ΤΠ] 
 
 μ" 
 
 pat ede? 
 νόον» 
 ot 968) 
 ΑΝ 
 hg dove 
 
 peletejedatrddi@e 
 ἐμ fe ona ed yh Aes 
 
 slegelee 
 
BR 45 .B35 1860 
 
 Bampton lectures 
 
δ 
 A 
 
 / 
 
 Vee 
 Ny; 
 it 
 
 wv 
 
ie 
 haba 
 is i 
 ‘a! 
 
pot ND ΑΡΥῪ. 
 
 ITS ORIGIN, HISTORY, AND PRESENT OBLIGATION, 
 
 CONSIDERED IN 
 
 EKIGHT LECTURES 
 PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 
 
 IN THE YEAR MDCCCLX, 
 
 ON THE FOUNDATION OF 
 THE LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, M.A.)! 
 
 CANON OF SALISBURY. 
 
 BY JAMES AUGUSTUS HESSEY, D.C.L. 
 
 HEAD MASTER OF MERCHANT TAYLORS’ SCHOOL; 
 PREACHER TO THE HONORABLE SOCIETY OF GRAY’S INN; 
 SOMETIME FELLOW OF ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE, AND SELECT PREACHER 
 IN THE UNIVERSITY, 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, 
 1860. 
 
Son-dapes. 
 
 Bright shadows of true Rest! some shoots of blisse; 
 eaben once a week; 
 
 The next world’s gladness prepossest in this; 
 @ vay to seek 
 
 ZLternity in time; the steps to which 
 
 Hie climb above all ages; Lamps that light 
 
 fan through His Heap of dark davs; and the rich 
 
 And full redemption of the whole week's flight. 
 
 The milky wan chalkt out with Suns, a clue 
 
 That quides through erring Hours; and in full story 
 @ taste of Heaben on earth; the pledge and cue 
 
 @£ a full feast; and the out-courts of glory. 
 
 HENRY VAUGHAN, 17th Century. 
 
 DIES RESURRECTIONIS DOMINIC ... QU TANTIS DIVINARUM DIS- 
 POSITIONUM MYSTERIIS EST CONSECRATA, UT QUICQUID EST A DOMINO 
 INSIGNIUS CONSTITUTUM, IN HUJUS DIEI DIGNITATE SIT GESTUM. IN 
 HAC MUNDUS SUMSIT EXORDIUM. IN HAC PER RESURRECTIONEM CHRISTI 
 ET MORS INTERITUM, ET VITA ACCEPIT INITIUM. ΙΝ HAC APOSTOLI iN 
 DOMINO PRAEDICANDI OMNIBUS GENTIBUS EVANGELII TUBAM SUMUNT, 
 ET INFERENDUM UNIVERSO MUNDO SACRAMENTUM REGENERATIONIS 
 ACCIPIUNT. IN HAC SICUT BEATUS JOANNES EVANGELISTA TESTATUR, 
 JANUIS CLAUSIS, CUM AD EOS DOMINUS INTROISSET, INSUFFLAVIT, ET 
 DIXIT;: ‘‘ ACCIPITE SPIRITUM SANCTUM; QUORUM REMISERITIS PECCATA, 
 REMITTUNTUR EIS, ET QUORUM DETINUERITIS, DETENTA ERUNT.” IN 
 HAC DENIQUE PROMISSUS A DOMINO APOSTOLIS SPIRITUS SANCTUS 
 ADVENIT : UT CCELESTI QUADAM REGULA INSINUATUM ET TRADITUM 
 NOVERIMUS IN ILLA DIE CELEBRANDA NOBIS ESSE MYSTERIA SACER- 
 DOTALIUM BENEDICTIONUM, IN QUA COLLATA SUNT OMNIA DONA 
 GRATIARUM. 
 
 LEON. EPIST, 9, o/im 11. ¢. 1. tom. 1. col, 630. Fol. Venet. 1753- 
 
 R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL. 
 
TO 
 
 CHARLES WILLIAMS, D.D. 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF JESUS COLLEGE, OXFORD, 
 
 HON. CANON OF BANGOR, 
 
 AND PROCTOR IN CONVOCATION, 
 
 WITH THE PREACHER’S SINCERE REGARDS. 
 
EXTRACT 
 
 FROM 
 
 PEE LAST IVIL AN DYTESTAMEN T 
 
 OF THE LATE 
 
 REV. JOHN BAMPTON, M.A. 
 
 CANON OF SALISBURY. 
 
 “T give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the 
 
 “Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of 
 “ Oxford for ever, to have and to hold all and singular the 
 “said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the intents and 
 “purposes hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, I will and 
 κε appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford 
 “ for the time being shall take and receive all the rents, issues, 
 “and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and 
 “necessary deductions made) that he pay all the remainder 
 “to the endowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be 
 “established for ever in the said University, and to be per- 
 
 “formed in the manner following : 
 
 “T direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in 
 “ Kaster Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of 
 “Colleges only, and by no others, in the room adjoining to 
 “the Printing-House, between the hours of ten in the morning 
 ‘and two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture 
 “ Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary’s in Oxford, between 
 
vl EXTRACT FROM WILL. 
 
