it with the same Proviso, nisi urgente necessitate, vel evidentis pietatis causa, unless upon necessity, or apparent piety or charity; in each of which, he might have license from the Priest, his own Parish-Priest, to attend his business. Where still observe, that the restraint was no less peremptory on the other holy days than on the Lord’s day. (3) These holy days, as they were named particularly in Pope Gregory’s Decretal; so was a perfect list made of them in the Synod of Lyons, Anno 1244, which being celebrated with a great concourse of people from all parts of Christendom, the Canons and Decrees thereof began forthwith to find a general admittance. The holy days allowed of there were these that follow, viz. the feast of Christ’s Nativity, Saint Stephen, S. John the Evangelist, the Innocents, S. Silvester, the Circumcision of our L O R D, the Epiphany, Easter together with the week precedent and the week succeeding, the three days in Rogation week, the day of Christ’s Ascension, Whitsunday with the two days afer, S. John the Baptist, the Feasts of all the twelve Apostles, all the Festivites of our Lady, S.

Lawrence, all the Lord’s days in the year, S. Michael the Archangel, All Saints, S. Martin’s, the Wakes or Dedication of particular Churches, together with the Feasts of such topical or local Saints which some particular people had been pleased to honor with a day particular amongst themselves. On these and every one of them, the people were restrained, as before was said, from many several kinds of work, on pain of Ecclesiastical Censures to be laid on them which did offend unless, on some emergent causes either of charity or necessity, they were dispensed with for so doing.

In other of the Festivals which had not yet attained to so great an height the Council thought not fit, perhaps by reason of their numbers, that men should be restrained from labor; as neither that they should be encouraged to it, but left them to themselves to bestow those times as might stand best with their affairs and the Common-wealth. For so the Synod did determine, Reliquis festivitatibus quae per annum sunt, non esse plebem cogendam ad feriandum, sed nec prohibendam. And in this state things stood a long time together, there being none that proffered opposition, in reference to these restraints from labor on the greater Festivals; though some there were that thought the Festivals too many on which those burden of restraints had unadvisedly been imposed on the common people. Nicholas de Clemangis complained much, as [of] some other abuses in the Church, so of the multitude of holy days which had of late times been brought into it. And Pet. de Aliaco Cardinal of Cambray, in a discourse by him exhibited to the Council of Constance, made public suit unto the Fathers there assembled that there might be a stop in that kind hereafter; as also that excepting Sundays and the greater Festivals, Liceret operari post auditum officiam, it might be lawful for the people, after the end of Divine Service, to attend their businesses; the poor especially, as having little time enough on the working days, Ad vitae necessaria procuranda, to get their livings. But these were only the expressions of well-wishing men. The Popes were otherwise resolved, and did not only keep the holy days which they found established, in the same state in which they found them; but added others daily, as they saw occasion. At last it came unto that pass, by reason of that rigorous and exact kind of rest which by the Canon Law had been fastened on them, that both the Lord’s day and the other Festivals were accounted holy, not in relation to the use made of them, or to the holy actions done on them in the honor of God; but in and of themselves considered, they were avowed to be vere aliis sanctiores, truly and properly invested with a greater sanctity than the other days. Yet so far did they go at last, that it is publicly maintained in the Schools of Rome, Non sublatam esse, sed mutatam tantum [in novo Testamento] significationem & discretionem dierum; that the difference of days and times, and the mysterious significations of the same which had before been used in the Jewish Church, was not abolished but only changed in the Church of Christ.

Aquinas did first lead this Dance, in fitting every legal Festival with some that were observed in the Christian Church; laying this ground, that ours succeeded in the place of theirs. Sabbatum mutatur in diem Dominicum; similiter aliis solennitatibus veteris legis novae solennitates succedunt: “The Sabbath was translated into the Lord’s day, accordingly to other the solemnities of the old Law, there succeeded new;” as his words there are.

Upon which ground of his were raised the doctrines now remembered, no question; and howsoever other men might think all days alike in themselves considered, yet those of Rome will have some holier than the rest even by a natural and inherent holiness. (4) And in this state things stood, both for the Doctrine and the practice, until such time as men began to look into the errors and abuses in the Church of Rome with a more serious eye than before they did, the Canonists being no less nice in the point of practice than were the Schoolmen, and the rest exorbitant in point of Doctrine. Whose niceties, especially in matter of restraint, we have most fully represented to us by Tostatus: one that had run through all the parts of Learning at that time on foot, and was as well studied in the Canon as in the Schools. He then determineth of it thus: Itinerando pro negotiis peccatum esse mortale, etc.

He that doth travail on the holy days (for in that general name the Lord’s day, and other Festivals, are comprehended) about worldly business, commits mortal sin; as also if he Trade or Traffic in the place wherein he liveth. But this hath two exceptions, or reservations: First, if the business by him done be but small and light, Quae quietem Sabbati non impediunt, such as are no great hindrance to the Sabbath’s rest, and secondly, Nisi hoc sit in causa pia, unless it were on some devout and pious purpose. To read unto, or teach a man; to deal in actions of the Law, or determine suits, or to cast accounts, Si quis doceret ut lucretur, if it be done for hire, or for present gain, become servile works and are forbidden; otherwise if one do it gratis. If a Musician wait upon a Gentleman, to recreate his mind with Music, and that they are agreed on a certain wages, or that he be hired only for a present turn, he sins, in case he play or sing unto him on the holy days: but not if his reward be doubtful, and depends only upon the bounty of the parties who enjoy his Music. A Cook which on the holy days is hired to make a feast, or to dress a dinner, doth commit mortal sin, sed non pro toto mense aut anno, but not if he be hired by the month or by the year. Meat may be dressed upon the Lord’s day or the other holy days; but to wash dishes on those days was esteemed unlawful, Et differri in diem alteram, and was so to be deferred till another day.

Lawyers, that do their Client’s business for their wonted fee, were not to draw their Bills, or frame their answers, or peruse their Evidences on the holy days; Secus si causam agerent pro miserabilibus personis, etc. But it was otherwise if they dealt for poor indigent people, such as did sue in forma Pauperis, as we call it: or in the causes of a Church, or Hospital, in which the Popes had pleased to grant a dispensation. A man that traveled on the holy days to any special shrine or Saint, did commit no sin, Si autem in redeundo, peccatum est mortale; but if he did the like in his coming back, he then sinned mortally. In any place where formerly it had been the custom neither to draw water nor to sweep the house, but to have those things ready on the day before; the custom was to be observed: where no such custom is, there they may be done. Actions of long continuance, if they were delightful, as if one played three or four hours together on a Musical Instrument, were not unlawful on the holy days; yet possibly they might be sinful, Ut si quis hoc ageret ex lascivia, as if one played only out of wantonness, or otherwise were so intent upon his Music that he went not to Mass. Artificers which work on the holy days for their own profit only are in mortal sin, unless the work be very small. Quia modicum non facit solennitatem dissolui, because a little thing dishonors not the Festival:

De minimis non curat lex, as our saying is. Contrary, Butchers, Vintners, Bakers, Costermongers, sinned not in selling their commodities, because more profit doth redound to the Common-wealth, which cannot be without such commodities, than to them that sell; yet this extended not to Drapers, Shoemakers, or the like, because there is not such a present necessity for new clothes, as meat. Yet where the custom was that Butchers did not sell on the holy days, but specially not upon the Lord’s day: that commendable custom was to be observed; though in those places also, it was permitted to the Butcher that on those days, at some convenient times thereof, he might make ready what was to be sold on the morrow after, as kill and skin his bestial which were fit for sale; in case he could not do it with so much convenience [non ita congrue] at another time. To write out or transcribe a Book, though for a man’s own private use, was esteemed unlawful, except it were exceeding small, because this put no difference between the holy days and the other; yet was it not unlawful neither, in case the Argument were spiritual, nor for a Preacher to write out his Sermons, or for a Student to provide his Lecture for the day following. Windmills were suffered to be used on the holy dyas, not Watermills: because the first required less labor and attendance than the other did. This is the reason in Tostatus, though I can see no reason in it; the passage of the water being once let run, being of more certainty and continuance than the changeable blowing of the wind. But to proceed, Ferry-men were not to transport such men in their Boats or Wherries, as did begin their journey on an holy day, unless they went to Mass or on such occasions; but such as had begun their journey, and now were in pursuit thereof, might be ferried over, Quia forte carebunt victu, because they may perhaps want victuals if they do not pass.

To repair Churches on the Lord’s day and other holy days, was accounted lawful, in case the Workmen did it gratis and that the Church were poor, not able to hire Workmen on the other days; not if the Church were rich and in case to do it. So also to build Bridges, repair the Walls of Towns and Cities, or other public edifices, on those days, was not held unlawful, Si instent hostes, in case the enemy be at hand; though otherwise not to be done, where no danger was. These are the special points observed and published by Tostatus. And these I have the rather exactly noted, partly that we may see in what estate the Lord’s day and the other holy days were in the Church of Rome, what time the reformation of Religion was first set on foot; but principally to let others see how near they come in their new fancies and devices, unto the niceties of those men whom they most abhor. (5) Thus stood it, as before I said, both for the Doctrine and the practice, till men began to look into the errors and abuses in the Roman Church with a more serious eye than before they did; and at first sight they found what little pleased them in this particular. Their doctrine pleased them not, in making one day holier than another; not only in relation to the use made of them, but to a natural and inherent holiness, wherewith they thought they were invested. Nor did their practice please much more, in that they had imposed so many burdens of restraint upon the consciences of God’s people, and thereby made that day a punishment, which was intended for the ease of the laboring man. Against the doctrine of these men and the whole practice of that Church, Calvin declares himself in his Book of Institutions; And therewith taxeth those of Rome, Qui Iudaica opinione populum superioribus seculis imbuerunt, “who in the times before possessed the people’s minds with so much Judaism that they had changed the day indeed, as in dishonor of the Jew, but otherwise retained the former sanctity thereof; which needs must be, saith he, if there remain with us (as the Papists taught) the same opinion of the mysteries and various significations of days and times, which the Jews once had. And certainly, saith he, we see what dangerous effects have followed on so false a doctrine, those which adhere to their instructions having exceedingly outgone the Jews, Crassa carnalique Sabbatismi superstitione, in their gross and carnal superstitions about the Sabbath.” Beza his Scholar and Acates, sings the self-same Song, that howsoever the assemblies of the Lord’s day were of Apostolical and divine tradition, Sic tamen ut Iudaica cessatio ab omni opere non observaretur, quoniam hoc plane fuisset judaismum non abolere, sed tantum, quod ad diem attinet, immutare; “yet so that there was no cessation from work required, as was observed among the Jews. For that, saith he, had not so much abolished Judaism, as put it off and changed it to another day. And then he adds that thus cessation was first brought in by Constantine, and afterwards confirmed with more and more restraints by the following Emperors; by means of which it came to pass that that which first was done for a good intent, viz. that men being free from their worldly business, might wholly give thimselves to hearing of the Word of God, In merum Judaismum, degenerarit, degenerated at the last into downright Judaism.” So for the Lutheran Churches Chemnitius challengeth the Romanists of superstition, Quasi Dominicae diei & reliquis diebus festis, per se, peculiaris quaedam insit sanctitas, because they taught the people that the holy days, considered only in themselves had a native Sanctity.

And however for his part he thinks it requisite that men should be restrained from all such works as may be any hindrance unto the sanctifying of the Day, yet he accounts it but a part of the Jewish leaven; Nimis scrupolose diebus festis prohibere operas externas, quae vel quando, non impediunt publicum ministerium; “so scrupulously to prohibit such external Actions which are at all no hindrance to God’s public service.”

Bucer goes further yet, and doth not only call it a superstition but an apostasy fromCHRIST, to think that working on the Lord’s day, in itself considered, is a sinful thing. Si existimetur operari in eo die, per se, esse peccatum, superstitio, & gratiae Christi, qui ab elementis mundi nos suo sanguine liberavit, negatio est; as his own words are. Then adds, “that he did very well approve of the Lord’s day meetings, Si examitur e cordibus hominum opinio necessitatis, if men were once dispossessed of these opinions that the day was necessary to be kept; that it was holier in itself than the other days; and that to work upon that day was in itself sinful.”

Lastly, the Churches of the Switzers possess in their Confession that in the keeping of the Lord’s day, they give not the least hint to any Jewish superstitions. Neque enim alteram diem altera sanctiorem esse credimus, nec otium Deo, per se, probari existimamus. “For neither (as they said) do we conceive one day to be more holy than another; or think that rest from labor, in itself considered, is any way pleasing unto GOD.” By which we plainly may perceive what is the judgment of Protestant Churches in the present point. (6) Indeed it is not to be thought that they could otherwise resolve and determine of it, considering what their doctrine is of the day itself; how different they make it from a Sabbath day: which doctrine that we may perceive with the greater ease, we will consider it in three propositions, in which most agree: 1. That the keeping holy one day of seven, is not the Moral part of the fourth Commandment, or to be reckoned as a part of the Law of Nature; 2. That the Lord’s day is not founded on Divine Commandment, but only on the authority of the Church; and 3. That the Church hath still authority to change the day, and to transfer it to some other.

First for the first, it seems that some of Rome, considering the restraints before remembered and the new doctrine thence arising, about the natural and inherent holiness which one day had above another, had altered what was formerly delivered amongst the Schoolmen; and made the keeping of one day in seven to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandment. This Calvin chargeth them withal, whatsoever was ceremonial in the fourth Commandment, which was the keeping of the Jews’ seventh day, had been long since abrogated: Remanere vero quod morale est, nempe unius diei observationem in hebdomade, “but that the moral part thereof, which was the keeping of one day in seven, did continue still. With what else is it, as before we said, than in dishonor of the Jews, to change the day, and to affix as great a sanctity thereunto as the Jews ever did.” As for his own part he professeth that howsoever he approved of the Lord’s day meetings, Non tamen numerum septenarium ita se morari, ut ejus servituti ecclesias astringeret; yet stood not he so much for the number of seven as to confine the Church unto it.” If Calvin else- where be of another mind, and speak of keeping holy one day in seven as a matter necessary (which some say he doth); either they must accuse him of much inconstancy and forgetfulness, or else interpret him, with Ryvet, as speaking of an ecclesiastical custom not to be neglected, non de necessitate legis divinae, and not of any obligation laid upon us by the Law of God. Neither is he the only one that hath so determined. Simler hath said it more expressly: Quod dies una cultui divino consecretur, ex lege naturae est; quod autem haec sit septima, non actava, nona, aut decima, juris est divini, sed ceremonialis: “That one day should be set apart for God’s public worship is the Law of nature; but that this day should be the seventh, and not the eighth, ninth, or tenth, was of divine appointment; but as ceremonial. Aretius also in his Common Places, distinguished between “the substance of the Sabbath, and the time thereof; the substance of it, which was rest and the works of piety, being in all times to continue; tempus autem, ut septimo die observetur, hoc non fuit necessarium in ecclesia Christi; but for the time, to keep it on the seventh day always, that was not necessary in the Church of Christ.” So also Francisc. Gomarus, that great undertaker against Arminius, in a Book written purposely, De origine & institutione Sabbati, affirms for certain that it can neither be made good by the Law of Nature, or Text of Scripture, or any solid argument drawn from thence, Unum e septem diebus ex vi praecepti quarti ad cultum Dei necessario observandum, that by the fourth Commandment, one day in seven is of necessity to be dedicated to God’s service. And Ryvet, as profess an enemy of the Remonstrants, though for the antiquity of the Sabbath he differeth from the said Gomarus; yet he agreeth with him in this: not only making the observance of one day in seven to be merely positive, as in our first part we observed; but lays it down for the received opinion of most of the Reformed Divines, Unum ex septem diebus, non esse necessario eligendum, ex vi praecepti, ad sacros conventus celebrandos; the very same with what Gomarus affirmed before. So lastly for the Lutheran Churches, Chemnitius makes it part of our Christian liberty, quod nec sint alligati nec debeant alligari ad certorum, vel dierum vel temporum observationes, opinione necessitatis, in Novo Testamento, etc. “That men are neither bound, nor ought to be, unto the observation of any days, or times, as matters necessary, under the Gospel of our Savior: though otherwise he account it for a barbarous folly not to observe that day with all due solemnity, which hath for so long time been kept by the Church of God.”

