Page 58
Thesis 64.
[ 64] Those who think that Paul would never have Preached till midnight Acts 20.7. if that night had not been part of the Sabbath which began the Morning before, much lesse would he after this long Sermon have communicated with them in the Sacrament, ver. 11. unlesse it had been the Sabbath Day, may do well to consider these things. 1. That the cause of ta∣king in so much of the Night following for Preaching till midnight was extraordinary, viz. Pauls early departure never to see their faces more; and to say that if this Night was no part of the Sabbath, it was then unreasonable to hold them so long at it, is an assertion which wants reason, if we do but consider the shortnesse of his time, the largenesse of Pauls heart, speaking now for his last, and the sweetnesse of their affections as might easily enable them to continue till mid∣night and upward, with cheerfulnesse, and without thinking the duty tedious, and unreasonable long. Paul therefore might begin his Sermon some part of the Day-light, which was part of the Sabbath Day, and continue it till midnight following, and yet this night be no part of the Christian Sabbath, be∣cause it was an extraordinary cause which prest him hereunto. 2. That there is nothing in the Words which will evince the Sabbath to continue so long as Pauls Sermon did; for suppose those who begin the Sabbath at Evening, that it should be said of such, that being met together the first day of the Week to break Bread, their Teacher being to depart on the morrow, Preached▪ unto them and continued his speech till midnight, will this argue a continuance of the same day? No verily, and the like reason is here. 3. That the Lords Supper might be and was administred before Pauls Sermon; for there is a dou∣ble breaking of bread in the Text: the one is of common bread, Verse 11. after Paul had Preached; the other is of holy bread in the Eucharist, verse 7. for the Syriak calls Tha•• break∣ing of the bread which is mentioned verse 7. the Eucharist or Lords Supper; but that which is mentioned, verse 11. Com∣mon bread; and the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, implies as much, and hence also its spoken of one man principally, viz. That when he had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long time till breake of the day, he then departed, it being some ordi∣nary repast for Paul after his long Preaching and before his long journey, and is not therefore any Sacramentall eat••ng; the manner of which is wont to be exprest in other words then as they are here set down; if therefore Pauls eating verse▪ 11. was common Bread, it cannot be then affirmed that the Eu∣charist