 « the commencement of the last month in Lent Term, and the 
 “ end of the third week in Act Term. 
 
 ‘Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture 
 “Sermons shall be preached upon either of the following 
 « Subjects—to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and 
 “to confute all heretics and schismatics—upon the divine 
 “ authority of the holy Scriptures—upon the authority of the 
 ἐς writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice 
 “of the primitive Church—upon the Divinity of our Lord 
 “ond Saviour Jesus Christ—upon the Divinity of the Holy 
 “ Ghost—upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as compre- 
 “ hended in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. 
 
 “ Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity 
 “ Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two months 
 ‘after they are preached, and one copy shall be given to the 
 “ Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of 
 “every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the city of 
 “‘ Oxford, and one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library ; 
 “and the expense of printing them shall be paid out of the 
 “revenue of the Land or Estates given for establishing the 
 “ Divinity Lecture Sermons ; and the Preacher shall not be 
 
 τς paid, nor be entitled to the revenue before they are printed. 
 
 * Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified 
 “to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath 
 “taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the 
 “two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge; and that the 
 
 “* same person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons 
 ** twice.” 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Tne Lectures which are now presented to the 
 reader, though preached before a learned audi- 
 ence, are arranged somewhat in a popular form, 
 because the subject, at any rate, is one of general 
 interest. Accordingly, with very few exceptions 
 indeed, the quotations which appear in the 
 text, from any but English documents, are so 
 parenthetically inserted as to be capable of 
 omission in perusal without injury to the 
 passages in which they occur. They were of 
 course omitted in delivery. They are inserted 
 now, because many persons desire to have before 
 them whatever is immediately wanted to eluci- 
 date the matter in hand, without the distracting 
 formality of a note. A good many notes are 
 attached to the end of the Lectures, and the 
 
 writer believes that he has in no case withheld 
 
vill PREFACE. 
 
 any necessary explanation of his statements. 
 But having himself felt the annoyance of con- 
 stantly occurring figures of reference, he has left 
 the text totally unencumbered. If the reader 
 requires further assistance than the text itself 
 supplies, he has only to turn to the appendix, 
 and, under the page and line, he will generally 
 find something to the purpose. The passages 
 marked thus [ | were also omitted in delivery ; 
 several other passages were much condensed, 
 in order to bring the Lectures into a more 
 moderate compass; but no statement has been 
 materially varied, nor has anything of import- 
 ance been withdrawn or added. 
 
 Thus much for the mere form of the Lectures. 
 Why the subject of the Lord’s Day should have 
 been chosen by the writer for discussion, and 
 chosen at this particular time, is explained at 
 sufficient length in the First and Eighth of the 
 series. The great indulgence, or rather the 
 respectful attention which the Lectures have 
 received from the University, and which the 
 writer very thankfully acknowledges, at least 
 proves the existence of a desire for information 
 upon it. He has endeavoured to treat all the 
 
 opinions which have come under review. with 
 
PREFACE. 1x 
 
 candour, and to abstain from any thing like 
 censure of individuals. If he has been com- 
 pelled, for clearness’ sake, to use such terms as 
 Sabbatarian, or Dominical, or the like, he has 
 done so, not to cast a slur upon any particular 
 school, but to indicate what he conceives to be 
 its prevailing tendency. It may be, that with 
 all his care, he has offended or may offend some. 
 If so, he has only to request that dislike of 
 certain historical facts may not lead to con- 
 demnation of him whose duty it was to bring 
 them forward. His statements must be either 
 correct or incorrect. If the latter, the obvious 
 method is to refute them: but if the former, 
 then, however much they may be opposed to 
 prevailing notions, he should scarcely be made 
 responsible for them. 
 
 The writer, however, is not by any means so 
 anxious about any personal misconception, as 
 he is for the destiny of that GREAT and DIVINELY 
 APPOINTED RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION of which he 
 has ventured to treat. Christ, he believes, will 
 effectually defend His own Day, and preserve it, 
 as hitherto, for His Church. But the present 
 is a time of trial for it, partly from the over- 
 
 statements and over-strictness of those who look 
 
Χ PREFACE. 
 
 at it solely on its Divine side, partly from the 
 under-statements or laxity of those who look 
 at it solely on its human side. And then there 
 is another difficulty. The Clergy are much 
 divided as to the main points treated of in the 
 Lectures. They are at issue as to the origin of 
 the Lord’s Day. ‘The books generally current 
 present them with most incorrect and varying 
 accounts of its history. And it is scarcely too 
 much to say, that cases of conscience brought 
 before them as to what may or may not be done 
 upon it, receive answers perplexingly contra- 
 dictory. This diversity of opinion among the 
 Clergy tells most unhappily upon the Laity. 
 Even statesmen know not what to do with the 
 Lord’s Day—as various abortive attempts at 
 legislation upon it during the last ten or twelve 
 years abundantly testify. 
 