Therefore in his opinion also, the keeping of one day in seven is neither any moral part of the fourth Commandment, or parcel of the Law of Nature.

As for the subtle shift of Amesius’ finding, that keeping holy of one day in seven is positive indeed; Sed immutabilis plane institutionis, but such a positive Law as it is absolutely immutable; and doth as much oblige, as those which in themselves are plainly natural and moral: it may then serve, when there is nothing else to help us. For that a positive law should be immutable in itself; and in its own nature, be as universally binding, as the moral law; is such a piece of learning, and of contradiction, as never was put up to show in these latter times. But he had learnt his lirry in England, here; and durst not broach it but by halves, amongst the Hollanders. (7) For the next Thesis, that the Lord’s day is not founded on divine Commandment, but the authority of the Church: it is a point so universally resolved on, as no one thing more. And first we will begin with Calvin, who tells us how it was not without good reason that those of old appointed the Lord’s day, as we call it, to supply the place of the Jewish Sabbath. Non sine delectu, Dominicum, quem vocamus diem, veteres in locum Sabbati subrogarunt, as his words there are. Where none, I hope, will think that he would give our Savior Christ, or his Apostles such a short come off, as to include them in the name of Veteres only: which makes it plain, that he conceived it not to be their appointment. Bucer resolves the point more clearly, Communi Christianorum consensu Dominicum diem publicis Ecclesiae conventibus ac requieti publicae, dictatum esse, ipso statim Apostolorum tempore: viz. “That in the Apostles’ times, the Lord’s day by common consent of Christian people was dedicated unto public rest and the assemblies of the Church. And Peter Martyr, upon a question asked, why the old seventh day was not kept in the Christian Church; makes answer, That upon that day, and on all the rest, we ought to rest from our own works, the works of sin. Sed quod is magis quam ille, eligatur ad externum Dei cultum, liberum fuit Ecclesiae per Christum, ut id consuleret quod ex re magis judicaret: nec illa pessime judicavit, etc. “That this was rather chose than that for God’s public service, that, saith he, Christ left totally unto the liberty of the Church, to do therein what should seem most expedient; and that the Church did very well in that she did prefer the memory of the resurrection before the memory of the creation.

These two I have the rather thus joined together, as being sent for into England in King Edward’s time, and placed by the Protector in our Universities, the better to establish reformation at that time begun; and doubt we not, but that they taught the self-same Doctrine (if at the least they touched at all upon that point) with that now extant in their writings.

At the same time with them lived Bullinger, and Gualter, two great learned men. Of these, the first informs us, Hunc diem, loco Sabbati, in memoriam resurgentis Domini delegisse sibi Ecclesias, that “in memorial of our Savior’s Resurrection, the Churches set apart this day, in the Sabbath’s stead, whereon to hold their solemn and religious meetings.” And after, Sponte receperunt Ecclesiae illam diem, non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam, “that of their own accord, and by their own authority, the Church made choice thereof for the use aforesaid; it being no where to be found that it was commanded.” Gualter more generally, that the Christians first assembled on the Sabbath day, as being then most famous and so most in use; but when the Churches were augmented, Proximus a Sabbato dies, rebus sacris destinatus, the next day after the Sabbath was designed to those holy uses. If not before, then certainly not so commanded by our Savior Christ; and if designed only, then not enjoined by the Apostles. Yet Beza though herein he differ from his Master, Calvin, and makes the Lord’s day meetings, Apostolica & verae divinae traditionis, to be indeed of Apostolical and divine tradition; yet being a tradition only, although Apostolical, it is no commandment. And more than that, he tells us in another place that from Saint Paul’s preaching at Troas, and from the Text, 1 Corinthians 16.2; Non inepte colligi, it may be gathered not unfitly, that then the Christians were accustomed to meet that day, the ceremony of the Jewish Sabbath beginning by degrees to vanish. But sure the custom of the people makes no divine traditions; and such conclusions, as not unfitly may be gathered from the Text, are not Text itself. Others there be who attribute the changing of the day to the Apostles; not to their Precept, but their practice. So Mercer, Apostoli in Dominicum converterunt, the Apostles changed the Sabbath to the Lord’s day. Paraeus attributes the same, Apostolicae Ecclesiae, unto the Apostolical Church, or Church in the Apostles’ time: Quomodo autem facta sit haec mutatio in Sacris Literis expressum non habemus; “but how, by what authority such a change was made, is not delivered (as he confesseth) in the Scripture. And John Cuchlinus, though he call it consuetudinem Apostolicam, an Apostolical custom; yet he is peremptory, that the Apostles gave no such Commandment: Apostolos Praeceptum reliquisse, constanter negamus. So Simler calls it only consuetudinem tempore Apostolorum receptant, a custom taken up in the Apostles’ time. And so Hospinian: “Although, saith he, it be apparent that the Lord’s day was celebrated in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, even in those times of the Apostles; Non invenitur tamen vel Apostolos, vel alios, Lege aliqua & Praecepto, observationem ejus instituisse; yet find we not that either they, or any other, did institute the keeping of the same by any Law or Precept, but left it free.” Thus Zanchius: Nullibi legimus Apostolos, etc. “We do not read, saith he, that the Apostles commanded any to observe this day; we only read, what they and others did upon it, Liberum ergo reliquerunt: which is an argument that they left it to the Church’s power.” To those, add Ursin in his exposition on the fourth Commandment: Liberum Ecclesiae reliquit alios dies eligere, that it was left unto the Church to make choice of any day, and that the Church made choice of this, in honor of our Savior’s Resurrection. And so Aretius in his Common Places: Christiani in Dominicum transtulerunt; that by the Christian people, the Sabbath was translated to the Lord’s day.

Gomarus, and Rybet, in the Tracts before remembered, have determined further, viz. That in the choosing of this day, the Church did exercise as well her Wisdom, as her Freedom: her Freedom, being not obliged unto any day by the Law of God: her Wisdom, Ne majori mutatione Judaeos offenderet; that by so small an alteration, she might the less offend the Jews, who were then considerable. As for the Lutheran Divines, it is affirmed by Doctor Bound, That for the most part they ascribe too much unto the liberty of the Church, in appointing days for the assembly of the people; which is plain confession. But for particulars; Brentius, as Doctor Prideaux tells us, calls it Civilem Institutionem, a Civil Institution, and no Commandment of the Gospel. Which is no more indeed, than what is elsewhere said by Calvin when he accounts no otherwise thereof than, ut remedium retinendo ordini necessarium, as a fit way to retain order in the Church. And sure I am, Chemnitius tells us that the Apostles did not impose the keeping of this day as necessary, upon the Consciences of God’s people, by any Law or Precept whatsoever: sed libera fuit observatio ordinis gratia; but that for order’s sake, it had been voluntarily used amongst them, of their own accord. (8) Thus have we proved, that by the Doctrine of the Protestants, of what side soever, and those of greatest credit in their several Churches, eighteen by name, and all the Lutherans in general, of the same opinion: That the Lord’s day is of no other institution than the Authority of the Church.

Which proved, the last of the three Theses, That still the Church hath power to change the day, and to transfer it to some other, will follow of itself on the former grounds: the Protestant Doctors before remembered, in saying that the Church did institute the Lord’s day, as we see they do; confessing tacitly, that still the Church hath power to change it. Nor do they tacitly confess it, as if they were afraid to speak it out; but some of them in plain terms affirm it as a certain truth. Zuinglius, the first reformer of the Switzers, hath resolved it so, in his Discourse against one Valentine Gentilis, a new Arian Heretic. Audi mi Valentine, quibus modis & rationibus, Sabbatum Ceremoniale reddatur: “Harken now, Valentine, by what ways and means the Sabbath may be made a Ceremony: if either we observe that day which the Jews once did, or think the Lord’s day so affixed unto any time, ut nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transferre, that we conceive it an impiety, it should be changed unto another; on which, as well as upon that, we may not rest from labor, and harken to the Word of God: if perhaps such necessity should be, this would indeed make it become a Ceremony.” Nothing can be more plain that this. Yet Calvin is as plain when he professeth, That he regarded not so much the number of seven, ut ejus servituti Eccliesias astringeret, as to enthrall the Church unto it. Sure I am, Doctor Prideaux reckoneth him as one of them who teach us that the Church hath power to change the day, and to transfer it to some other: And that John Barclaie makes report, how once he had a Consultation, de transferenda Dominica in Feriam quintam, of altering the Lord’s day unto the Thursday. Bucer affirms as much, as touching the Authority; and so doth Bullinger, and Brentius, Ursine, and Chemnitius, as Doctor Prideaux hath observed. Of Bullinger, Bucer, Brentius, I have nought to say, because the places are not cited; but take it, as I think I may, upon his credit. But for Chemnitius, he saith often that it is libera observatio, a voluntary observation; that it is an especial part of our Christian liberty, not to be tied to days and times in matters which concern God’s service; and that the Apostles made it manifest by their example, Singulis diebus, vel quocunque die, That every day, or any day, may by the Church be set apart for Religious Exercises. And as for Ursine, he makes this difference between the Lord’s day and the Sabbath, “that it was utterly unlawful to the Jews, either to neglect or change the Sabbath, without express Commandment from God himself, as being a Ceremonial part of divine worship: but for the Christian Church, that may design the first, or second, or any other day to God’s public service; so that our Christian liberty be not thereby infringed, or any opinion of necessity or holiness affixed unto them: Ecclesia vero Christiana primum, vel alium die, tribuit Ministerio, salva sua libertate, sine opinione cultus vel necessitatis; as his words there are. To these, add Dietericus, a Lutheran Divine who, though he makes the keeping of one day in seven to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandment, yet for that day, it may be dies Sabbati, or dies Solis, or quicunque alius, Sunday, or Saturday, or any other, be it one in seven. And so Hospinian is persuaded: Dominicum diem mutare & in alium transferre licet, etc. “That if the occasions of the Church do require, the Lord’s day may be changed unto any other, provided it be one of seven; and that the change be so transacted that it produce no scandal or confusion in the Church of God.” Nay, by the Doctrine of the Helvetian Churches, every particular Church may destinate what day they please to Religious Meetings, to public Prayers, Preaching the Word, and ministering the Sacraments. For so they give it up in their Confession: Deligit ergo quaevis Ecclesia sibi certum tempus ad preces publicas, & Evangelii praedicationem, nec non Sacramentorum celebrationem. And howsoever, for their own parts, they kept that day which had been set apart for those holy uses, even from the time of the Apostles; yet, that they conceived it free, to keep the Lord’s day, or the Sabbath; Sed & Dominicum, non Sabbatum, libera observatione, celebramus. Some Sectaries, since the Reformation, have gone further yet, and would have had all days alike as unto their use; all equally to be regarded: and reckoned that the Lord’s day, as the Church continued it, was a Jewish Ordinance; thwarting the Doctrine of Saint Paul, who seemed to them to abrogate that difference of days which the Church restrained. This was the fancy, or the frenzy rather of the Anabaptist, taking the hint perhaps from something which had been formerly delivered by some wiser men; as in the times before, of the Petro- Brusians and (if Waldensees wrong him not) of Wycliffe also. (9) Such being the dotrine of those Churches, the Protestant, and those of Rome, it is not to be thought but that their practice is according: Both make the Lord’s day only an Ecclesiastical constitution, and therefore keep it so far forth, as by the Canons of their Churches, they are enjoined. These what they are at Rome, and those of her obedience, we have seen already; and little hath been added since. It hath not been of late a time to make new restraints; rather to mitigate the old, to lay down such which were most burdensome and grievous to be borne withal. And so it seems they do, Azorius the Jesuit being more remiss in stating and determining the restraints imposed on the Lord’s day and the other holy days, than Tostatus was, who lived in safer times by far than these now present; nor is their Discipline so severe as their Canon, neither. So that the Lord’s day there, for ought I could observe when I was amongst them, is solemnized much after the same manner as with us in England: repairing to the Church, both at Mass and Vespers, riding abroad or walking forth to take the air or otherwise to refresh themselves, and following their honest pleasures at such leisure times as are not destinate to the public meetings; the people not being barred from traveling about their lawful business, as occasion is, so they reserve some time for their devotions in the public. Which is indeed agreeable to the most ancient and most laudable custom in the Church of God. Now for the Protestant Churches, the Lutherans do not differ much from that which we have said before, of the church of Rome; and therefore there is nothing to be said of them. But for the rest which follow Calvin, and think themselves the only Orthodox and reformed Churches, we will consider them in three several circumstances: first, in the exercise of Religious duties; secondly, in restraint from Labors; and thirdly, in permission of Recreations. And first, for the exercise of Religious duties, they use it in the morning only; the afternoon being left at large for any and for every man to dispose thereof as to him seems fitting. So is it in the Churches of high Germany, those of the Palatinate, and all the others of that mold. For I have heard from Gent. of good repute, That at the first reception of the Lady Elizabeth into that Country, on Sunday after Dinner the Coaches and the Horses were brought forth; and all the Prince’s Court betook themselves unto their pleasures, Hunting or Hawking, as the season of the year was fit for either. Which, when it seemed strange at first to those English Lords and Gentlemen which did attend the Princess thither, answer was made, it was their custom so to do; and that they had no Evening-Service, but ended all the public duties of the Day with the Morning Sermon. Nor is this Custom only, and nor more but so: there is a Canon for it, in some places; it must be no otherwise. For in the first Council of Dort, Anno 1574 it was decreed, Publicae Vespertinae preces non sunt introducendae, ubi non sunt introductae; ubi sunt, tollantur: “That in such Churches where public Evening Prayer had not been admitted, it should continue as it was; and where they were admitted, they should be put down.” So Doctor Smith relates the Canon (if so irregular a Decree may deserve that name) in his Collat. Doctr. Cathol. & Protest. cap.68.

Art.I. And so it stood till the last Synod of Dort, Anno 1618, what time, to raise the reputation of the Palatine Catechism, being not long after to be admitted into their Canon, it was concluded that Catechism-Lectures should be read each Sunday in the after-noon; not to be laid aside, propter auditorum infrequentiam, for want of Auditors. Now to allure the people thither, being before staved off by a former Synod, it was provided that their Ministers should read howsoever, Coram paucis auditoribus, immo vel coram suis famulis tantum. Though few were present, or none but their domestic servants; in hope by little and little to attract the people. And secondly it was resolved on, to implore the Civil Magistrate, Ut opera omnia servilia, seu quotidiana, etc. quibus tempus pomeridianum diebus Dominicis maxime in pagis, plerunque transigi soleret; “That by their Edicts they would restrain all servile works, the works of ordinary days; and especially, Games, Drinking-Matches, and other profanations of the Sabbath, wherewith the after-noon, or Sundays, chiefly in smaller towns and Villages, had before been spent; that so the people might repair to the Catechizing. By which we also may perceive that there was no restraint on Sundays in the after-noon, from any kind of servile Works or daily labors; but that men might and did apply themselves to their several businesses, as on other days. As for the greater Towns, there is scarce any of them wherein there are not Fairs and Markets, Kirk-Masses as they use to call them, upon the Sunday: and those as much frequented in the after-noon, as were the Churches in the fore-noon. A thing from which they could not hold, not in Dort itself, what time the Synod was assembled. Nor had it now been called upon, as it is most likely, had not Amesius, and some others of our English Malcontents, scattered abroad Bound’s Principles amongst the Netherlands, which they had sown before in England. And certainly they had made as strong a Faction there, before this time; their learned men beginning to bandy one against the other, in the debates about the Sabbath; but that the livelihood of the States, consisting most on trade and traffic, cannot spare any day, Sunday no more than any other, from venting their commodities and providing others. So that in general, the Lord’s day is no otherwise observed with them (though somewhat better than it was twelve years ago) than an half-holiday is with us: the morning though not all of that, unto the Church; the after-noon, to their employments. So for the French and German Churches, we may perceive by their Divines, Calvin and Beza, and Martin Bucer, who do so highly charge the Romanist for the restraint of working on the Lord’s day; that they were well enough content to allow the same. And for the Churches of the Switzers, Zuinglius avoweth it to be lawful, Die Dominico peractis sacris laboribus incumbere, “On the Lord’s day after the end of Divine Service, for any man to follow and pursue his labors; as commonly we do, saith he, in the time of harvest.” Indeed the Polish Churches formerly decreed in two several Synods, the one at Cracow Ann. 1573; the other at Petricow, An. 1578; Vt Domini in suis ditionibus prohibeant Dominicus diebus nundinas, annuas, & Septimanales; “That Lords of Manors (as we call them) should not permit on the Lord’s day, either Fairs or Markets, in any of the Towns unto them belonging: Neque iisdem diebus colones suos ullos laboribus aut vecturis onerent, nor on those days employ their Tenants in carriages or such servile labors.” But this was rather done to please the Lutherans amongst whom, and those of the Communion of the Church of Rome under whom they live, than out of any principle or example of those Churches whom they chiefly followed. For recreations last of all, there is no question to be made but that where working is permitted, and most kind of business, a man may lawfully enjoy himself and his honest pleasures; and without danger of offense pursue those pasimes by which the mind may be refreshed and the spirits quickened. Already have we told you what the custom is in the Palatine Churches. And for the Belgic, besides it was before declared from the Synod of Dort, touching the usual spending of that day in Games and drinking matches; their four great Doctors, Polyander, Ryvet, Thysius, and Waleus make recreation to be part of the Sabbath’s rest: Et inter fines Sabbati esse, and to be reckoned as a principal intent thereof. Even in Geneva itself, the mother Church unto the rest, as Robert Johnson tells us in his enlargement of Boterus. “All honest Exercises, shooting in Pieces, Long- bows, Crossbows, etc. are used on the Sabbath day, and that in the morning both before and after Sermon: neither do the ministers find fault therewith, so they hinder not from hearing of the Word at the time appointed.” Indeed there is no reason why they should find fault; the practice so directly rising, upon their principles. (10) Dancing indeed they do not suffer, either in Geneva, or the French Churches (though not prohibited for ought I can learn, in either Germany or any of the Lutheran Kingdoms); but this not in relation to the day, but the sport itself, which absolutely they have forbidden on all days whatever.

