26. Here we have fixed the foundation of the observation of the Lord’s day, on the supposition of what hath been proved concerning our duty in the holy observance of one day in seven from the law of our creation, as renewed in the decalogue. The remaining argu- ments, evincing the change of the day from the seventh unto the first by divine authority, shall be but briefly touched on by me, be- cause they have been lately copiously handled and fully vindicated by others. Wherefore, first, when the Lord Christ intended conspi- cuously to build his church upon the foundation of his works and rest, by sending the Holy Ghost with his miraculous gifts upon the apostles, he did it on this day, which was then among the Jews the feast of Pentecost or of weeks, Tien were the disciples gathered together “with one accord,” in the observance of the day signalized to them by his resurrection, Acts ii. 1. And by this doth their obedi- ence receive a blessed confirmation, as well as their persons a glorious
SECT. 26, 27.] OF THE LORD’S DAY. 423
endowment with abilities for the work which they were immediately to. apply themselves unto. And hereon did they set out unto the whole work of building the church on that foundation, and promot- ing the worship of it, which on that day was especially to be cele- brated. :
27. The practice of the apostles and the apostolical churches owned the authority of Christ in this change of the day of sacred rest; for henceforward, whatever apprehensions any of them might have of the continuance of the Judaical Sabbath, as some of them judged that the whole service of it was still to be continued, yet they observed this day of the Lord as the time of their assemblies and solemn worship. One or two instances hereof may be called over: Acts xx. 6, 7, “ We came to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And 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.” I doubt not but in the seven days that the apostle abode there, he taught and preached as he had occasion in the houses of the believers; but it was the first day of the week when they used, according to their duty, to assemble the whole body of them for the celebration of the solemn ordinances of the church, synecdochically expressed by break- ing of bread. This they did without an extraordinary warning or calling together; for in answer to their duty they were accustomed so todo. Such is the account that Justin Martyr gives of the prac- tice of all churches in the next age: Ty rot yAsov Aeyouévn juzpy wav Toy Kate TALC 7 dypods evovray zx) rd abrd ovveArevors yiveras. “On the day called Sunday, there is an assembly of all Christians, whether living in the city or country.” And because of their constant break- ing of bread on this day, it was called “ dies panis,” August. Epist. exvili. And Athanasius proved that he brake not a chalice at such a time, because it was not the first day of the week, when it was to be used, Socrat. lib. v. cap. xxii. And whosoever reads this passage without prejudice will grant that it is a marvellously abrupt and uncouth expression, if it do not signify that which was in com- mon observance amongst all the disciples of Christ; which could have no other foundation but only that before laid down, of the authority of the Lord Christ requiring it of them. And I doubt not but that Paul preached his farewell sermon unto them, which continued until midnight, after all the ordinary service of the church was performed. And all the objections which I have met withal against this instance amount to no more but this, that although the Scripture says that the disciples met for their worship on the first day of the week, yet indeed they did not so do.
In 1 Cor. xvi. 2 the same practice is exemplified: *“ Upon the first
4.2.4 OF THE LORD’S DAY. [ EXERC. V.
day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when Icome.” The constant day of the churches’ solemn assemblies being fixed he here takes it for granted, and directs them unto the observance of an especial duty on that day.. What some except, that here is no men- tion of any such assembly, but only that every one on that day should lay by himself what he would give, which every one might do at home or where they pleased, is exceeding weak, and unsuitable unto the mind of the apostle; for to what end should they be limited unto a day, and that the first day of the week, for the doing of that which might be as well, to as good purpose and advantage, per- formed at any other time, on any other day of the week whatever? Besides, it was to be such a laying aside, such a treasuring of it in a common stock, as that there should be no need of any collection when the apostle came. But if this was done only privately, it would not of itself come together at his advent, but must be col- lected. But all exceptions against these testimonies have been so lately removed by others, that I shall not insist further on them. 28. That from those times downwards the first day of the week had a solemn observation in all the churches of Christ, whereby they owned its substitution in the room of the seventh day, applying the duties and services of the Sabbath unto it, hath also been demon- strated. And that this was owned from the authority of the Lord, is declared by John in the Revelation, who calls it “ The Lord’s day,” Rev. i. 10; whereby he did not surprise the churches with a new name, but denoted to them the time of his visions by the name of the day, which was well known unto them. And there is no solid reason why it should be so called, but that it owes its pre-eminence and observation unto his institution and authority. And no man who shall deny these things can give any tolerable account how, when, or from whence, this day came to be so observed and so called. It is jmépa xupianh, “the Lord’s day,” “the day of the Lord,” as the holy supper is de7rvov xupsaxdv, 1 Cor. xi. 20, “the Lord’s supper,” by rea- son of his institution. 7° DY, “the day of the Lorp,” in the Old Testament, which the LXX. render juépa Kupfov, nowhere 7uépa xvpraxh, signifies indeed some illustrious appearance of God, in a way of judgment or mercy. And so also in the person of Christ, this was the day of his appearance, Mark xvi. 9. So was it still called by the ancient writers of the church, Ignatius in Epist. ad Trall., ad Magnes., etc.; Dionysius of Corinth. Epist. ad Rom. in Euseb, Hist. lib. iv. eap. xxi.; Theophilus Antioch. lib. i in iv. Evangel.; Clemens Alex., Stromat. lib. vii. cap. vii.; Origen, lib. viii. con. Cels.; Tertul. de Coron. Milit. cap. iii, As for those who assign the institution of this day to the apostles, although the supposition be false, yet it