 The present Lectures claim but to be a con- 
 tribution to a fuller and deeper consideration of 
 the subject than it lias recently obtained. They 
 have not been thrown together hastily, or with- 
 out much thought and prayer. And the number 
 of the books which have been consulted, and of 
 the opinions which have been weighed, will at 
 
 any rate show that the writer’s task has been 
 
PREFACE. ΧΙ 
 
 one of no small labour. He has indeed had the 
 subject before him for years, and has been in 
 the habit of noting down whatever he found 
 bearing upon it in the course of his reading. 
 His view was formed, and his materials were 
 accumulated, for the most part, before his name 
 was proposed to the electors. If he has ren- 
 dered scanty justice to his great theme, it has 
 not “been for lack of industry, or from precipi- 
 tancy. He has done what he could in a work 
 which every one desired to see attempted, but 
 which every one shrunk from attempting. 
 
 The obligations of the writer to those who 
 have preceded him, he has acknowledged by 
 copious references. But he desires here to render 
 especial thanks to Mr. Dyce, R.A. for the perusal 
 of an unpublished paper upon “The Ecclesiastical 
 Sabbatarianism of the Church of Rome, anterior 
 to the Reformation.” This afforded him a valu- 
 able clew to one of the most difficult portions of 
 the subject. It is stated in the body of the 
 Sixth Lecture, that Hengstenberg on the Lord’s 
 Day (Martin’s translation, pp. 69—75), has been 
 consulted for the Continental history of the 
 controversies in the seventeenth century. It 
 
 may be added here, that in some cases the 
 
ΧΙ PREFACE. 
 
 very words of his learned and judicious summary 
 of the events of that period have been adopted. 
 In the Third Lecture two or three passages are 
 taken from Mr. E. V. Neale’s “‘ Feasts and Fasts,”’ 
 an erudite and laborious work, of which some 
 use has been made. 
 
 Having now completed his task to the best 
 of his ability, the writer commends it to the 
 judgment of his fellow-Churchmen, humbly 
 hoping that, however deficient in itself, it may 
 lead some to inquire into and value the Lord’s 
 
 Day, and to glorify Him who is the Lord of it. 
 
yy PRINCETON 
 
 ΟἿ DEAN ZS. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 (Delivered March 11, 1860.) 
 GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE SABBATH AND LORD’S DAY QUESTION. 
 
 Mark XVI. 1, 2, 5, 6. 
 
 AND WHEN THE SABBATH WAS PAST, MARY MAGDALENE, AND MARY THE 
 MOTHER OF JAMES, AND SALOME, HAD BOUGHT SWEET SPICES, THAT 
 THEY MIGHT COME AND ANOINT HIM. AND VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING 
 THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THEY CAME UNTO THE SEPULCHRE AT THE 
 RISING OF THE SUN. AND ENTERING INTO THE SEPULCHRE, THEY SAW 
 A YOUNG MAN SITTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE, CLOTHED IN A LONG WHITE 
 GARMENT, AND THEY WERE AFFRIGHTED. AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, BE 
 NOT AFFRIGHTED: YE SEEK JESUS OF NAZARETH WHICH WAS CRUCIFIED : 
 HE IS RISEN. 
 
 Kat διαγενομένου του σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ 
 ᾿Ιακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν 
 αὐτον. 
 
 Καὶ λίαν πρωΐ τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατέλ-- 
 λοντος (v. ἰ. ἀνατείλαντος) τοῦ ἡλίου. 
 
 Καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον, εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον ἐν τοῖς 
 δεξιοῖς, περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν" καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. 
 
 “Ὃ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς, Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε' ᾿Ιησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν 
 
 ἐσταυρωμένον" ἠγέρθη. 
 
xiv CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 (Delivered April 22, 1860.) 
 THE HISTORY OF THE LORD’S DAY TO THE END OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 
 
 Mark XVI. 1, 2, 5, 6. 
 
 AND WHEN THE SABBATH WAS PAST, MARY MAGDALENE, AND MARY THE 
 MOTHER OF JAMES, AND SALOME, HAD BOUGHT SWEET SPICES, THAT 
 THEY MIGHT COME AND ANOINT HIM. AND VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING 
 THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THEY CAME UNTO THE SEPULCHRE AT THE 
 RISING OF THE SUN. AND ENTERING INTO THE SEPULCHRE, THEY SAW 
 A YOUNG MAN SITTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE, CLOTHED IN A LONG WHITE 
 GARMENT, AND THEY WERE AFFRIGHTED. AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, BE 
 NOT AFFRIGHTED: YE SEEK JESUS OF NAZARETH WHICH WAS CRUCIFIED: 
 HE IS RISEN. 
 
 Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ 
 ᾿Ιακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν 
 αὐτόν. 
 
 Καὶ λίαν πρωΐ τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατέλ- 
 λοντος (v. 1. ἀνατείλαντος) τοῦ ἡλίου. 
 
 Καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον, εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον ἐν τοῖς 
 δεξιοῖς, περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν᾽ καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. 
 
 Ὃ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς, Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε: ᾿Ιησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν 
 ἐσταυρωμένον" ἠγέρθη. 
 
 πον {1 
 (Delivered April 29, 1860.) 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE LORD’S DAY TO THE END OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 
 —AND THE GROWTH OF ECCLESIASTICAL SABBATARIANISM 
 IN THE CHURCH OF ROME. 
 