Calvin took great offense thereat (of so austere a life would he have the people) and kept a great ado about it in Geneva where he lived amongst them, as he doth thus relate the story to his Friend Farellus. Corneus, and Perinus, two of special power and quality in that City, together with one of the Syndics (which is one of the four chief Officers of the Commonwealth), one of the Elders named Hemrichus, and some others of their Friends, being merry at an invitation, fell to dancing. Notice hereof being given to Calvin, by some false brother, they were all called into the Consistory, excepting Corneus and Perinus; and being interrogated thereupon, Impudenter Deo & nobis mentiti sunt, they lied, saith he, most impudently unto God and us. (Most Apostolically said.) At that, saith he, I grew offended, as the indignity of the thing deserved; and they persisting in their contumacy, Censui et jure-jurando ad veri confessionem adigerentur, I thought it fit to put them to their oaths about it. So said, so done; and they not only did confess their former dancing, but that that very day, they had been dancing in the house of one Balthasat’s Widow. On this confession he proceeded unto the censure, which certainly was sharp enough for so small a fault (for a fault it was, if he would have it); the Syndic being displaced, the Elder turned out of his office, Perryn and his Wife both clapped in prison and all the rest, pudore confusi, put to open shame. This was in Anno 1546. And afterwards, considering how much he disliked it, their Ministers and Preachers cryed down dancing as a most sinful and unchristian pastime, and published divers Tracts against it. At last in Anno 1571 it was concluded in a Synod held at Rochel, and made to be a part of their public discipline, viz. That All Congregations should be admonished by their Ministers, seriously to reprehend and suppress all Dances, Mummeries, and Enterludes; as also that all Dancing-Masters, or those who make any dancing meetings, after they have been oft admonished to desist, ought to be excommunicate for that their contumacy and disobedience. Which rigidness of theirs, as it is conceived, considering how the French do delight in dancing, hath been no small impediment unto the general entertainment of the reformed Religion in that Kingdom. So great is their delight therein, and with such eagerness they pursue it when they are at leisure from their business, that as it seems, they do neglect the Church on the holy days, that they may have the more time to attend their dancing. Upon which ground it was, and not that dancing was conceived to be no lawful sport for the Lord’s day, that in the Council of Sens, An. 1524; in that of Paris, Anno 1557; in those of Rheims, and Tours, Anno 1583; and finally in that of Bourges, Anno 1584 dancing on Sundays, and then the other holy days, hath been prohibited; prohibited indeed, but practiced by the people, notwithstanding all their Canons. But this concerns the French, and their Churches only: our Northern Nations not being so bent upon the sport as to need restraint. Only the Polish Churches did conclude in the Synod of Petricow before remembered, that Tevernmeetings, drinking-matches, Dice, Cards, and such like pastimes, as also Musical Instruments and dances, should on the Lord’s day be forbidden.

But then it followeth with this clause, Praesertim eo temporis momento quo concio & cultus divinus in templo peragitur, “especially at that instant time when men should be at Church to hear the Sermon and attend God’s worship.” Which clearly shows that they prohibited dancing and the other pastimes then recited, no otherwise than as they were a means to keep men from Church. Probably also they might be induced unto it by such French Protestants as came into that Country with the Duke of Anjou, when he was chosen K. of Poland, Anno 1574, which was 4 years before this Council. (11) As for the Churches of the East, being now heavily oppressed with Turkish bondage, we have not very much to say. Yet by that little which we find thereof, it seems the Lord’s day keeps that honor which before it had; and that the Saturday continues in the same regard wherein once it was: both of them counted days of feasting and both retained for the assemblies of the Church. First that they are both days of feasting, or at the least exempted from their public Fasts, appears by that which is related by Christopher Angelo, a Grecian whom I knew in Oxford, *, “that on the Saturday and Sunday, which we call the Lord’s day, they do both eat Oil and drink wine, even in Lent itself; whereas on other days they feed on pulse and drink only water. Then that they both are still retained for the assemblies of the Church, with other Holy days, he tells us in another place, where it is said, *, etc. “That for the Lord’s day, and the Saturday, and the other Festivals, they use to go unto the Church on the Eve before, and almost at midnight; where they continue till the breaking up of the Congregation.” For the Aegyptian Christans, or Coptics, as we call them now, it is related by G. Sandys, “that on the Saturday presently after midnight, they repair unto their Churches, where they remain well nigh until Sunday at noon; during which they neither sit, nor kneel, but support themelves on Crutches; and that they sing over the most part of David’s Psalms at every meeting, with divers parcels of the old and new Testament.” He hath informed us also of the Armenians, another sort of Eastern Christians, that coming into the place of the Assembly on Sunday in the afternoon, “he found one sitting in the midst of the Congregation, in habit not differing from the rest, reading on a Bible in the Chaldean tongue; that anon after came the Bishop in an Hood or vest of black, with a staff in his hand; that first he prayed, and then sung certain Psalms assisted by two or three; after, all of them singing jointly, at interims praying to themselves; the Bishop all this while with his hands erected, and face towards the Altar.

That Service being ended, they all kissed his hand, and bestowed their Alms, he laying his other hand on their heads and blessing them; finally that bidding the succeeding Fasts, and Festivals, he dismissed the Assembly.”

This the behavior of these Eastern Christians in the public places of assembly. As for the residue of the day, which is not destinate to religious meetings, they neither bar themselves thereon, either from necessary business, or lawful pleasures; but freely give themselves to dancing in the open streets, and other meetings of good Neighborhood, in all things using it as a festival day, not as a Sabbath. And this not only in small Towns and petty Villages, where their behavior might be perhaps the more remiss; but in their very principal Cities, even in Constantinople itself, the supreme of all, under the eye and with the knowledge of their Superiors in the Lord; as I have credibly been informed by a worthy Gentleman who spent much time therein, and other places of those parts, in the public service of this Kingdom. The Muscovites, being near unto the Greeks, and once within the jurisdiction of the Partriarch of Constantinople, partake much also of their customs. They count it an unlawful thing to fast the Saturday, which shows that somewhat is remaining of that esteem in which once they had it; and for the holy days, Sundays as well as any other, they do not hold themselves so strictly to them but that the Citizens & Artificers, immediately after Divine services, betake themselves unto their labors and domestic businesses. And this, most probably, is the custom also of all the Churches of the East, as holding a communion with the Church of Greece, though not subordinate thereunto; from the which Church of Greece, the faith was first delivered unto these Muscovites, as before was said; and with the faith, the observation of this day and all the other holy days, at that time in use. As for the Country people, as Gaguinus tells us, they seldom celebrate or observe any day at all, at least, not with that care and order as they ought to do; saying, that it belongs only unto Lords and Gentlemen to keep holy days. Last of all, for the Habassines , or Ethiopian Christians, though further off in situation, they come as near unto the fashions of the ancient Grecians. Of them we are informed by M. Brerewood, out of Damiani, “that they reverence the Sabbath, keeping it solemn equally with the Lord’s day.” Scaliger tells us that they call both of them by the name of Sabbaths; the one the first, and the other, the latter Sabbath: or in their own language, the one Sanbath Sacristos, that is Christ’s Sabbath; the other, Sanbath Judi, or the Jews’ Sabbath. Bellarmine thinks that they derived this observation of the Saturday or Sabbath, from the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens; which indeed frequently do press the observation of that day, with no less fervor than the Sunday. Of this we have already spoken. And to this Bellarmine was induced the rather, because that in this Country they had found authority, and were esteemed as Apostolical. Audio Ethiopes his constitutionibus uti, ut vere Apostolicis, & ea ac causa in erroribus versari, circa cultum Sabbati, & dies Dominicae. But if this be an error in them, they have many partners, and those of ancient standing in the Church of God as before was shown. As for their service on the Sunday, they celebrate the Sacrament in the morning early, except it be in the time of Lent; when fasting all the day, they discharge that duty in the Evening, and then fall to meat, as the same Scaliger hath recorded. So having looked over all the residue of the Christian World, and found no Sabbath in the same, except only nominal, it is now time we turned our course, and set sail for England, where we shall find as little of it as in other places, until that forty years ago, no more, some men began to introduce a Sabbath thereunto, in hope thereby to countenance and advance their other projects.

CHAPTER 7.

IN WHAT ESTATE THE LORDS DAY STOOD IN THIS ISLE OF BRITAIN, FROM THE FIRST PLANTING OF RELIGION, TO THE REFORMATION. (1) What doth occurre about the Lords day, and the other Fesivals, amongst the Churches of the Brittans. (2) Of the estate of the Lords day, and the other holy dayes in the Saxon Heptarchie. (3) The honors done unto the Sunday, and the other holy dayes, by the Saxon Monarchs. (4) Of publike actions, Civill, Ecclesiasticall, mixt, and Military, done on the Lords day, under the first sixe Norman Kings. (5) New Sabbath doctrines broached in England in King Johns Reigne; and the miraculous originall of the same. (6) The prosecution of the former businesse; and ill successe therein, of the undertakers. (7) Restraint of Worldly businesse on the Lords day, and the other holy dayes, admitted in those times, in Scotland. (8) Restraint of certaine servile Workes, on Sundayes, holy dayes, and the wakes, concluded in the Councell of Oxon, under Henry 3. (9) Husbandrie and Legall processe, prohibited on the Lords day first, in the Reigne of Edward 3. (10) Selling of Woolls, on the Lords day, and the solemne Feasts, forbidden first by the said King Edward: as after, Faires and Markets generally, by King Henry 6. (11) The Cordwainers of London, restrained from selling their Wares on the Lords day, and some other Festivals, by King Edward the fourth, and of the Recreations in those times permitted upon the same. (12) In what estate the Lords day stood, both for the doctrine, and the practice, in the beginning of the reigne of King Henry the 8. (13) The doctrine of this Church, in the present businesse, towards the latter end of the said Kings Reigne. (1) AND now at last we are for England, that we may see what hath been done amongst ourselves in this particular; and thereby be the better lessoned what we are to do. For as before I noted, the Canons of particular Churches, and Edicts of Particular Princes, though they sufficiently declare what their practice and opinion was in the present point; yet are no general Rule, nor prescript to others which lived not in the compass of their Authority. Nor can they further bind us, as was then observed, than as they have been since admitted into our Church or State, either by adding them unto the body of our Canon, or imitating them in the composition of our Acts and Statutes. Only the Decretals of the Popes, the body of their Canon Law, is to be excepted: which being made for the direction and reiglement of the Church in general were by degrees admitted, and obeyed, in these parts of Christendom; and are, by Act of Parliament, so far still in force as they oppose not the Prerogative Royal, or the Municipal Laws and Statutes of this Realm of England. Now that we may the better see how it hath been adjudged of here, and what hath been decreed or done touching the Lord’s day and the other holy days: we will ascend as high as possible we can, even to the Church and Empire of the Brittons. Of them indeed we find not much, and that delivered in as little; it being said of them by Beda that in the time of Constantine they did dies festos celebrare, observe those holy days which were then in use: which, as before we said, were Easter, Whitsuntinde, the feasts of Christ’s Nativity, and his Incarnation, every year; together with the Lord’s day, weekly. And yet it may be thought that in those times the Lord’s day was not here of any great account, in that they kept the feast of Easter after the fashion of the Churches in the Eastern parts, decima quarta luna, on what day of the week soever; which certainly they had not done, had the Lord’s day obtained amongst them that esteem which generally it had found in the western Churches. And howsoever a late writer of Ecclesiastical history endeavor to acquit the Brittons of these first Ages from the erroneous observation of that feast, and make them therein followers of the Church of Rome; yet I conceive not that his proofs come home, to make good his purpose. For where it is his purpose to prove by computation that the erroneous observation came not in amongst the Brittons till 30 years before the entrance of S. Austin and his associates into this Island; and for that end hath brought a passage out of Beda, touching the continuance of that custom; it’s plain that Beda speaks not of the British, but the Scottish Christians. Permansit autem apud eos [the Scottish-Irish Christians, as himself confesseth] hujusmodi observantia Paschalis tempore non pauco, hoc est usque ad annum Domini 717 per anno 150: which was (as he computes it somewhat near the point), but 30 years before the entrance of that Austin. Now for the Scots, it is apparent that they received not the faith till the year of Christ 430 (not to say any thing of the time wherein they first set footing in this Island, which was not very long before); and probably might about that time, of which Beda speaks, receive that custom of keeping Easter from the Brittons, who were next neighbors to them, and a long time lived mingled with them. But for the Brittons it is most certain that they had longer been accustomed to that observation; though for the time thereof, whether it came in with the first plantation of the Gospel here, we will not contend as not pertaining to the business which we have in hand. Suffice it that the Brittons anciently were observant of those public festivals which had been generally entertained in the Church of God; though for the time of celebrating the feast of Easter, they might adhere more unto one Church than unto another. As for the Canon of the Council of Nice, which is there alleged, Baronius rightly hath observed out of Athanasius, that notwithstanding both that Canon, and the Emperor’s Edicts thereupon: tamen etiam postea, Syros, Cilices, & Mesopotamios, in eodem errore permansisse, the Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians, continued in their former error. And why not then the Brittons, which lay farther off; as well as those that dwelt so near the then Regal City? (1) Proceed we next unto the Saxons, who as they first received the faith from the Church of Rome; so did they therewithal receive such institutions as were at that time generally entertained in the Roman Church: the celebration of the Lord’s day, and the other festivals, which were allowed of and observed, when Gregory the Great attained the Popedom. And here to take things as they lie in order, we must begin with a narration concerning Westminster, which for the prettiness of the story I will here insert. Sibert the first Christian King of the East Saxons having built that Church, unto the honor of God and memory of Saint Peter, invited Mellitus Bishop of London on a day appointed, unto the consecration of it. The night before S. Peter coming to the further side crosseth the ferry, goes into the Church, and with a great deal of celestial musick, light, and company, performs that office for the dispatch of which Mellitus had been invited. This done, and before wafted back to the further side, he give the ferry-man for his fare a good draught of fishes, only commanding him to carry one of them, which was the best for price and beauty, for a present from him to Melitus in testimony that the work was done to his hand already. Then telling who he was, he adds that he and his posterity, the whole race of fishermen, should be long after stored with that kind of fish: tantum ne ultra piscari audeatis in die Dominica, provided always that they fished no more upon the Sunday. Aldredus so reports the story. And though it might be true, as unto the times wherein he lived, (which was in the declining of the twelfth Century) that fishing on the Lord’s day was restrained by law; yet sure he placed this story ill, in giving this injunction from Saint Peter in those early days when such restraints were hardly settled; if in a Church new planted, they had yet been spoke of. Leaving this therefore as a fable, let us next look on Beda, what he hath left us of this day in reference to our Ancestors of the Saxons’ race: and many things we find in him worth our observation. Before we showed you how the Sunday was esteemed a festival, that it was judged heretical to hold fasts thereon. This ordinance came in amongst us with the faith itself. St. Chadd, having a place designed him by King Oswald to erect a monastery, did presently retire unto it in the time of Lent; In all which time, Dominica excepta, the Lord’s day excepted, he fasted constantly till the evening, as the story tells us. The like is told of Adamannus, one of the monastery of Coldingham, now in Scotland (but then accounted part of the Kingdom of Northumberland), that he did live in such a strict and abstemious manner, ut nil unquam cibi vel potus, excepta die Dominica, & quinta Sabbati perciperet; that he did never eat nor drink, but on the Sunday, and Thursday only. This Adamannus lived in Anno 690. Before we showed you with what profit music had been brought into the Church of God, & hither it was brought, it seems with the first preaching of the Gospel. Beda relates it of Paulinus, that when he was made Bishop of Rochester, which was in An. 631, he left behind him in the North one James a Deacon, cantandi in Ecclesia perstissimu, a man exceeding perfect in Church music, who taught them there that form of singing divine service which he learnt in Canterbury. And after in the year 668, what time Archbishop Theodorus made his Metropolitical visitation, the Art of singing service, which was then only used in Kent (for in the North it had not been so settled, but that it was again forgotten) was generally taken up over all the Kingdom. Sonos cantandi in Ecclesia, quos eatenus in Cantia tantum noverant, ab hoc tempore per omnes Anglorum Ecclesias discere coeperunt, as that Author hath it. Before we showed how Pope Vitilianus, anno 653, added the Organ to that vocal music which was before in use in the Church of Christ.

