Leaving, then, other sources of controversy on either side, the text itself appears to supply the strongest evidence in favour of the punctuation of the MSS. How that of Ruffinus arose, we are not absolutely concerned to say: but when the practice of the more lengthened fast had become established in the Church, it might easily lead to understanding the words of Irenæus in such a manner as to give it primitive authority. But even supposing the fast of forty _days_ to have been kept by _some_ persons in the age of St. Ignatius, this does not prove that practice to have originated in the apostles, as Irenæus gives equally high authority for the shorter fasts of one, two, or several days. All, therefore, that would be proved by the language of Irenæus (taking it in this sense) is that in the time of Ignatius a fast was kept before Easter, and that Christians were left to their own discretion as to the length of it. Chrysostom indeed expressly says(459), that the fast of forty days was not ordained until the mass of Christians had come to communicate only on Easter day, and that without suitable devotion, and that the fast and other devotional exercises were appointed, to prepare them for the Communion on Easter day. Very little more remains to be observed under this head. Irenæus likewise is, I believe, the first writer who uses the term παροικία to signify the district under the superintendence of a bishop(460). And it is interesting that the selfsame term which we now use to distinguish ourselves from separatists was in use in his age, namely, that of _Churchmen_(461). And that was perfectly natural, for the _Church_ had a name from the beginning, but its attribute of _Catholicism_ or Universality, as distinguished from the confined locality of schisms and heresies, was not observed till afterwards; and therefore the name of _Catholic_ was posterior to that of _Churchman_. CHAPTER XVI. ON THE SABBATH. One of the greatest difficulties to modern readers in the history of the primitive Church is the state of feeling and opinion on the subject of the Sabbath. We have been in the habit of arguing from the primitive institution of a holy day (which we have called a sabbath), and of viewing the Lord’s day as answering to it; and if we may judge by the language of the earliest writers, they did not consider the Lord’s day as intended to be a sabbath in itself, although some of them regarded it as being appointed instead of the Sabbath(462). Irenæus certainly viewed the institution of the Sabbath as entirely Mosaical, and thought that Abraham and the patriarchs before the Law did not keep it(463).