 Gat. II. 18. 
 
 FOR IF I BUILD AGAIN THE THINGS WHICH I DESTROYED, I MAKE MYSELF 
 A TRANSGRESSOR. 
 
 εἰ Ν ἃ Ar. -“ / ΗΝ 8 ΄ U > A 
 Ei yap ἃ kareAvoa, ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβατὴν ἐμαυτὸν συνι- 
 ᾽ ? 
 στάνω, 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 (Delivered May 6, 1860.) 
 THE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH TO OUR LORD’S RESURRECTION. 
 Conoss: 11. 16, 17. 
 
 LET NO MAN THEREFORE JUDGE YOU IN MEAT OR IN DRINK, OR IN RESPECT 
 OF AN HOLY-DAY, OR OF THE NEW MOON, OR OF THE SABBATH DAYS, 
 WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME: BUT THE BODY IS OF CHRIST. 
 
 A > Γ᾿ a“ U > , x ? , av > , is “ x 
 Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ 
 νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, 
 \ ΄“ cal ~ 
 "A ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, TO δὲ σῶμα Χριστοῦ. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 (Delivered May 13, 1860.) 
 WHAT THE SABBATH IS SINCE OUR LORD’S RESURRECTION. 
 
 Hesrews IV. 8, 9. 
 
 FOR IF JESUS (JOSHUA) HAD GIVEN THEM REST, THEN WOULD HE NOT 
 AFTERWARDS HAVE SPOKEN OF ANOTHER DAY. 
 
 THERE REMAINETH THEREFORE A REST, (A KEEPING OF SABBATH, ) FOR THE 
 PEOPLE OF GOD. 
 
 A - 2, \ a 
 Ei yap αὐτοὺς ᾿Ιησοῦς κατέπαυσεν, οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα 
 c , 
 ἡμέρας. 
 ” 2 a n a a 
 Apa ἀπολείπεται σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 (Delivered May 20, 1860.) 
 THE LORD'S DAY ON THE CONTINENT SINCE THE REFORMATION. 
 JEREMIAH V. 10. 
 
 GO YE UP UPON HER WALLIS, AND DESTROY ; BUT MAKE NOT A FULL END; 
 TAKE AWAY HER BATTLEMENTS ; FOR THEY ARE NOT THE LORD'S. 
 
 ER if SN ῃ ~ ΠΕΣ ‘ , ΩΝ δὲ ᾽ 
 
 νάβητε ἐπὶ τοὺς προμαχῶνας αὐτῆς, καὶ κατασκάψατε, συντέλειαν δὲ οὐ 
 Ν , - ο “ 
 
 μὴ ποιήσετε᾽ ὑπολίπεσθε τὰ ὑποστηρίγματα αὐτῆς, ὅτι τοῦ Κυρίου 
 
 εἰσίν. Ex Vers. LXX. 
 
 GO YE UP UPON HER BATTLEMENTS, AND DESTROY; BUT MAKE NOT A FULL 
 END ; LEAVE HER UNDERWORKS; FOR THEY ARE THE LORD'S. 
 
Xvl1 CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE VIi. 
 (Delivered June 10, 1860.) 
 THE LORD'S DAY IN ENGLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION. 
 JeremMiaAn VI, 16. 
 
 STAND YE IN THE WAYS, AND SEE, AND ASK FOR THE OLD PATHS, WHERE IS 
 THE GOOD WAY, AND WALK. .THEREIN, AND YE SHALL FIND REST FOR YOUR 
 SOULS. 
 
 a 24 ᾿ς eg ας \» A's) , , , > , z \ 
 
 Στῆτε ἐπὶ ταῖς ὁδοῖς Kal ἴδετε, καὶ ἐρωτήσατε τρίβους Kupiov αἰωνίους" καὶ 
 » , > ς ς \ c > A Ν , > > \ ς la 
 ἴδετε ποία ἐστιν ἡ ὁδὸς 7 ἀγαθὴ, καὶ βαδίσατε ἐν αὐτῃ, καὶ εὑρήσετε 
 ἁγνισμὸν (v. ἰ. ἁγιασμὸν) ταῖς Ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν. Ex Vers. ΤΙΧΧ, 
 
 (Conf. Matt. ii. 29, καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς Ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν.) 
 
 LECTURE. VIII. 
 (Delivered June 17, 1860.) 
 
 THE LORD’S DAY VIEWED PRACTICALLY. 
 
 Ps. CXVIII. 24. 
 
 THIS IS THE DAY WHICH THE LORD HATH MADE; WE WILL REJOICE AND 
 BE GLAD IN IT, 
 
 Αὕτη ἡ ἡμέρα ἣν ἐποίησεν ὁ Κύριος: ἀγαλλιασώμεθα καὶ εὐφρανθῶμεν 
 ἐν αὐτῆ. Ex Vers. LXX. 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 
 Page 282, line ult. for as read which. 
 
THMOLOGICEK Le 
 SEMIN KE ie 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 MARK XVI. 1, 2, 5, 6. 
 