In less than 30 years after, & namely in the year 679 were they introduced by Pope Agathe into the Churches of the English; and have continued in the same well near 1000 years, without interruption. Before we showed you how some of the greater festivals were in esteem before the Sunday; and that it was so even in the primitive times. And so it also was in the primitive times of this Church of England; it being told us of Queen Etheldreda, that after she had put herself into a monastery, she never went unto the Bathes, praeter imminentibus solenniis majoribus, but on the approach of the greater festivals, such as were Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas (for so I think he means thereby Epiphany), as also, that unless it were on the greater festivals she did not use to eat above once a day. This plainly shows that Sunday was not reckoned for a greater festival; that other days were in opinion & esteem above it; and makes it evident withal that they conceived not that the keeping of the Lord’s day was to be accounted as a part of the Law of nature, or introduced into the Church by divine authority, but by the same authority that the others were. For Laws in these times made, we meet with none but those of Ina, a West-Saxon King, who entered on his reign an. 712: A Prince exceedingly devoted to the Church of Rome, and therefore apt enough to embrace anything which was there concluded. By him it was enacted in this form that followeth:

Servus si quid operis patrarit die Dominico, ex praecepto Domini sui, liber esto, etc. “If a servant work on the Lord’s day by the appointment of his master, he was to be set free & his master was to forfeit 30 shillings: but if he worked without such order from his master, to be whipped, or mulcted.

Liber si hoc die operetur injussu Domini sui, etc. So if a free-man worked that day without directions from his master, he either was to be made a Bond-man, or pay 60 shillings.” Now was the Church waiting to declare her pleasure, it being ordred in a Synod at Clove-shooe, called by Cutbert Arch-bishop of Canterbury, Anno 747. Vt dies Dominicus legitima veneratione a cunctis celebretur, etc. That the Lord’s day be observed with all due solemnity, and that it be dedicated only to the worship of God. Nor did they take this care of the Lord’s day only. For then and there it was decreed that not alone on that day, eo die, Sed per alias festivitates majores, but on the other greater festivals the people should assemble to hear God’s Word, etc. And in the Canons of Egbert Arch-bishop of York, it was also ordered, omnibus festis & diebus Dominicis, that as well on all the holy days as the Lord’s day, the Priests should Preach unto the people.

As for the doctrine of these times, we may best judge of that by Beda. First for the Sabbath, that he tells us, ad Mosis usque tempora caeterorum dierum similis erat, was merely like the other days until Moses’ time; no difference at all between them, therefore not instituted and observed in the beginning of the world, as some teach us now. Next for the Lord’s day, that he makes an Apostolical Sanction only, no divine commandment, as before we noted; and how far Apostolical sanctions bind, we may clearly see by that which they determined in the Council of Jerusalem. Of these two specialties, we have spoke already. (3) This is the most we find in the Saxon Heptarchy; and little more than this we find in the Saxon Monarchy. In this we meet with Alured first, the first that brought this Realm to order, who in his laws cap. de diebus festis & solennibus, reckoneth up certain days in which it was permitted unto free-men to enjoy their festival liberty, as the phrase there is: servis autem & iis qui sunt legitima officiorum servitute astricti, non item; but not to slaves, and such as were in service unto other men, viz. the twelve days after Christ’s Nativity, dies ille quo Christus subegit diabolum the day wherein our Savior overcame the devil; the festival of Saint Gregory, seven days before Easter, and as many after; the festival day of Saint Peter and Paul, the week before our Lady day in harvest; All-Hallowtide, and the four wednesdays in the Ember-week. Where note how many other days were privileged in the self-same manner as the Lord’s day was; in case that be the day then spoke of, wherein our Savior overcame the Devil, as I think it is: as also that this privilege extended unto free-men only, servants and bond-men being left in the same condition as before they were, to spend all days alike in their masters’ business. It also was by him enacted, Neminem sceleris reum. (Si qua vitari possit) in festivitate diei Solis morte afficiendum, etc. “That no malefactor should be put to death upon the Sunday, but should be kept in durance until the festival be over, and then executed:” which Law was afterwards confirmed by King Canutus. This Alured began his reign anno 871, and after him succeeded Edward, surnamed the Elder in the year 900, who in a league between himself and Gunthrun K. of the Danes in England, did publicly, on both sides, prohibit as well all marketings on the Sunday, as other kind of work whatsoever on the other holy days. Dacus si die Dominico quicquam fuerit mercatus, reipsa, & Oris praeterea 12 mulcator; Anglus 30 solidos numerato, etc. “If a Dane bought any thing on the Lord’s day, he was to forfeit the thing bought & to pay 12 Orae (Every Ora being the fifteenth part of a pound,) an Englishman doing the like to pay 30 shillings. A freeman if he did any work, die quocunq feste, on any of the holy days, was forthwith to be made a Bondman, or to redeem himself with money; a bond-slave to be beaten for it, or redeem his beating with his purse. The master also whether that he were Englishman or Dane, if he compelled his servants to work an any of the holy days, was to answer for it. Athelstan who succeeded Edward, an. 942, did decree the same, or confirm it rather. So when it had been generally received in other places to begin the Sunday-service on the Eve before, it was enacted by King Edgar, surnamed the peaceable, who began his reign, ann. 959, diem Sabbati, ab ipsa die Saturni, hora pomeridiana tertia, usq in lunaris diei ailuculum, festum agitari that the Sabbath should begin on Saturday, at 3 of the clock in the afternoon, (& not as Foxe relates it in his Acts and Monuments, at nine in the morning) and so hold on till day break on Monday. Where, by the way, though it be dies Sabbati in the Latin, yet in the Saxon copy, it is only Healde, the holy day. After this Edgar’s death, the Danes so plagued this realm, that there was nothing settled in it, either in Church or State, till finally they had won the Garland and obtained the Kingdom. The first of these Canutus, an heroic Prince; of whom it is affirmed by Malmesbury, omnes leges ab antiquis regibus, & maxime sub Etheldredo latas, that he commanded all those laws to be observed which had been made by any of the former Kings (and those before remembered amongst the rest, of which see the 42 of his Constitutions), especially by Etheldred his predecessor; and that upon a grievous mulct, to be laid on such who should disobey them. These are the laws which afterwards were called King Edward’s, non quod ille statuerit, sed quod observarit, not because he enacted them, but that he caused them to be kept. Of these more anon. Besides which Laws so brought together, there were some others made at Winchester by this King Canutus; and amongst others, this, that on the Lord’s day there should be no marketing, no Courts, or public meetings of the people for Civil business; as also that all men abstain from hunting, and from all kinds of earthly work. Yet there was an exception too, nisi flagitante necessitate, in cases of necessity, wherein it was permitted both to buy and sell, and for the people to meet together in their Courts. For so it passeth in the Law: Die Dominico mercata concelebrari, populive conuentus agi, nisi flagitante necessitate, plarissime vetamus; ipso praeterea die sacrosancto a venatione, & opere terreno prorsus omni, quisque abstineto. Not that it is to be supposed, as some would have it, that he intended Sunday for a Sabbath day. For entering on the Crown ann. 1017, he did no more than what had formerly been enacted by Charles the Great, and several Councils after him; none of which dreamed of any Sabbath. Besides it is affirmed of this Canutus by Otho Frisingensis that in the year 1027, he did accompany the Emperor Conrade at his coronation on an Easter day; which questionless he would not have done, knowing those kind of pomps to be merely civil, and to have in them much of ostentation, had he intended any Sabbath when he restrained some works on Sunday. But to make sure work of it, without more ado, the Laws by him collected, which we call St. Edward’s, make the matter plain: where Sunday hath no other privilige than the other feasts; and which is more, is ranked below them. The Law is thus entitled, De temporibus & diebus pacis Domini Regis; the text, as followeth. Ab adventu Domini usque ad octavam Epiphaniae, pax Dei & Ecclesiae, per omne regnum, etc. From Advent to the Octaves of Epiphany, let no man’s person be molested, nor no suit pursued; the like from Septuagesima to Low-Sunday; and so from holy Thursday to the next Sunday after Whitsontide. Item omnibus Sabbatis ab hora nova usq ad diem Lunae, etc. the like on Saturdays from three in the afternoon until monday morning; as also on the Eves of the Virgin Mary, S. Michael, S. John the Baptist, all the holy Apostles; of such particular Saints whose festivals are published in the Church on Sunday mornings; the Eve of All Saints in November, from 3 of the clock till the solemnity be ended. As also that no Christian be molested, going to Church for his devotions, or returning thence; or traveling to the dedication of any new erected Church, or to the Synods, or any public chapter meeting.” Thus was it with the Lord’s day, as with many others in S. Edward’s Laws; which after were confirmed and ratified by King Henry the second, after they had long been neglected. (4) Now go we forwards to the Normans, and let us see what care they took about the sanctifying of the Lord’s day, whether they either took or meant it for a Sabbath. And first beginning with the reign of the first six Kings, we find them times of action, and full of troubles, as it doth use to be in unsettled states: no Law recorded to be made touching the keeping of this day; but many actions of great note to be done upon it. These we will rank for order’s sake, under these 5. heads: 1 Coronations, 2 Synods Ecclesiastical, 3 Councils of Estates,4 Civil business, and 5 Battles and assaults; which we shall sum up briefly, in their place and time. And first for Coronations, which as before I said, are mixt kinds of actions, compound of sacred and of civil; William surnamed Rufus, was crowned at Canterbury by Archbishop Lanfranck, the 25th of Septem. being Sunday, An. 1087. So was King Steven, the 21st of December, being Sunday too, An. 1135. On Sunday before Christmas day was Henry the second crowned at London, by Archbishop Theobald, Anno 1155, and on the Sunday before Septuagesima, his daughter Joane, was at Palermo crowned Queen of Sicily. Of Richard the first it is recorded, that hoisting sail from the Barbestet in Normandy, he arrived safely here upon the Sunday before our Lady day in Harvest; whence setting towards London, there met him his Arch-bishops, Bishops, Earles, and Barons, Cum copiosa militum multitudine, with a great multitude of Knightly rank; by whose advice and counsel he was crowned on a Sunday, in September following, Anno 1189, and after crowned a second time on his return from thralldom and the holy Land, Anno 1194, on a Sunday too. The royal and magnificent form of his first Coronation, they who list to see may find it most exactly represented in Rog. de Hoveden. And last of all King John was first inaugurated Duke of Normandy by Walter Archbishop of Roane, the Sunday after Easter day, An. 1200, and on a Sunday after crowned K. of England, together with Isabel his Queen, by Hubert, at that time Archbishop of Canterbury. For Synods next, Anno 1070 a Council was assembled at Winchester by appointment of K. William the first, and the consent of Alexander then Pope of Rome, for the degrading of Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury; and this upon the Sunday next after Easter. And we find mention of a Synod called by Richard Archbishop of Canterbury, Anno 1175, the Sunday before holy thursday: Ad quod concilium venerunt fere omnes Episcopi & Abbates Cantuariensis dioeceseos; where were assembled almost all the Bishops and Abbats of the whole Province. For Councils of Estate, there was a solemn meeting called on Trinity Sunday, Anno 1143 in which assembled Maud the Empress and all the Lords which held her party; where the Ambassadors from Anjou gave up their account, and thereupon it was concluded that the Earl of Gloucester should be sent thither to negotiate is sister’s business. So in the year 1185, when some Ambassadors from the East had offered to King Henry the second, the Kingdom of Jerusalem: the King designed the first Sunday in Lent for his day of answer. Upon which day there met at London the King, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and Barons of the Realm of England; as also William King of Scotland, and his brother David, with the Earls and Barons of that country; Et habito inde cum deliberatione concilio, etc. and then and there upon mature deliberation, it was concluded that though the King accepted not the title, yet he would give his people leave to put themselves into the action and take up the Cross.

For civil business of another nature, we find it on record that on the fourth Sunday in Lent next following, the same King Henry Knighted his Son John and sent him forthwith into Ireland, Knighthood at those times being far more full of ceremony than now it is. Which being but a preparation to War and Military matters, leads us into such battles as in these times were fought on Sunday. Of which we find it in our Annals, that in the year 1142, upon a Sunday being Candlemas day, King Stephen was taken prisoner at the Battle of Lincoln; as also that on Holy-Cross day next after, being Sunday too, Robert Earl of Gloucester, Commander of the adverse forces, was taken prisoner at the Battle of Winchester. So read we that on Sunday the 25th of August, Anno 1173 the King of France besieged and forced the Castle of Dole in Britain, belonging to the King of England; as also that on Sunday the 26th of September, Anno 1198 King Richard took the Castle of Curceles from the King of France. More of this kind might be remembered, were not these sufficient to show how anciently it hath been the use of the Kings of England to create Knights and hold their Councils of Estate on the Lord’s day, as now they do. Were not the others here remembered sufficient to let us know that our progenitors did not think so superstitiously of this day as not to come upon the same unto the crowning of their Kings, or the public Synods of the Church; or if need were, and their occasions so required it, to fight as well on the Lord’s day as on any other. Therefore no Lord’s day Sabbath hitherto, in the Realm of England. (5) Not hitherto indeed. But in the Age that followed next, there were some overtures theref, some strange preparatives to begin one. For in the very entrance of the 13th Age, Fulco, a French Priest and a notable hypocrite, as our King Richard counted him and the story proves, lighted upon a new Sabbatarian fancy; which one of his associates, Eustatius Abbat of Flay, in Normandy, was sent to scatter here in England; but finding opposition to this doctrine, he went back again. The next year after, being 1202, he comes better fortified, preaching from Town to Town, and from place to place, Ne quis forum rerum venalium diebus Dominicis exerceret, that no man should presume to Market on the Lord’s day.

Where by the way we may observe that notwithstanding all the Canons and Edicts before remembered, in the fifth Chapter of this Book, and the third Section of this Chapter, the English kept their Markets on the Lord’s day as they had done formerly, as neither being bound to those which had been made by foreign States, or such as being made at home, had long before been cut in pieces by the Sword of the Norman Conqueror. Now for the easier bringing of the people to obey their dictates they had to show a warrant sent from God himself, as they gave it out. The title this:

Mandatum sanctum Dominiceae diei quod de coelo venit Hierusalem, etc. “An holy Mandate touching the Lord’s day, which came down from Heaven, unto Jerusalem, found on S. Simeon’s Altar in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified for the sins of all the world: which lying there three days and as many nights, struck with such terror all which saw it, that falling on the ground, they besought God’s mercy. At last, the Patriarch, and Akarias the Archbishop (of I know not whence) ventured to take into their hands that dreadful Letter, which was written thus.” Now wipe your eyes, and look a while on the Contents, which I shall render with as much brevity, as the thing requires. Ego Dominus qui praecepi vobis ut observaretis diem sanctum Dominicum, & non custodistis eum, etc. “I am the Lord which hath commanded to keep holy the Lord’s day; and you have not kept it, neither repented of your sins, etc. I caused repentance to be preached unto you, and you believed not. Then sent I Pagans amongst you, etc. and because you did not keep the Lord’s day holy, I punished you a while with famine, etc. Therefore I charge you all, that from the ninth hour on the Saturday, until Sun-rising on the Monday, no man presume to do any work, but what is good; or if he do, that he repent him of the same.

Verily I say and swear unto you by my Seat and Throne, and by the Cherubim that keep my Seat, that if you do not hearken to this my Mandate, I will no more send to you any other Epistle; but I will open the Heavens, and rain upon you stones, and wood, and scalding water, etc.

This I avow, that you shall die the death, for the Lord’s day and other festivals of my Saints, which you have not kept: and I will send amongst you beasts with the heads of Lions, and the hair of women, and the tails of Camels; and they shall eat you and devour you.” There is a great deal more of this wretched stuff, but I am weary of abusing both my pains and patience. Only I cannot choose but wish that those who have enlarged their Lord’s day Sabbath to the same extent, would either show us some such letter, or bring us any of the miracles which hereafter follow; or otherwise be pleased to lengthen out the festivals of the Saints in the self-same manner as by this goodly Script they are willed to do. (6) But to proceed, the said Eustathius thus furnished, and having found but ill success the former year in the Southern parts, where he did Angliae Praelatos predicatione sua molestare, disturb the Prelates by his preachings, as my Author hath it; he went up to Yorke. There did he preach his doctrines, and absolve such as had offended; conditioned, that hereafter they did show more reverence unto the Lord’s day, and the other holy days, doing no servile works upon them; Nec in diebus Dominicis exercerent forum rerum venalium, particularly that on the Lord’s day they should hold no Markets. The people hereunto assented, and promised they would neither buy nor sell on the Lord’s day, Nisi forte cibum & potum praetereuntibus, excepting meat and drink to passengers. Whereby it seems that notwithstanding all this terror, men were permitted yet to travel on the Lord’s day, as they had occasion. This coming to the notice of the King and Council, my men were all fetched up; such specially qui in diebus Dominicis forum rerum venalium dejecerant, which had disturbed the Markets, and overthrown the Booths and Merchandise on the Lord’s day: and made to fine unto the King for their misdemeanor. Then they were fain to have recourse to pretended miracles. A Carpenter making a wooden pin, and a woman making up her web, both after three on Saturday in the afternoon, are suddenly smitten with the Palsey. A certain man of Nafferton, baking a Cake on Saturday night and keeping part until the morrow, no sooner brake it for his breakfast but it gushed out blood. A Miller of Wakefield, grinding Corn on Saturday after three of the clock, instead of Meal, found his bin full of blood, his Mill-wheele standing still of its own accord. One or two more there are of the same edition. And so I think is that related in the Acts and Monuments, out of an old Book entitled De Regibus Angliae; which, now I am fallen upon these Fables, shall be joined with them. “King Henry the 2nd, saith the Story, being at Cardiff in Wales, and being to take horse, there stood a certain man by him having on him a white coat, and being bare- foot, who looked upon the King, and spake in this wise; Good old King, John Baptist and Peter straightly charge you, that on the Sundays throughout all your Dominions, there be no buying or selling nor any other servile business (those only except which appertain to the preparation of meat and drink), which thing if thou shalt observe, whatsoever thing thou takest in hand thou shalt happily finish. Adding withal, that unless he did these things, and amend his life, he should hear such news within the twelve-month as would make him mourn till his dying day.” But to conclude, what was the issue of all this, this terrible Letter, and forged miracles? That the Historian tells us with no small regret, informing us that notwithstanding all these miracles, whereby God did invite the people to observe this day: Populus plus timens regiam potestatem, quam divinum, the people fearing more the King’s power than God’s, returned unto their Marketing as before they did. (7) I say that the Historian tells it with no small regret; for in that passionate discontent, he had said before, that inimicus humani generis, the Devil envying the procedings of this holy man, so far so possessed the King and the Princes of darkness (so he calls the Council), that they forthwith proceeded against them who had obeyed him. Which makes me think that this Eustathius was a familiar of the Popes, sent hither for the introducing of those restraints which had been formerly imposed on most parts of Christendom, though here they found no entertainment. The Popes had found full well how ill their jostlings had succeeded hitherto, with the Kings of England of the Norman race; and therefore had recourse to their wonted arts, by prodigies and miracles to ensnare the people, and bring them so unto their bent. And this I do the rather think, because that in the following year, Anno 1203 there was a Legate sent from Rome to William King of Scots, with several presents, and many indulgences. Quae quoniam grato accepit animo, eodem concilio approbante decretum est, etc. “Which he accepting very kindly, it pleased him with the approbation of his Parliament at that time assembled to pass a Law, that Saturday from twelve at noon should be counted holy; and that no man should deal in such worldly businesses as on the Feast-days were forbidden. As also that at the sounding of the Bell, the people should be busied only about holy actions, going to sermons, hearing the Vespers or the Evensong: idque usque in diem lunae facerent, and that they should continue thus until monday morning; a penalty being laid, on those who should do the contrary.” So passed it then, and in the year 1214, some eleven years after it was enacted in a Parliament at Scone under Alexander the third, King of the Scots, that none should fish in any waters, A die Sabbati post vesperas usque ad diem lune post ortum solis, from Saturday after Evening Prayer, until Sun-rising on the Monday. That after was confirmed in the first Parliament of King James the first, and is to this day called the Saturdays Slop. So easily did the Popes prevail with our now friends of Scotland that neither miracle, nor any special packet from the Court of Heaven was accounted necessary. (8) But here with us in England it was not so, though now the Popes had got the better of King John, that unhappy Prince; and had in Canterbury an Archbishop of their own appointment, even that Stephen Lancton, about whom so much strife was raised. Which notwithstanding, and that the King was then a Minor, yet they proceeded here with great care and caution; and brought the holy days into order, not by command or any Decretal from Rome, but by a Council held at Oxford, Anno 1222 where amongst the other Ordinances tending unto the government of the Church, the holy days were divided into these three ranks. In the first rank were those, quae omni veneratione servanda erant, which were to be observed with all reverence and solemnity; of which sort were omnes dies Dominici, etc. all Sundays in the year, the Feast of Christ’s Nativity, together with all others now observed in the Church of England; as also all the Festivals of the Virgin Mary, excepting that of her Conception, which was left at large; with divers which have since been abrogated. And for conclusion, festum dedicationis cujuslibet Ecclesiae in sua parochia, the Wakes, or feasts of dedication of particular Churches in their proper Parishes, are there determined to be kept with the same reverence and solemnity as the Sundays were. Nor was this of the Wakes, or feasts of dedication any new device; but such, as could plead a fair original from the Council held in Mentz, Anno 813 if it went no higher. For, in a Catalogue there made of such principal feasts as annually were to be observed, they reckon dedicationem Templi, the Consecration Feast, or Wake, as we use to call it; and place it in no lower rank, in reference to the solemnity of the same, than Easter, Whitsontide, and the rest of the greater festivals. Now, in those times, the Wakes, or feasts of dedication, were either held upon the very day on which, or the Saint’s day to which, they had first been consecrated. But after, finding that so many holy days brought no small detriment to the Common-wealth, it came to pass that generally these Wakes, or feasts of dedication, were respited until the Sunday following, as we now observe them. Of the next rank of Feasts in this Council mentioned, were those which were by Priest and Curate to be celebrated most devoutly, with all due performances; minoribus operibus servilibus, secundum consuetudinem loci, illis diebus interdictis; all servile works, of an inferior and less important nature, according to the custom of the place, being laid aside. Such were Saint Fabian, and Sebastian, and some twenty more, which are therein specified, but now out of use: and amongst them, the festival of Saint George was one; which after, in the year 1414, was made by Chicheley, then Archbishop, a Majus duplex, and no less solemnly to be observed than the Feast of Christmas. Of the last rank of Feasts were those in quibus post Missum, opera rusticana concedebantur, sed antequam non; wherein it was permitted, that men might after Mass pursue their Country businesses, though not before: and these were only the Octaves of Epiphany, and of John the Baptist and of Saint Peter, together with the translations of Saint Benedict and Saint Martin. But yet it seems, that on the greater Festivals, those of the first rank, there was no restraint of Tillage and of Shipping, if occasion were and that necessity did require; though on those days, Sundays, and all before remembered, there was a general restraint of all other works. For so it standeth in the title, Haec sunt festa, in quibus, prohibitis aliis operibus, concedentur opera Agriculturae, & Carrucarum. Where, by the way, I have translated Carrucaram, Shipping: the word not being put for Plough or Cart, which may make it all one with the word fore-going; but for Ships and sailing. Carruca, signifieth a Ship of the greater burthen, such as to this day we call Carrects; which first came from hence. And in this sense, the word is to be found in an epistle written by Gildas: Illis ad sua remeantibus emergunt certatim de Carruchis, quibus sunt trans Scyticam vallem avecti. So then, as yet, Tillage and Sailing were allowed of on the Sunday; if, as before I said, occasion were, and that necessity so required. Of other passages considerable in the Reign of King Henry the third, the principal to this point and purpose are at his own Coronation, in Whitsunday, anno 1220, two years before this Council, which was performed with great solemnity and concourse of people. Next, his bestowing the Order of Knighthood on Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, accompanied with forty other Gallants, of great hopes and spirit, on Whitsunday too, Anno 1245. And last of all, a Parliament assembled on Mid-Lent Sunday, Parliamentum generalissimum, the Historian calls it, the next year after. (9) This was a fair beginning; but they stayed not here. For after, in a Synod of Archbishop Islip’s (he was advanced unto that See, Anno 1349), it was decreed, de fratrum nostrorum consilio, “with the assent and counsel of all the Prelates then assembled, That on the principal Feasts hereafter named, there should be generally a restraint through all the Province, ab universis servilibus operibus etiam Reipubl. utilibus, even from all manner of servile works, though otherwise necessry to the Common-wealth.” This general restraint, in reference to the Sunday, was to begin on Saturday night, ab hora diei Sabbati Vespertina, as the Canon goes, not a minute sooner: and that upon a good reason too, ne judaicae superstitionis participes videamur, lest if they did begin it sooner, (as some now would have us) they might be guilty of a Jewish superstition. The same to be observed in such other Feasts, quae suat habent Vigilias, whose Eves had formerly been kept. As also that the like restraint should be observed, upon the Feast of Christmas, Saint Stephen, Saint John, etc. and finally, on the Wakes, or Dedication Feasts, which before we spake of. Now, for the works before prohibited, though necessary to the Common-wealth; as we may reckon Husbandry, and all things appertaining thereunto; so probably we may reckon Law-days, and all public Sessions in Courts of Justice; in case they had not been left off in former times, when as the Judges general being of the Clergy, might in obedience to the Canon Law forbear their Sessions on those days, the Lord’s day especially. For, as our Sages in the Law have resolved it generally, that day is to be exempt from such business, even by the Common Law, for the solemnity thereof, to the intent that people may apply themselves to prayer and God’s public service.

Particularly, Fitz-Herbert tells us, That no Pleas shall be holden Quindena Paschae, because it is always on the Sunday, but it shall be holden Crastino Quirdenae Paschae, on the morrow after. So Justice Dyer hath resolved, That if a Writ of Scire Facias, out of the Common Pleas, bear Test on a Sunday, it is an error, because that day is not dies juridicus in Banco. And so it is agreed amongst them, That on a Fine levied with Proclamations, according to the Statute of King Henry the seventh, if any of the Proclamations be made on the Lord’s day, all of them are to be accounted erroneous Acts. But to return unto the Canon, where before we left: however that Archbishop Langton formerly, and Islip at the present time, had made these several restraints from all servile labors; yet they were far enough from entertaining any Jewish fancy. The Canon last remembered, that of Simon Islip, doth express as much. But more particularly and punctually we may find what was the judgment of these times, in a full declaration of the same in a Synod at Lambeth, what time John Peckham was Archbishop, which was in Anno 1280. It was thus determined:

Sciendum est quod obligatio ad feriandum in Sabbato Legali expiravit omnino, etc. “It is to be understood, that all manner of obligation of resting on the Legal Sabbath, as was required in the Old Testament, is utterly expired with the other Ceremonies. And it is now sufficient in the New Testament, to attend God’s service upon the Lord’s days and the other holy days, ad hoc Ecclesiastica authoritate deputatis, appointed by the Church to that end and purpose. The manner of sanctifying all which days, non est sumendus a superstitione Iudaica, sed a Canonicis institutis, is not to be derived from any Jewish superstition, but from the Canons of the Church.” This was exact, and plain enough; and this was constantly the Doctrine of the Church of England. Johannes de Burdo, who lived about the end of King Henry the sixth, doth almost word for word resolve it so, in his Pupilla oculi, part. 10. c. 11. D. For Public actions in these times, the greatest and most notable were the Coronation of King Edward the first, upon the Sunday after the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, together with Eleanor his Queen, Anno 1275; the Knighting of King Edward the third, cum multis aliis juvenibus generosis, with many other young Noblemen, by the Earl of Lancaster; and afterwards, his Coronation on the same day too, being Sunday, and then Candlemas Eve, Anno 1327. (10) Yet find we not in these restraints, that Marketing had been forbidden, either on the Lord’s day or the other holy days; and, indeed, it was not:

That came in afterwards, by degrees; partly, by Statutes of the Realm; partly, by Canons of the Church; not till all Nations else had long laid them down. < For, in the 28th of King Edward the third, cap.14, it was accorded and established, ThatSHEWING OF WOOLS SHALL BE MADE AT THE STAPLE EVERY DAY OF THE WEEKE,EXCEPT THE SundayAND THE solemne FeastsIN THE YEERE. This was the first restraint in this kind, with us here, in England; and this gives no more privilege to the Lord’s day than to the solemn Festivals. Nor was there more done in it for almost an hundred years; not till the time of Henry the sixth, Anno 1444; what time Archbishop Stafford decreed throughout his Province, ut Nundinae & Emporia in Ecclesiis, aut Coemiteriis , diebusque Dominicis atque Festis, praeter quam tempore messis, non teneantur, “That Fairs and Markets should no more be kept in Church, and Church yards, or on the Lords’ days, or the other holy days, except in time of Harvest only.” If in that time they might be suffered, then certainly in themselves they were not unlawful on any other, further than as prohibited by the higher Powers.

Now, that which the Archbishop had decreed throughout his Province, Catworth, Lord Major of London, attempted to exceed within that City.