 AND WHEN THE SABBATH WAS PAST, MARY MAGDALENE, AND MARY THE 
 MOTHER OF JAMES, AND SALOME, HAD BOUGHT SWEET SPICES, THAT 
 THEY MIGHT COME AND ANOINT HIM. AND VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING 
 THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THEY CAME UNTO THE SEPULCHRE AT THE 
 RISING OF THE SUN. AND ENTERING INTO THE SEPULCHRE, THEY SAW 
 A YOUNG MAN SITTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE, CLOTHED IN A LONG WHITE 
 GARMENT, AND THEY WERE AFFRIGHTED. AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, BE 
 NOT AFFRIGHTED : YE SEEK JESUS OF NAZARETH WHICH WAS CRUCIFIED: 
 HE IS RISEN, 
 
 Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ 
 ᾿Ιακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν 
 αὐτόν. 
 
 Καὶ λίαν πρωΐ τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατέλ- 
 λοντος (v. ἰ. ἀνατείλαντος) τοῦ ἡλίου. 
 
 Καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον, εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον ἐν τοῖς 
 δεξιοῖς, περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν᾽ καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. 
 
 “O δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς, Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε" ᾿Ιησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν 
 ἐσταυρωμένον" ἠγέρθη. 
 
 Tue intelligent visitor of a cathedral, whether 
 in England or on the Continent, is often sur- 
 prised and puzzled by the traditions which he 
 finds attached to it. He is assured with great 
 earnestness, or at any rate with sufficient gravity 
 by his attendant, that this or that part of the 
 structure is due to such a person’s piety, that 
 at such a shrine some notable worthy paid his 
 B 
 
2 LECTURE I. 
 
 devotions, or that it was through that pictured 
 window, now perhaps illumined by a glorious 
 sunset, that the same sun looked down mournfully 
 on the passion of such a martyr. And here, adds 
 the narrator, is the pillar before which he fell. 
 Our visitor, we say, is perplexed—he is unwilling 
 entirely to disbelieve the account—he has a sort 
 of general notion that some building, which may 
 have resembled this in many respects, existed on 
 this site or near to it from a very remote date. 
 The names of which he is told are those of his- 
 torical personages connected more or less with 
 the scene. But then he has some architectural 
 knowledge, and this more than half convinces 
 him that his informant is either mistaken in his 
 facts or incorrect in his chronology. On con- 
 sulting his books he discovers, that though the 
 facts have a foundation in truth, they are con- 
 nected with an older edifice whose associations 
 have been transferred to one of a later age, 
 perhaps through mere inadvertence, perhaps 
 through a not unnatural wish to advance pre- 
 tensions to antiquity for what one admires and 
 reverences, perhaps through other motives not 
 altogether so excusable. 
 
 As it is with particular buildings, so it is 
 with cities. Rome was “the City of Seven Hills,” 
 even when more were taken into its circuit 
 than the Festival Septimontium indicated. The 
 line, 
 
 *Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces,” 
 
LECTURE I. 3 
 
 how true soever of the infant settlement, was 
 true only by accommodation of Rome in its 
 maturer days. Still piety, or poetry, or both, 
 tenaciously clung to the old name. 
 
 But I speak not of edifices or cities, except 
 so far as the popular handling of their legends 
 may illustrate certain points which are my more 
 immediate concern. I dismiss them with the 
 further remarks, that inquiry into the real state 
 of their case is never objected to in the archeo- 
 logist; that he is allowed, if he does it with 
 candour, to sift their annals to the uttermost ; 
 and that nothing of real value is ever destroyed 
 by his investigations. 
 
 And now I pass on to observe that this ten- 
 dency of the human mind to invest compara- 
 tively modern things with the sanctions and 
 associations of the past, is discoverable in its 
 treatment of institutions ; in its treatment espe- 
 cially of that Divine and Apostolical Institu- 
 tion, I mean “‘the Lord’s Day,” which (I trust 
 not rashly, but rather as one treading on holy 
 ground) I have undertaken to examine in such 
 a place and before such an assembly. My excuse 
 for doing so will befound in the following con- 
 siderations. I”believe that great confusion of 
 thought exists on this deeply important subject, 
 and that the institution in question, though suffi- 
 ciently venerable in itself, has been regarded as 
 identical with, instead of at the most analogous 
 to, one of greater antiquity indeed, but of more 
 
 B2 
 
A LECTURE I. 
 
 limited application, the Sabbath of the Fourth 
 Commandment. I believe that from this con- 
 fusion have arisen not merely misapprehensions 
 of a speculative nature, but errors affecting prac- 
 tice, and productive of misunderstandings among 
 brethren. I see that the result has been, on the 
 part of the more learned Clergy, an avoidance of 
 a topic which they cannot treat of logically and 
 historically without being exposed to obloquy, 
 and which they cannot treat of popularly with- 
 out apologizing to their self-respect and sense of 
 duty : on the part of the better informed Laity, 
 a distaste for a doctrine, which, treated (as it 
 generally is) illogically and with want of histo- 
 rical precision, they condemn together with its 
 advocates, and dismiss summarily, either as a 
 clumsy artifice or as a burthen too heavy to be 
 borne. But I see, further, that this was not 
 always so; that there was a time when Κυριακὴ 
 and Σάββατον respectively had their meanings 
 accurately and sharply defined. Hence I ven- 
 ture to hope that an attempt to re-state those 
 meanings, and to clear up certain difficulties con- 
 nected with them, may not be altogether in vain. 
 