For in this year, saith Fabian (Anno 1444), an Act was made by authority of the Common Council of London, That upon the Sunday should no manner of thing within the Franchise of the City be bought or sold, neither Victual, nor other thing; nor no Artificer should bring his Ware unto any man to be worn or occupied that day; as Taylors’ Garments, and Cordwayners’ Shoes; and so likewise all other Occupations. But then it followeth in the Story, The Which Ordinance held but a While; enough to show by the success, how ill it doth agree with a Lord Major to deal in things about the Sabbath. Afterwards, in the year 1451, which was the 28th of Henry’s Reign, it pleased the King in Parliament to ratify what before was ordered by the Archbishop, in this form that followeth:CONSIDERING THE ABOMINABLE INJURIES AND OFFENCES DONE TO Almightie God,AND TO HIS Saints,ALWAYES AYDERS AND SINGULAR ASSISTANTS IN OUR NECESSITIES,BY THE OCCASION OF Faires and MarketsUPON THEIR HIGH AND principall Feasts;AS,IN THE FeastOF THE AscensionOF OUR Lord, IN THE DAY OF Corpus Christi,IN THE DAY OF Whitsunday, Trinitie Sunday,AND OTHER Sundayes;AS ALSO IN THE HIGH FeastOF THE AssumptionOF OUR Blessed Lady,THE DAY OF All Saints,AND ON Good Friday;ACCUSTOMABLY AND MISERABLY HOLDEN AND USED IN THE REALME OF England, etc.OUR SOVERAIGNE LORD THE KING, etc.HATH ORDAINED,THAT ALL MANNER OF FairesAND MarketsON THE SAID principall Feasts,AND Sundayes,AND Good Friday,SHALL CLEARELY CEASE,FROM ALL SHEWING OF ANY Goods AND Merchandises, NECESSARIE VictuallONELY EXCEPT (which yet was more than was allowed in the Citie-Act),UPON PAINE OF FORFEITURE OF ALL THE Goods\parAFORESAID TO THE LORD OF THE Franchise OR Libertie,WHERE SUCH GoodsBE OR SHALL BE SHEWED,CONTRARIE TO THIS Ordinance; THE foure Sundayes IN HarvestEXCEPT. Which clause or reservation sheweth plainly, that the things before prohibited were not esteemed unlawful in themselves; as also, that this Law was made in confirmation of the former Order of the Arch-bishop, as before was said. Now on this Law, I find two Resolutions made, by my Lords the Judges. First, Justice Brian, in the 12th of King Edward the fourth, declared, That no sale made upon a Sunday, though in a Fair or Market overt (for Markets, as it seemeth, were not then quite laid down, though by Law prohibited) shall be a good sale, to alter the property of the goods.

And Ploydon, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was of opinion, That the Lord of any Fair or Market kept upon the Sunday, contrary to the Statute, may therefore be indited for the King or Queen, either at the Assizes, or general Jail-delivery, or Quarter Sessions, within that County. If so, in case such Lord may be indited for any Fair or Market kept upon the Sunday, as being contrary to the Statute: then by the same reason may he be indited for any Fair or Market kept on any of the other holy days in that Statute mentioned. (11) Nor stayed it here. For in the year 1465, which was the fourth year of King Edward the fourth, it pleased the King in Parliament to enact as followeth:OUR SOVERAIGNE LORD THE KING,ETC.HATH ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED,THAT NO Cordwainer or Cobler,WITHIN THE CITIE OF London,OR WITHIN THREE MILES OF ANY PART OF THE SAID CITIE, etc. DOE UPON ANY SundayIN THE YEERE,OR ON THE FeastsOF THE Ascension, OR NativitieOF OUR Lord,OR ON THE Feast OF Corpus Christi,SELL OR COMMAND TO BE SOLD ANY Shooes, Huseans, (i.e.

Bootes) OR Galoches;OR UPON THE Sunday,OR ANY OTHER OF THE SAID FEASTS,SHALL SET OR PUT UPON THE FEET OR LEGGES OF ANY PERSON,ANY Shooes, Huseans, OR Galoches;UPON PAINE OF FORFEITURE AND LOSSE OF TWENTIE SHILLINGS,AS OFTEN AS ANY PERSON SHALL DOE CONTRARIE TO THIS Ordinance. Where note that this restraint was only for the City of London and the parts about it; which shows that it was counted lawful in all places else. And therefore there must be some particular motive, why this restraint was laid on those of London only; either their insolencies, or some notorious neglect of God’s public service; The Gentle Craft had otherwise been urgently handled, that they, of all the Trades-men in that populous City, should be so restrained.

Note also, that in this very Act, there is a reservation orINDULGENCE FOR THE INHABITANTS OF S. Martins le Grand,TO DOE AS FORMERLY THEY WERE ACCUSTOMED,THE SAID ACT OR STATUTE NOTWITHSTANDING. Which very Clause did after move King Henry the eighth to repeal this Statute, that so all others of that Trade might be free as they or, as the very words of the Statute are,THAT TO THE HONOUR OF ALMIGHTIE GOD,ALL THE KINGS SUBJECTS MIGHT BE HEREAFTER AT THEIR LIBERTIE,AS WELL AS THE INHABITANTS OF Saint Martins le Grand. Yet here it is to be observed that howsoever men were thus restrained from following certain businesses on the Lord’s day, they were for all that suffered to enjoy their lawful pleasures on the same; such pleasures specially, as might tend to increase of manhood, and did not draw men on to unthrifty courses. For, in a Statute made in the 12th year of Richard the second,IT WAS ACCORDED AND ASSENTED,THAT NO Servant OF Husbandry, OR Labourer,NOR SERVANT OF Artificer, OR Victualler,SHALL FROM HENCEFORTH BEARE ANY BUCKLER,SWORD, NOR DAGGER,UPON FORFEITURE OF THE SAME,ETC.BUT SUCH Servants\parAND LabourersSHALL HAVE BowesAND Arrowes,AND USE THE SAME THE Sundayes And holy-dayes,AND LEAVE ALL PLAY AT Tennis, OR Foot-ball,AND OTHER GAMES CALLED Coytes, Dice, Casting of the Stone, Kailes,AND OTHER SUCH IMPORTUNE [OR UNTHRIFTIE]GAMES: THE Sheriffes, Majors, Bayliffes,AND Constables,HAVING POWER TO ARREST ALL DOERS AGAINST THIS STATUTE, Cap.6. This Statute, in the 11th of King Henry the fourth, Cap. 4, was again confirmed, it being there\parWILLED,THAT IT BE FINNELY HOLDEN AND KEPT: and afterwards it seems, set on foot again by King Edward the fourth. For by the Proeme of the Statute, 17th of this King Edward the fourth, cap.3, it seemethTHAT MANY IN THAT TIME,DID SPEND THEIR holy dayes, IN Dice, Quoites, Tennis, Bowling,AND THE LIKE UNLAWFULL GAMES,FORBIDDEN (as is there affirmed)BY THE LAWES OF THE REALME. Which said unlawful Games are thereupon prohibited, under a further penalty in the Statute mentioned. By which it is most manifest that the prohibition was not only in reference to the time, Sundays, or any other holy days; but chiefly to the Games themselves, which were unlawful at all times: as tendingTO THE IMPOVERISHING of some,AND THE PERNICIOUS EXAMPLE OF DIVERSE othersOF THE KINGS LIEGE PEOPLE. So that the Recreations by the Law prohibited, were only of a riotous and unthrifty nature; and thereupon forbidden by King Edward the fourth, at all times indifferently; Dancing, and other pastimes of that harmless quality, being meanwhile permitted and pursued accordingly; as we shall see at large in the next Section. For public actions in these times, the greatest were the Coronation of King Henry the fifth on Passion Sunday, Anno 1413, together with the Battles of Towton and Barnet; one, on Palm-Sunday; and the other, on Easter day; the greatest Fields that ever were fought in England. (12) Now, for the Doctrine and practice of these present times, we cannot take a better view than in John de Burgo, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge about the latter end of King Henry the sixth. First, doctrinally he determineth, as before was said, that the Lord’s day was instituted by the authority of the Church; and that it is no otherwise to be observed than by the Canons of the Church we are bound to keep it. Then, for the name of Sabbath, that the Lord’s day, & quaelibet dies statuta ad divinam culturam, and every day appointed for God’s public service may be so entitled, because in them we are to rest from all servile works; such as are Arts Mechanic, Husbandry, Law-days, and going to Markets, with other things, quae ab Ecclesia determinantur, which are determined by the Church. Lastly, that on those days, insistendum est orationibus, etc. we must be busied at our prayers, the public service of the Church, in Hymns, and in spiritual Songs, and in hearing Sermons. Next, practically, for such things as were then allowed of, he doth sort them thus. First, generally, Non tamen prohibentur his diebus facere quae pertinent ad providentiam necessariorum, etc. We are not those days restrained from doing such things as conduce to the providing of necessaries either for ourselves, or for our neighbors; as in preserving of our persons, or of our substance, or in avoiding any loss that might happen to us. Particulary next, si jacentibus, etc. In case our Corn and Hay in the fields abroad be in danger of a tempest, we may bring it in, yea, though it be upon the Sabbath. Butchers and Victuallers, if they make ready on the holy days what they must sell the morrow after, either in open Market or in their Shops; in case they cannot dress it on the day before; or being dressed, they cannot keep it, non peccant mortaliter, they fall not by so doing into mortal sin. Vectores mercium, etc. Carriers of Wares, or Men, or Victuals, unto distant places; in case they cannot do it upon other days, without inconvenience, are to be excused. Barbers and Chirurgions , Smiths or Farriers , if on the holy days they do the works of their daily labor, especially propter necessitatem corum quibus serviunt, for the necessities of those who want their help, are excusable also, but not in case they do it chiefly for desire of gain. Messengers, Posts, and Travelers, that travel, if some special occasion be, on the holy days; whether they do it for reward or not, non audeo condemnare, are not at all to be condemned. As neither Millers, which do grind either with Water-Mills or Wind-Mills, and so can do their work without much labor; but they may keep the custom of the place in the which they live, not being otherwise commanded by their Ordinaries: secus si tractu jumentorum multuram faciunt; but if it be an Horse-Mill, then the case is altered. So buying and selling on those days, in some present exigent, as the providing necessary Victuals for the day, was not held unlawful: dum tamen exercentes ea non subtrahunt se Divinis Officiis, in case they did not thereby keep themselves from God’s public service. Lastly, for Recreations, for dancing on those days, he determines thus: “That they which dance on any of the holy days, either to stir themselves or others unto carnal lusts, commit mortal sin; and so they do (saith he) in case they do it any day. But it is otherwise if they dance upon honest causes, and no naughty purpose; and that the persons be not by Law restrained. Choreas ducentes, maxime in diebus festis, causa incitandi se, vel aleos, ad peccatum mortale, peccant mortaliter: & similiter si in profestis diebus hoc fiat: secus si hoc fiat ex causa honesta, & intentione non corrupta, & a persona, cui talia non sunt prohibita: as he at large resolves the matter. Which his determination, compared with that before remembered, out of the Statute-Laws of Richard the second, King Henry the fourth, and King Edward the fourth, make the matter plain that in these times all honest Recreations were permitted on the Lord’s day and the other holy days, which either might enable the body, or refresh the mind. (13) As for the times of King Henry the eighth, we cannot have a better warrant for the Doctrine then, than by two public Writings in those times set out. The Prelates and other learned men of the English Clergy had, in the latter end of that Prince’s Reign, set forth a Book, which they entitled, The institution of a Christian man; containing the exposition or interpretation of the Common Creed, the seven Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, etc. This Book they published in the year 1537, subscribed it with the names of all the Bishops then of chief note, and dedicated to the King; “submitting it to his most excellent wisdom, and exact judgment, by him to be recognized, over-seen, and corrected, if he found any word or sentence in it, meet to be changed, qualified, or further expounded, for the plain setting forth of his most virtous desire and purpose in that behalf (for at his instance and command it was undertaken).

Some six years after that, Anno 1543, the Work attaining to good credit, and having been both seen and well liked by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Nether House of Parliament; it was set out again by the King’s Commandment, under the Title of, A necessarie Doctrine and erudition for any Christen man, with an Epistle of the King’s, To all his faithfull and loving Subjects: “Wherein it is affirmed, to be a true declaration of the true knowledge of God and his Word; with the principal Articles of Religion, whereby men may uniformly be led and taught in the true undersanding of that, which is necessary for every Christen man to know, for the ordering of himself in this life, agreeable unto the will and pleasure of Almighty God.” Now in this Book, which is the very same, almost, with that first published by the Clergy, and had been well allowed of, as before is said, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the House of Commons, it is thus determined:AS TOUCHING THIS Commandement, THERE IS ANOTABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND THE OTHER NINE. FOR,AS S. AustinSAITH,ALL THE OTHER NINE BE MERELY Morall Commandements,AND BELONGED IN THE TIME OF THE Old Testament, BUT ALSO BELONG NOW TO ALL ChristenPEOPLE,IN THE New Testament. BUT THIS PRAECEPT OF THE Sabbot,AS CONCERNING REST FROM BODILY LABOUR,THE seventh day, IS Ceremoniall,AND PERTAINED ONLY TO THE Jewes,IN THE Old Testament,BEFORE THE COMMING OF CHRIST, AND PERTAINETH NOT TO US ChristenPEOPLE,IN THE New Testament. NEVERTHELESSE,AS CONCERNING THE Spirituall Rest,WHICH IS FIGURED AND SIGNIFIED BY THIS CORPORALL REST,THAT IS TO SAY,REST FROM ALL CARNALL WORKES OF THE FLESH,AND ALL MANNER OF SINNE;THIS PRAECEPT IS Morall,AND REMAINETH STILL AND BINDETH THEM THAT BELONG UNTO Christ:AND NOT FOR EVERY seventh dayONELY,BUT FOR ALL DAYES,HOURES,AND TIMES.FOR AT ALL TIMES WE BE BOUND TO REST FROM FULFILLING OUR OWNE CARNALL WILL AND PLEASURES,ETC. FURTHERMORE,BESIDES THIS spirituall Rest,WHICH CHIEFELY AND PRINCIPALLY IS REQUIRED OF US,WE BE BOUND BY THIS PRAECEPT, at certaine times,TO CEASE FROM BODILY LABOUR,AND TO GIVE OUR MINDES entirely and hollyUNTO GOD;TO HEARE THE Divine Service, APPROVED,USED,AND OBSERVED IN THE CHURCH;AND ALSO THE Word of God;TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR OWNE SINFULNESSE UNTO GOD,AND HIS GREAT MERCIE AND GOODNESSE TO US;TO GIVE THANKES UNTO HIM FOR HIS BENEFITS;TO MAKE PUBLIKE AND common prayerFOR ALL THINGS NEEDFULL;TO VISIT THE SICKE,AND TO INSTRUCT EVERY MAN HIS CHILDREN AND FAMILY IN VERTUE AND GOODNESSE,AND SUCH OTHER LIKE WORKES.WHICH THINGS ALTHOUGH all ChristenPEOPLE BE BOUND UNTO BY THIS COMMANDEMENT,YET THE Sabbots day,WHICH IS CALLED THE Saturday,IS NOT NOW PRESCRIBED AND APPOINTED THEREUNTO,AS IT WAS UNTO THE Jewes;BUT IN STEAD OF THE Sabbote day,SUCCEEDETH THE Sunday, INTHE MEMORIE OF Christis\parRESURRECTION,AND ALSO MANY OTHER holy and festivall dayes,WHICH THE CHURCH HATH ORDAINED FROM TIME TO TIME;WHICH BE CALLED holy dayes,NOT BECAUSE ONE DAY IS MORE ACCEPTABLE TO GOD THAN ANOTHER,BUT BECAUSE THE ChurchHATH ORDAINED,THAT UPON THOSE DAYS WE SHOULD GIVE OUR SELVES holely,WITHOUT ANY IMPEDIMENT,UNTO SUCH holy workesAS HE BEFORE EXPRESSED; WHEREAS,UPON OTHER DAYES,WE MAY DOE AND APPLY OUR SELVES TO BODILY LABOUR,AND BE THEREBY MUCH LETTED FROM SUCH holy\parAND spirituallWORKES. Now, lest it might be thought that nothing else was lawful to be done on the holy days, but that which is before remembered; it pleased them to explain themselves, and to add as followeth: viz. ThatMEN MUST HAVE ASPECIALL REGARD,THAT THEY BE NOT OVER-SCRUPULOUS,OR RATHER superstitious,IN ABSTAINING FROM BODILY LABOUR ON THE holy day.FOR NOTWITHSTANDING ALL THAT IS AFORE SPOKEN,IT IS NOT MEANT,BUT WEE MAY UPON THE holy dayGIVE OUR SELVES TO LABOUR,FOR THE SPEEDIE PERFORMANCE OF THE NECESSARIE AFFAIRES OF THE PRINCE AND Common- wealth,AT THE COMMANDEMENT OF THEM THAT HAVE RULE AND AUTHORITIE THEREIN:AND ALSO IN ALL OTHER TIMES OF NECESSITIE;AS FOR SAVING OF OUR CORNE AND CATTELL,WHEN IT IS LIKE TO BE IN DANGER,OF LIFE TO BE DESTROYED,IF REMEDIE BE NOT HAD IN TIME.FOR THIS LESSON OUR SaviorTAUGHT US IN HIS HOLY Gospel,AND WEE NEED NOT HAVE ANY GRUDGE OR SCRUPLE IN CONSCIENCE,IN CASE OF SUCH NECESSITIE,TO LABOUR ON THE holy dayes;BUT RATHER WE SHOULD OFFEND,IF WE SHOULD FOR SCRUPULOSITIE NOT SAVE,THAT GOD HATH SENT FOR THE SUSTENANCE AND RELIEFE OF HIS PEOPLE.AND YET,IN SUCH TIMES OF NECESSITIE,IF THEIR BUSINESSE BE NOT VERY GREAT AND URGENT,MEN OUGHT TO HAVE SUCH REGARD TO THE holy day, THAT THEY DOE BESTOW SOME CONVENIENT TIME,IN HEARING Divine Service,AS IS AFORESAID. So that we see that by the public Doctrine of those times, there was not any thing either determined or allowed of in the present business, but what was very consonant unto the Doctrine of the Fathers, and resolutions of the Learned in the former times; and what was seconded by the Martyrs in this Church of England, and those most excellent Princes which next followed; to which now we hasten.

CHAPTER 8.

THE STORIE OF THE LORDS DAY, FROM THE REFORMATION OF RELIGION, IN THIS KINGDOME, TILL THIS PRESENT TIME. (1) The Doctrine of the Sabbath, and the Lords day, delivered by three severall Martyrs, conformably to the judgement of the Protestants, before remembered. (2) The Lords day, and the other holy dayes, confessed by all this Kingdome, in the Court of Parliament, to have no other ground, than the authoritie of the Church. (3) The meaning and occasion of that Clause in the Common Prayer-Booke, Lord have mercie upon us, etc. repeated at the end of the fourth Commandement. (4) That by the Queenes Injunctions, and the first Parliament of her Reigne, the Lords day was not meant for a Sabbath day. (5) The Doctrine in the Homilies delivered, about the Lords day, and the Sabbath. (7) The first originall of the New Sabbath Speculations, in this Church of England; by whom, and for what cause, invented. (8) Strange and most monstrous Paradoxes, preached on occasion of the former Doctrines; and of the other dangerous effects thereof. (9) What care was taken of the Lords day, in King James his Reigne; the spreading of the former Doctrines; and of the Articles of Ireland. (10) The Jewish Sabbath set on foot: and of King James his declaration about lawfull sports, on the Lords day. (11) What Tracts were writ and published in that Princes time, in opposition to the Doctrines before remembered. (12) In what estate the Lords day, and the other holy dayes, have stood in Scotland, since the reformation of Religion in that Kingdome. (13) Statutes about the Lords day, made in the Reigne of our dread Soveraigne, now being; and the misconstruing of the same: His Majestie reviveth and enlargeth the declaration of King James. (14) An exhortation to obedience unto his Majesties most Christian purpose, concludes this Historie. (1) THUS are we safely come to these present times, the times of reformation wherein what ever had been taught or done in the former days, was publicly brought unto the Test; and if not well approved of, laid aside, either as unprofitable or plainly hurtfull. So dealt the Reformators of the Church of England as with other things, with that which we have now in hand, the Lord’s day, and the other holy days: keeping the days, as many of them, as were thought convenient for the advancement of true godliness and increase of piety; but paring off those superstitious conceits and matters of opinion which had been entertained about them. But first; before we come to this, we will, by way of preparation, lay down the judgments of some men in the present point; men of good quality in their times, and such as were content to be made a sacrifice in the Common Cause. Of these, I shall take notice of three particularly, according to the several times in the which they lived. And first, we will begin with Master Fryth, who suffered in the year 1533, who in his Declaration of Baptism thus declares himself: “Our fore-fathers (saith he) which were in the beginning of the Church, did abrogate the Sabbath, to the intent that men might have an ensample of Christian liberty, etc. Howbeit because it was necessary that a day should be reserved in which the people should come together to hear the Word of God, they ordained instead of the Sabbath which was Saturday, the next day following which is Sunday. And although they might have kept the Saturday with the Jew, as a thing indifferent; yet they did much better.”

Some three years after him, Anno 1536, being the 28th of Henry the 8th, suffered Master Tyndall; who in his answer to Sir Thomas More hath resolved it thus: “As for the Sabbath we be Lords over the Sabbath, and may yet change it into Monday, or into any other day, as we see need; or may make every tenth day holy only, if we see cause why. Neither was there any cause to change it from the saturday, but to put a difference between us and the Jews; neither need we any holy day at all, if the people might be taught without it.” Last of all, Bishop Hooper, sometimes Bishop of Gloucester, who suffered in Queen Mary’s reign, doth in a Treatise by him written on the ten Commandments, and printed in the year 1550, go the self-same way. “We may not think (saith he) that God gave any more holiness to the Sabbath, than to the other days. For if ye consider Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, in as much as they be days, and the work of God, the one is no more holy, in the which we must apply and give ourselves unto holy works. To that end did he sanctify the Sabbath day, not that we should give ourselves to illness, or such Ethnical pastime as is now used amongst Ethnical people: but being free that day from the travails of this world, we might consider the works and benefits of God, with thanksgiving; hear the Word of God, honor him and fear him; then to learn who and where be the poor of Christ, that want our help.” Thus they: and they amongst them have resolved on these four conclusions: First, That one day is no more holy than another, the Sunday than the Saturday or the Friday, further than they are set apart for holy uses. Secondly, That the Lord’s day hath no institution from divine authority, but was ordained by our fore-fathers in the beginning of the Church, that so the people might have a day to come together and hear God’s Word: thirdly, That still the Church hath power to change the day, from Sunday unto Monday, or what day she will. And lastly, That one day in seven, is not the Moral part of the fourth Commandment: for M. Tyndall saith expressly, that by the Church of God, each tenth day only may be kept holy, if we see cause why. So that the marvel is the greater that any man should now affirm, as some men have done, that they are willing to lay down both their lives and livings in maintenance of those contrary Opinions which in these latter days have been taken up. (2) Now that which was affirmed by them, in their particulars, was not long afterwards made good by the general body of this Church and State, the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and all the Commons met in Parliament, Anno the fifth and sixth of King Edward the sixth; where, to the honor of Almighty God, it was thus enacted:FOR AS MUCH AS MEN BEE NOT AT ALL TIMES SO MINDFULL TO LAUD AND PRAISE GOD,SO READIE TO RESORT TO HEARE GODS HOLY WORD,AND TO COME TO THE HOLY COMMUNION,ETC.AS THEIR BOUNDEN DUTY DOTH REQUIRE: THEREFORE,TO CALL MEN TO REMEMBRANCE OF THEIR DUTIE,AND TO HELP THEIR INFIRMITIE,IT HATH BEEN WHOLESOMELY PROVIDED,THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME certaine times and dayes appointed,WHEREIN THE ChristiansSHOULD CEASE from all kind of labor,AND APPLY THEMSELVES ONLY AND WHOLLY UNTO THE AFORESAID holy works\parPROPERLY PERTAINING TO TRUE RELIGION, etc.WHICH WORKES AS THEY MAY WELL BE CALLED Gods ServiceSO THE timesESPECIALLY APPOINTED FOR THE SAME,ARE CALLED holy dayes:NOT FOR THE matter\parOF THE natureEITHER OF THE time OR day etc.FOR SO ALL dayes and timesARE SANCTIFIED AND HALLOWED: that is to say,SEPARATED FROM ALL prophane uses,AND DEDICATED NOT UNTO ANY SAINT OR CREATURE,BUT ONLY UNTO God,AND HIS TRUE WORSHIP.NEITHER IS IT TO BE THOUGHT,THAT THERE IS ANY certaine time OR definite number of dayes,PRESCRIBED IN holy Scripture;BUT THE appointmentBOTH OF THE timeAND ALSO OF THE number of dayes,IS LEFT BY THE authoritie of Gods WordUNTO THE libertie of Christs Church,TO BE DETERMINED AND ASSIGNED ORDERLY IN EVERY COUNTRY,BY THE DISCRETION OF THE Rulers And MinistersTHEREOF,AS THEY SHALL JUDGE MOST EXPEDIENT, TO THE TRUE SETTING FORTH OF GodsGLORY,AND EDIFICATION OF THEIR PEOPLE. Nor is it to be thought, that all this Preamble was made in reference to the holy days or Saint’s days only; whose being left to the authority of the Church, was never questioned; but in relation to the Lord’s day also, as by the Act itself doth at full appear; for so it followeth in the Act:BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED ETC.THAT ALL THE dayesHEREAFTER MENTIONED SHALL BE KEPT AND COMMANDED TO BE KEPT holy dayes, AND NONE OTHER:THAT IS TO SAY, all SundayesIN THE YEERE,THE FEASTS OF THE Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ,OF THE Epiphanie, OF THE Purification (with all the rest now kept, and there named particularly),AND THAT NONE OTHER DAY SHALL BE KEPT AND COMMANDED TO BE KEPT HOLY DAY,AND TO ABSTAINE FROM LAWFULL BODILY LABOUR. Nay, which is more, there is a further Clause in the selfsame Act, which plainly shows that they had no such thought of the Lord’s day as that it was a Sabbath, or so to be observed as the Sabbath was; and therefore did provide it, and enact by the authority aforesaid,THAT IT SHALL BE LAWFULL TO EVERY Husbandman, Labourer, Fisherman,AND TO ALL AND EVERY other person and persons,OF WHAT ESTATE,DEGREE, OR CONDITION HE OR THEY BE,UPON THE holy dayesAFORESAID in Harvest,OR AT ANY OTHER TIMES IN THE YEERE,WHEN necessitie shall so require,TO LABOUR,RIDE,FISH,OR WORKE ANY KIND OF WORKE,AT THEIR FREEWILS AND PLEASURE:ANY THING IN THIS ACT UNTO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING. This is the total of this Act; which if examined well, as it ought to be, will yield us all those propositions or conclusions before remembered, which we collected from the writings of those three particular Martyrs. Nor it is to be said that it is repealed and of no authority. Repealed indeed it was, in the first year of Queen Mary; and stood repealed in Law, though otherwise in use and practice all the long Reign of Queen Elizabeth: but in the first year of King James was revived again. Note here that in the self-same Parliament the Common Prayer Booke, now in use, being reviewed by many godly Prelates, was confirmed and authorized: wherein so much of the said Act as doth concern the names and number of the holy days is expressed, and as it were incorporate into the same. Which makes it manifest that in the purpose of the Church, the Sunday was no other wise esteemed of than another holy day. Note further that the Parliament had declared no more than what had formerly been set forth by the King himself, Injunctions by him published Anno 1547, in the first entrance of his Reign, which being verbatim (in this point) set out by Queen Elizabeth, I shall defer until we come unto her time. So that both by Ecclesiastical, Regal, and Parliamentary authority, the Lord’s day was confessed to be of very different nature from the former Sabbath. (3) But to proceed, this Statute, as before we said, was made in Anno 5th and 6th of Edward the sixth: And in that very Parliament the Common Prayer-Booke was confirmed, which still remains in use amongst us; save that there wasAN ALTERATION OR ADDITION OF CERTAIN LESSONS TO BE USED ON EVERY Sunday OFTHE YEERE;THE FORME OF THE Letanie ALTERED AND CORRECTED;AND TWO SENTENCES ADDED IN THE DELIVERY OF THE SacramentUNTO THE COMMUNICANTS. Now in this Common Prayer-Booke thus confirmed, in the fifth and sixth years of King Edward the 6th it pleased those who had the altering and revising of it, that the Commandments, which were not in the former Liturgy allowed of in the second of the said King’s Reign, should now be added, and accounted as a part of this; the people being willed to say after the end of each Commandment, Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law. Which being used accordingly, as well upon the hearing of the fourth Commandment as of any others, hath given some men a color to persuade themselves that certainly it was the meaning of the Church that we should keep a Sabbath still, though the day be changed; and that we are obliged to do it by the fourth Commandment. Assuredly they who so conclude, conclude against the meaning of the Book, and of them that made it. Against the meaning of the Book: for if the Book had so intended that that ejaculation was to be understood in a literal sense according as the words are laid down in terminis, it then must be the meaning of the Book that we should pray unto the Lord to keep the Sabbath of the Jews, even the seventh day precisely, from the World’s Creation; and keep it in the self- same manner as the Jews once did; which no man, I presume, will say was the meaning of it. For of the changing of the day there is nothing said, nor nothing intimated; but the whole Law laid down in terminis, as the Lord delivered it. Against the meaning also of them that made it; for they that made the Book, and reviewed it afterwards and caused these passages and Prayers to be added to it; Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury; Ridley, Bishop of London; and certain others of the Prelates then and there assembled, were the same men by whose advice and counsel the Act before remembered, about keeping holy days, was in the self-same Parliament drawn up and perfected. They which confirmed the Book by them so contrived, the self-same Lords and Commons which had consented thereunto. And he by whose most supreme power it was authorized; the very same which in his regal Injunctions five years before, and those continuing still in force, had absolutely determined of the Lord’s day, that it was not founded on the fourth Commandment. And is it possible we should conceive so ill of those reverend, wise, and sacred persons, as that they would erect a Sabbath in the one Act, and beat it down so totally in the other; to tell us in the Service-Booke, that we are bound to keep a Sabbath, and that the time and day of God’s public worship, is either pointed out in the fourth Commandment, or otherwise ordained by Divine Authority; and in the self-same breath, to tell us, that there is neither certain time, nor definite number of days prescribed in Scripture, but all this left unto the liberty of the Church? I say, as formerly I said, it is impossible we should think so ill of such reverend persons; nor do I think that any will so think hereafter, when they have once considered the non sequitur of their own conclusions. As for the Prayer there used, we may thus expound it according to the doctrine and the practice both, of those very times: viz. That their intent and meaning was to teach the people to pray unto the Lord, to incline their hearts to keep that Law, as far as it contained the Law of Nature and had been entertained in the Christian Church; as also to have mercy on them for the neglect thereof, in those holy days which by the Wisdom and Authority of his Church had been set apart for GOD’S public Service. Besides, this Prayer was then conceived, when there was no suspicion that any would make use thereof to introduce a Jewish Sabbath; but when men rather were inclined to the contrary error, to take away those certain and appointed times, Lord’s days, and other holy days, which by the wisdom of the Church had been retained in the Reformation. The Anabaptists were strongly bent that way, as before we showed; and if we look into the Articles of our Church, we shall there find what special care was taken to suppress their errors in other points, which had took footing, as it seems, in this Church and Kingdom. Therefore the more likely is it that this Clause was added to crush their furious fancies in this particular, of not hallowing certain days and times to God’s public Service. Yet I conceive withal that had those reverend Prelates forseen how much their pious purpose would have been abused, by wresting it to introduce a Sabbath which they never meant, they would have cast their meaning in another mold. (4) Proceed we to the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, that so much celebrated Princess, and in the first place, we shall meet with her Injunctions, published the first year of her Empire: in which the Sunday is not only counted with the other holy days, but labor at some times permitted, and which is more, enjoined upon it. King Edward her beloved Brother had formerly declared his will and pleasure in the self-same words; which she did new revive and publish in this form that followeth:ALL THE QUEENES FAITHFUL AND LOVING SUBJECTS SHALL FROM HENCEFORTH CELEBRATE AND KEEPE THEIR holy dayACCORDING TO GODS HOLY WILL AND PLEASURE: that is,IN HEARING THE WORD OF GOD READ,AND TAUGHT: IN PRIVATE AND PUBLIKE PRAYERS;IN KNOWLEDGING THEIR OFFENCES UNTO GOD,AND AMENDMENT OF THE SAME:IN RECONCILING OF THEMSELVES CHARITABLY TO THEIR NEIGHBOURS,WHERE DISPLEASURE HATH BEEN;IN OFTENTIMES RECEIVING THE COMMUNION OF THE BODIE AND BLOUD OF Christ;IN VISITING THE POORE,AND SICKE;USING ALL SOBERNESSE,AND GODLY CONVERSATION. This seems to be severe enough; but what followeth next?YET NOTWITHSTANDING,ALL Parsons, Vicars, and CuratesSHALL TEACH AND DECLARE TO THEIR PARISHIONERS,THAT THEY MAY,WITH a safe and quiet Conscience, AFTER THEIR Common Prayer,IN THE TIME OF Harvest,LABOUR UPON THE holy and festivall dayes,AND SAVE THAT THING WHICH GOD HATH SENT;AND IF FOR ANY scrupulositie OR grudge of Conscience,MEN SHOULD SUPERSTITIOUSLY ABSTAINE FROM WORKING ON THESE DAIES, THAT THEN THEY SHOULD GRIEVOUSLY OFFEND AND DISPLEASE GOD.