 I will only make two requests; the first, that 
 the liberty of candid enquiry, so readily allowed 
 in other matters, may be as readily allowed 
 here; the second, that my audience will care- 
 fully discriminate between two things, which, 
 though essentially distinct, are often confounded 
 in popular nomenclature, a respectful desire to 
 
LECTURE I. 5 
 
 set an institution on its true basis, and a dis- 
 respectful desire to undermine it. I hold this 
 institution to be, in a spiritual sense of the 
 words, “The day which the Lord hath made;”’ 
 “51 rejoice and am glad in it:’’ and I believe the 
 way in which it is regarded to be no uncertain 
 index of Christian steadfastness or decline, “ sig- 
 num aut stantis aut cadentis Christian.” 
 
 The terms of my subject are these: “The 
 * origin, history, and present obligation of the 
 * Lord’s Day or Sunday.”  Philosophically 
 speaking, these terms embrace the whole reason 
 of that day, its past history, its present state, 
 its transition to that state, its destination. 
 Of the method in which I shall treat of it, 
 and of the date to be assumed for its com- 
 mencement, I shall speak presently. But, before 
 doing so, as controversy on the subject has 
 existed chiefly in, and on the borders of, the 
 English Church, I would mention a few of the 
 theories which have been propounded in England 
 concerning it since the Reformation, an ac- 
 quaintance with which may be useful to us in 
 the discussion which is to follow. Their diver- 
 sity will at any rate justify an attempt to ex- 
 hibit some view which shall bind the conscience 
 as scriptural, and satisfy the historical enquirer 
 as consistent with early antiquity ; which shall 
 leave a law under Christianity, and yet involve 
 no Jewish legality. I do not at this moment 
 enter at length on their comparative merits or 
 
6 LECTURE I. 
 
 defects. These will appear as we proceed. I do 
 little more than state the theories themselves as 
 concisely but as fairly as I can, giving not the 
 exact words, but what appears to be the spirit of 
 the several theorists. 
 
 Here then is the first view. 
 
 “« Christianity admits of no distinction of days. 
 «¢ The whole Mosaic Law, call it what you will, 
 “ ceremonial, political, moral, has been fulfilled 
 “and has past away. Christ did not Himself 
 ‘institute, He did not give authority to others 
 “to institute, nor may others institute without 
 « His authority, any especial day of worship or 
 ἐς yest in lieu of or in succession to the Sabbath. 
 ς-ς Therefore, the Sunday is altogether a fiction ; 
 ἐς there is now either no Sabbath at all, or, if the 
 ἐς mere word be contended for, it may be under- 
 “ stood that a true Christian now observes a 
 *« spiritual-every-day-Sabbath, a type of the 
 ‘¢ better Sabbath in heaven.’ These tenets were 
 advocated by certain Antinomians and Ana- 
 baptists. 
 
 And here is the second view, though, perhaps, 
 chronologically speaking, it should stand after 
 - the third, of which it is the honest development. 
 
 «The Decalogue is altogether and in every 
 “part of it moral. The Sabbath, therefore, 
 ‘‘ which is enjoined in it, is still in force under 
 *‘ Christianity, for our Lord did not come to 
 “destroy the law. Though generally observed 
 “on the first day in the week, it cannot be 
 
LECTURE I. σι 
 
 ** observed on that day without sin. It ought 
 *‘ to be observed on the Seventh day, that is, on 
 “Saturday, and of course with all the rigor 
 “ἐς prescribed both in the Fourth Commandment, 
 ** and in other parts of Scripture.”’ This is what 
 may be called the extreme Sabbatarian view. 
 It was partially held in England during the 
 seventeenth century. There are a few professors 
 of it now, but they are chiefly to be found in 
 America. Its most prominent champion was a 
 certain Theophilus Brabourne, who published 
 more than one work upon it. He was formally 
 answered by Bishop Francis White, of Ely, whose 
 name we shall meet with again. 
 
 Here is the third view. 
 
 «The Sabbath existed from the beginning, 
 *‘ was re-enacted and regulated by Moses, and 
 *‘ has never since been abolished or superseded. 
 *« The day indeed has been changed, but, as ‘ the 
 ** seventh day’ and ‘one day in seven’ obviously 
 *‘ mean the same thing, we may fairly transfer 
 “‘ to the first day, whatever Scripture says of the 
 ‘seventh day. Thus our Sabbath, for so we 
 ἐς prefer to designate it, must be observed as 
 ** strictly as was that of the Jews, in the wilder- 
 “ness under Moses, or in Jerusalem under 
 “ Nehemiah.’’ This is, on the whole, the Sabba- 
 tarian view as it appears in the celebrated work 
 of Dr. Nicholas Bownd, which was first put 
 forth a.p. 1595, and afterwards republished with 
 additions a.p. 1606. It was formalized by the 
 
8 LECTURE I. 
 
 Westminster Divines in the statements made in 
 their “‘ Confession of Faith ’’ and their “ Larger ” 
 and ‘‘ Shorter’ Catechisms. Two of their num- 
 ber, Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer, pub- 
 lished a very elaborate work in vindication and 
 explanation of it A.D. 1645 and a.p. 1652. 
 
 Here is the fourth view. 
 
 “ Sunday is the Christian representative of an 
 “ς earlier Sabbath, in fact of a Patriarchal Sab- 
 ‘bath which may be presumed to have existed, 
 * and of the Jewish Sabbath which is known to 
 ‘“‘ have existed. Therefore it may justly be called 
 “the Christian Sabbath. It may be called a 
 ‘* Sabbath, because we refer to the Fourth Com- 
 “ mandment for its moral sanction; it may be 
 ** qualified as the Christian Sabbath, because 
 “‘ Christianity has eliminated from the obser- 
 * vance of that commandment whatever is Jewish 
 ** and ceremonial, and, on the principle that ‘ one 
 “day in seven’ is covered by the expression 
 « «Seventh day,’ has substituted a day of its own 
 “for that which is specified in the document. 
 “©<«The Sabbath was made for man,’ asserts our 
 “ Saviour, that is, for all men, Gentiles as well 
 “as Jews; and, though St. Paul says, ‘ Let no 
 ** man judge you in respect of the Sabbath days,’ 
 “16 must of course be supposed to allude only 
 ““1ο the Jewish aspect of them. The change of 
 “ the day, the softening of the rigor of Sabbath 
 « observance, both of which we allow to have 
 “been made, no matter how or when, but pro- 
 
LECTURE I. 9 
 
 “ bably by the Apostles, are matters of minor 
 «import, and do not affect the essentials of the 
 «“ Fourth Commandment upon which Sunday 
 “ς depends. We cannot, perhaps, observe our 
 ‘* Christian Sabbath as strictly as its letter en- 
 ** joins, but we must observe it as strictly as we 
 ** can, and we would compel every one to similar 
 * strictness. Sabbath-breaking is as distinctly a 
 “sin as transgression of any other part of the 
 “ Decalogue. With very slight, if any, modifi- 
 “ς cations, whatever Scripture says of the rest of 
 ‘“* the Seventh day is virtually said of the rest of 
 “the First day. Jor all practical purposes the 
 “two days are the same.” This view is at 
 present extensively held amongst us, in spite of 
 what I shall venture to call its undue assump- 
 tions, its logical and exegetical difficulties, and 
 its inadequate support from the history of 
 the early Christian Church. It is obviously an 
 attempt to engraft a modified form of Dr. 
 Bownd’s Sabbatarianism on the stock of Sunday. 
 Perhaps it owed its existence, or at any rate its 
 formalization in England, to a conscientious 
 desire to counteract the license of the eighteenth 
 century. Though prevalent before their time, 
 it is, in the main, the view of Bishop Horsley, 
 of Bishop Jebb, and of Dr. Burton. The dif- 
 ference, however, between this view and the 
 third is one of degree rather than of kind. 
 This view allows the Lord’s Day to be in some 
 sort a festival, although one of a rather sombre 
 
10 LECTURE I. 
 
 character, and so beset with restrictions and 
 prescriptions as to furnish many snares for 
 consciences. The third view converts it into a 
 fast, a season of severity and self-denial, as 
 in Scotland. 
 
 And now we come to the fifth view. - 
 
 “The Sabbath was not enjoined on man at 
 ‘the Creation. It was revealed in the first. 
 ‘‘ instance to the Jews, a short time before it 
 “6 was formally published in the Decalogue. The 
 ** Fourth Commandment is not a moral precept 
 ** (or contains only a very slight moral element, 
 ‘“‘ the assertion of the principle that God is to be 
 ** worshipped at some time): therefore, as it is not 
 “one of those which the Gentiles were blamed 
 ‘* for neglecting, so it is not binding upon Chris- 
 *“tians generally as a law of God, or upon 
 ‘‘ members of the Church of England in virtue 
 ‘*‘ of the terms of their communion. Nay, the 
 “ἐς very Decalogue itself is not binding upon any 
 ‘“‘ Christian man as having been delivered on 
 ‘* Sinai, but in so far as it is binding, as a portion 
 ‘‘ of the law of nature. Though one urge that a 
 ** reference is made to the Creation in the terms 
 “ of the Fourth Commandment, this reference was 
 ‘“* only made by anticipation or proleptically. The 
 “ Sabbath was a sign between God and the Jews, 
 ‘** and expired with the Jewish dispensation. As 
 *‘ for the Lord’s Day, it is not, in any sense of 
 “ς the words, a Sabbath, or a successor to the Sab- 
 * bath. It is a purely Ecclesiastical institution. 
 