This makes it evident that Queen Elizabeth in her own particular, took not the Lord’s day for a Sabbath; or to be of a different nature from the other holy days; nor was it taken so by the whole Body of our Church and State, in the first Parliament of her Reign; what time it was enactedTHAT ALL AND EVERY PERSON AND PERSONS INHABITING WITHIN THIS REALME, AND ANY OTHER OF THE QUEENES DOMINIONS,SHALL DILIGENTLY AND FAITHFULLY,HAVING NO LAWFULL OR REASONABLE EXCUSE TO BE ABSENT,ENDEVOUR THEMSELVES TO RESORT TO THEIR PARISH CHURCH, OR CHAPPELL,ACCUSTOMED;OR UPON REASONABLE LET THEREOF,TO SOME USUALL PLACE WHERE Common PrayerSHALL BE USED IN SUCH TIME OF LET,UPON EVERY Sunday,AND OTHER DAYES ORDAINED AND USED TO BE KEPT AS holy dayes,AND THEN AND THERE TO ABIDE ORDERLY AND SOBERLY,DURING THE TIME OF Common Prayer, Preaching,OR OTHER SERVICE OF GOD. Nor was it only so enacted and no more but so; but in the sequel of the Law, the self-same penalty is imposed on them which come not to the Church on the holy days, which is inflicted upon those which neglect the Sundays. For so it followeth in the Statute before remembered: ThatEVERY PERSON SO OFFENDING, shall not alone be subject unto theCENSURES OF THE CHURCH, but shallFORFEIT FOR EVERY SUCH OFFENCE TWELVE PENCE,TO BE LEVIED TO THE USE OF THE POORE OF THE SAME PARISH BY THE Church-wardensOF THE SAME, etc. Which were it executed as it ought, the holy days might in little time regain that credit which they now have lost. This Law is still in force, and still like to be; and by this Law the Sundays and the holy days are alike regarded. Nor by the Law only, but by the purpose and intent of holy Church, who in her public Liturgy is as full and large for every one of the holy days as for the Sunday, the Litany excepted only. For otherwise, by the rule and prescript thereof, the same Religious Offices are designed for both, the same devout attendance rquired for both; and whatsoever else may make both equal. And therefore by this Statute, and the Common Prayer- Booke, we are to keep more Sabbaths than the Lord’s-day Sabbath, or else none at all. (5) Next look we on the Homilies, part of the public Monuments of the Church of England, set forth and authorized, Anno 1562, being the 4th of that Queen’s Reign. In that entitled, Of the place and time of Prayer, we shall find it thus:AS CONCERNING the timeIN WHICH GOD HATH APPOINTED HIS PEOPLE TO ASSEMBLE TOGETHER SOLEMNLY,IT DOTH APPEARE BY THE fourth Commandement, etc.AND ALBEIT THIS CommandementOF GOD DOTH NOT binde Christian peopleSO STRAITLY TO OBSERVE AND KEEPE THE UTTER CEREMONIES OF the Sabbath day AS\parIT DID THE Jewes,AS TOUCHING THE FORBEARING OF WORKE AND LABOUR IN THE TIME OF GREAT NECESSITY,AND AS TOUCHING THE PRECISE KEEPING OF THE SEVENTH DAY,AFTER THE MANNER OF THE Jewes: (FOR WEE KEEPE NOW THE FIRST DAY,WHICH IS OUR SUNDAY, AND MAKE THAT OUR SABBATH,THAT IS our day of rest,IN HONOUR OF OUR SAVIOUR CHRIST,WHO AS UPON THAT DAY ROSE FROM DEATH, CONQUERING THE SAME MOST TRIUMPHANTLY.)YET NOTWITHSTANDING WHATSOEVER IS FOUND IN THE CommandementAPPERTAINING TO the Law of Nature,AS ATHING MOST GODLY,MOST LUST,AND NEEDFULL FOR THE SETTING FORTH OF GODS GLORY,OUGHT TO BE RETAINED AND KEPT OF ALL GOOD Christian people.AND THEREFORE BY THIS CommandementWE OUGHT TO HAVE ATIME, as one day in the weeke, WHEREIN WE OUGHT TO REST YEA FROM OUR LAWFULL AND NEEDFULL WORKS.FOR LIKE AS IT APPEARETH BY THIS Commandement,THAT NO MAN IN THE SIX DAYES OUGHT TO BE SLOTHFULL AND IDLE,BUT DILIGENTLY TO LABOUR IN THAT STATE WHEREIN GOD HATH SET HIM, EVEN SO GOD HATH GIVEN EXPRESSE CHARGE TO ALL MEN,THAT UPON THE Sabbath day,WHICH IS NOW OUR Sunday,THEY SHOULD CEASE FROM ALL WEEKELY AND WORKEDAY LABOUR:TO THE INTENT THAT LIKE AS GOD HIMSELFE WROUGHT SIX DAYES AND RESTED THE SEVENTH, AND BLESSED AND SANCTIFIED IT,AND CONSECRATED IT TO QUIETNESSE AND REST FROM LABOUR;EVENSO GODS OBEDIENT PEOPLE SHOULD USE the SundayHOLILY, &REST FROM THEIR common and daily businesse, AND ALSO GIVE THEMSELVES WHOLY TO HEAVENLY EXERCISES OF GODS TRUE RELIGION AND SERVICE.SO THAT GOD DOTH NOT ONELY COMMAND THE OBSERVATION OF THIS holy day;BUT ALSO BY HIS EXAMPLE DOTH STIRRE AND PROVOKE US TO THE DILIGENT KEEPING OF THE SAME,ETC.THUS IT MAY PLAINELY APPEARE THAT GODS WILL AND COMMANDEMENT WAS TO HAVE ASOLEMNE TIME AND STANDING DAY in the weeke,WHEREIN THE PEOPLE SHOULD COME TOGETHER,AND HAVE IN REMEMBRANCE HIS WONDERFULL BENEFITS,AND TO RENDER HIM THANKES FOR THEM,AS APPERTAINETH TO LOVING,KINDE,AND OBEDIENT PEOPLE.THIS EXAMPLE and CommandementOF GOD, the godly Christian people beganne to followIMMEDIATELY after the Ascension of ourLORD CHRIST,AND BEGANNE TO CHOOSE THEM a standing day of the weeke toCOME TOGETHER IN:YET NOT THE seaventh day,WHICH THE JewesKEPT,BUT THE Lords day,THE DAY OF THE LORDS RESURRECTION,THE DAY AFTER THE SEAVENTH DAY,WHICH IS THE first day of the weeke, etc.SITHENCE WHICH TIME,GODS PEOPLE HATH ALWAYES IN ALL AGES,WITHOUT ANY GAINSAYING,USED TO COME TOGETHER ON THE Sunday,TO CELEBRATE AND HONOUR THE LORDS BLESSED NAME,AND CAREFULLY TO KEEP THAT DAY IN HOLY REST AND QUIETNESSE,BOTH MAN,AND WOMAN,CHILDE,SERVANT AND STRANGER. So far the Homily, and this is all thereof which is doctrinal. The residue consists in reprehension of two sorts of men: one of the which,IF THEY HAD ANY BUSINESSE TO DOE,THOUGH there were no extreme need,WOULD NOT SPARE the Sunday,BUT USED ALL DAYES ALIKE; the holy dayes and worke-dayesALL AS ONE; the other so consumed the dayIN GLUTTONY AND DRUNKENNESSE,AND SUCH FLESHLY BUSINESSE, that as it is there said,THE LORD WAS MORE DISHONOURED AND THE DEVILL BETTER SERVED on the Sunday,THEN UPON ALL THE DAYES IN THE WEEKE BESIDES. (6) This saith the Homily, and this hath often been alleged, as well to prove a Lord’s day Sabbath, to be allowed of by the Doctrine of the Church of England; as at this present time, to justify the disobedience of those men who have refused to publish the Prince’s pleasure in point of recreations.

But this, if well examined, will as little help them, as Lord have mercy upon us, in the Common Prayer Booke. For first it is here said, that there is no more of the fourth Commandment to be retained and kept of good Christian people, than whatsoever is found in it appertaining to the Law of Nature. But we have showed before, that there is nothing in the fourth Commandment of the Law of nature, but that some time be set apart for God’s public service: the Precept, so far forth as it enjoins one day in seven, or the seventh day precisely from the World’s creation, being avowed for ceremonial by all kind of Writers. Secondly it is said, not that the Lord’s day was enjoined by Divine authority, either by Christ himself or his Apostles; but chosen for a standing day to come together in by godly Christian people, immediately after the Ascension of our Lord Christ. If chose by them, then not enjoined by the Apostles: if not till after the Ascention of our Savior Christ, then not at all by him commanded. Thirdly, whereas they chose themselves a standing day in the week to come together in, they did not this by any obligation laid upon them by the fourth Commandment, but only by a voluntary following of God’s example, and the Analogy or equity of God’s Commandment; which was (they do not say which is) that he would have [amongst the Jews] a solemn time and standing day in the week, wherein the people should have in remembrance his wonderful benefits, and render thanks to him for the same. For it is said that this Example and Commandment of God, the godly Christian people began to follow after Christ’s Ascension: so that it seems they might have chosen whether they would have followed it or not. Fourthly, when they had chose this day which we now observe, for their public meetings, they did not think themselves obliged by the fourth Commandment to forbear work and labor in time of great necessity, or to the precise keeping of the same after the manner of the Jews; both which they must have done, had they conceived the keeping of one day in seven to be the moral part of the fourth Commandment, and to oblige us now, no less than it did them formerly, as some men have taught us. Now whereas some have drawn from hence these two Conclusions: First, that according to this Homily we ought to keep one day in seven, by the fourth Commandment; and secondly, that we must spend it wholly in religious exercises. I would fain know how those conclusions can be raised from the former premises. It’s true, the Homily hath told us that by the 4th Commandment we ought to have a time, as one day in the week, wherein we ought to rest from our needful works. Where note, that there is not said that by the fourth Commandment we ought to have one day in the week, which is plain and peremptory; but that we ought to have a time as one day in the week, which was plainly arbitrary. A time we ought to have by the fourth Commandment, as being that part of it which pertains to the Law of Nature; but for the next words, as one day in the week, they are not there laid down as imposed on us by the Law; but only instanced in, as settled at that time in the Church of God. So where it is affirmed in another place that God’s will and commandment was to have a solemn time and standing day in the week, we grant indeed that so it was; and that the Godly Christian people in the Primitive times were easily induced to give God no less than what he formerly commanded. But had the meaning of the Homily been this, that we were bound to have a standing day in the week by the fourth Commandment; they would have plainly said, It is God’s will and pleasure that it should be so, and not have told us what it was in the times before. It’s true, the Homily hath told us that we should rest ourselves on Sunday from our common business, and so give ourselves wholly to heavenly exercises of God’s true Religion and service. Where note it is not said, that we should spend the day wholly in heavenly exercises; for then there were no time allowed us to eat and drink, which are mere natural employments; but that we give ourselves wholly, that is our whole selves body and soul, to the performance of those heavenly exercises which are required of us in the way of true Religion and God’s public service. It is accounted, as we have formerly made plain, to be the ceremonial part of the fourth Commandment, Quod fiat semel in qualibet hebdomada; & quod fiat in una die tota, ista observatio; & quod per totam diem abstineatur ab operibus servilibus: first, the determining of the day, to be one in seven; next, that this one day wholly be so employed; and last of all, that all that day there be an absolute cessation from all servile works. Therefore the spending wholly of one day in seven, being ceremonial, comes not within the compass of the Homily; which would have no more of the fourth Commandment to be kept amongst us than what is appertaining to the Law of Nature. Now it pertains to the Law of Nature, that for the times appointed to God’s public worship, we wholly sequester ourselves from all worldly businesses; naturale est quod dum Deum colimus, ab aliis abstineamus, as Tostatus hath it: and then the meaning of the Homily will be briefly this, that for those times which are appointed by the Church for the assembly of God’s people, we should lay by our daily business and all worldly thoughts, and wholly give ourselves to the heavenly exercises of God’s true Religion & service. But to encounter them at their own weapon, it is expressly said in the Act of Parliament about keeping holy days, that on the days & times appointed, as well the other holy days as the Sunday, Christians should cease from all kind of labor, and only and wholly apply themselves to such holy works as appertain to true Religion: the very same with that delivered in the Homily. If wholly in the Homily must be applied unto the day, then it must be there : and then the Saint’s days, and the other holy days, must be wholly spent in religious exercises. When once we see them do the one, we will bethink ourselves of doing the other. And this I take to be the mind and meaning of that Homily; sure I am yet is most agreeable unto the doctrine of those times, and the men that made it. For had it been their purpose to advance the Sunday into the room and and dignity of the Jewish Sabbath, as some now gather from the same, they must directly have opposed the Queen’s Injunctions, wherein it is no otherwise esteemed of than the other holy days; and labor on the same permitted in time of Harvest. And not so only, but they must have confuted those Acts of Parliament, 5th and 6th of Edward the 6th and 1st Eliz. before remembered; In the first of which the Sunday and the other holy days are publicly avowed to have no other ground than the Authority of the Church; and in the 2nd diligent attendance in the Church, both on the one and on the other, is required alike, and the penalty inflicted on all those which offend therein. Nay they must needs run cross, against the service of the Church, which hath appointed no less solemn forms of Prayers upon the other holy days than upon the Sunday, had they intended to advance the Sunday to so high a pitch as some men imagine. As for the residue of that Homily, which consists in popular reproofs and exhortations, that concerns not us in reference to the point in hand. The Homilies, those parts thereof especially which tend to the correction of manners and reformation of abuses, were made agreeable to those times wherein they were first published. If in those times men made no difference between the working day and holy day, but kept their Fairs and Markets, and bought and sold, and rowed and ferried, and drove and carried, and rode and journeyed, and did their other business, on the Sunday as well as on the other days, when there was no such need but that they might have tarried longer; they were the more to blame, no doubt, in trespassing so wilfully against the Canons of the Church, and Acts of Parliament, which had restrained many of the things there specified. The Homily did well to reprove them for it. If on the other side, they spent the day in ungodliness and filthiness, in gluttony, and drunkenness, and such like other crying sins as are there particularly noted, the Prelates of the Church had very ill discharged their duty had they not took some course to have told them of it. But what is that to us, who do not spend the Lord’s day in such filthy fleshliness (what ever one malicious Sycophant hath affirmed therein), or what is that to dancing, shooting, leaping, vaulting, May-games, and meetings of good Neighborhood, or any other recreation not by law prohibited, being no such ungodly and filthy acts as are therein mentioned? (7) Thus upon due search made, and full examination of all parties, we find no Lord’s day Sabbath in the Booke of Homilies: no not in any writings of particular men, in more than 33 years after the Homilies were published. I find indeed that in the year 1580, the Magistrates of the City of London obtained from Queen Elizabeth that Plays and Enterludes should no more be Acted on the Sabbath day within the Liberties of their City. As also that in <15>83, on the 14th of January being Sunday, many were hurt, and eight killed outright by the sudden falling of the Scaffolds in Paris-garden.