LECTURE I. ἘΠ} 
 
 “4 Tt has little if anything to do with the Fourth 
 “ Commandment. It has an origin, a reason, an 
 *‘ obligation of its own. The passages usually 
 * cited from the New Testament do not imply 
 “that it existed as an institution in the life- 
 '“ time of at any rate the great majority of the 
 « Apostles. It was not dreamt of till the end of 
 “ the first, perhaps till the middle of the second 
 “century. It is scarcely hinted at in Scripture, 
 “unless indeed we hold that St. John refers 
 “to it in Rev. i. 10, which may be seriously 
 “ς questioned. We do not believe that it is sin- 
 “ ful to do upon it what it may have been sinful 
 “for the Jews to do upon the Sabbath, or 
 “that it is incumbent upon us, even if it were 
 “‘ possible, to spend the whole of it in strictly 
 * religious exercises, or religious contemplation. 
 ** Man is body as well as soul—and he has social 
 ** tendencies as well as personal responsibilities. 
 “Sunday should give free play to his whole 
 “nature. Thus far as to our idea of this fes- 
 “ς tival, which we consider to be a positive ordi- 
 ‘‘nance of the Church, not one dependent on 
 ‘“‘ the Old Testament, or even on the New. If 
 “you ask us, ‘why then has the Fourth Com- 
 *““mandment been placed in the Liturgy in its 
 “purely Jewish form, and in what sense can 
 “you pray that you may keep it?’ a reply is 
 ‘““yready: ‘ We pray that we may keep that law 
 ἐς so far as it contains the law of nature, and has 
 *‘ been entertained in the Christian Church, as 
 
12 LECTURE I. 
 
 ** also that God may have mercy upon us for the 
 “ς neglect thereof in those Holy Days which, by 
 ἐς the wisdom of the Church, have been set apart 
 “for God’s public service.’”’ This fifth view, 
 which I shall term the purely Ecclesiastical view, 
 of the origin and obligation of the Lord’s Day, 
 has, as you are doubtless aware, been held by a 
 great variety of writers in the English Church. 
 Its leading expositors are Dr. Heylin and Bishop 
 F. White. Bishop Sanderson agrees generally 
 with the two writers just mentioned, but per- 
 haps lays greater stress upon Apostolic practice 
 and example than they do. It may, however, 
 be said, that this learned man, and Archbishop 
 Whately, (who has done so much to clear the 
 bearings of the whole question,) though differ- 
 ing in many respects, hold more or less dis- 
 tinctly the Ecclesiastical view. Not that all 
 these theologians have stated its positions quite 
 as they have been given above, or indeed held 
 all those positions. Nor again that they have 
 all of them explained the way in which that 
 view is compatible with the retention of the 
 Decalogue in the Liturgy, exactly in the same 
 manner. Dr. Arnold’s exhibition of his opinion 
 agrees to a certain extent with that of Dr. 
 Heylin, but he has not gone over the whole 
 eround. He adds, however, to it this remark- 
 able corollary, which, if fairly deducible from 
 the purely Ecclesiastical view, seems to in- 
 dicate some unsoundness in it. He holds “that 
 
4 LECTURE I. 13 
 
 “‘ the establishment of the Lord’s Day, whether 
 “Ὅν the Apostles or by their successors, was an 
 ** after-thought, was a matter of Christian expe- 
 ** diency only, was the result of their disappoint- 
 “ment at discovering that men could not at 
 * once do without something like the provisions 
 ““ of the abolished Jewish law. It was therefore 
 *‘ only intended to be a temporary re-enactment 
 “of the spirit of the Fourth Commandment, 
 “‘ and was to endure no longer than men should 
 “require such an aid to their Christianity. 
 «The re-enactors of course hoped and _ believed 
 ‘* that this would soon cease to be the case; and 
 “ doubtless St. Paul, were he to revisit earth at 
 ‘* present, would be surprised to find that Chris- 
 ‘“‘tians had not yet learned to dispense with an 
 ‘institution, too similar, alas! to that which 
 ‘the Jews required.” Another writer has gone 
 yet further, and urged that ‘special days for 
 “religious duties not merely argue a low state 
 “ οὗ religion, but are, in their very nature, a 
 “6 serious injury to religion.” 
 
 The sixth and last view which I have to bring 
 forward, that of Archbishop Bramhall, agrees 
 with what is called the purely Ecclesiastical 
 view in considering the Sabbath to be abrogated ; 
 and in disconnecting the Lord’s Day from the par- 
 ticular provisions of the Fourth Commandment. 
 The Archbishop has, indeed, an expression which 
 introduces a Sabbatarian element into his system ; 
 he considers the weekly festival to be rather 
 
14. LECTURE I. 
 
 changed from one day to another than super- 
 seded by a new institution. But apart from this 
 inconsistency, his view invests the Sunday with 
 a more imposing origin than does that which is 
 purely Ecclesiastical, or rather bestows upon the 
 word Ecclesiastical itself a deeper significance. 
 « What was the authority by which this change 
 “was made? If it was not made by our Lord’s 
 “‘ authority, which there is no cause to doubt, 
 “at least it was made by that of the Apostles. 
 ςς Tt is undeniable that the Lord’s Day is an 
 “ς Apostolical tradition, and it is not so clear 
 “that there is no precept for the change in 
 “ Holy Scripture. As for the manner of ob- 
 “ serving the Lord’s Day, we obtain a guidance 
 “for this, not in set terms, but from consi- 
 ἐς derations of the law of nature, and of the 
 “ evangelical law, and also from the positive 
 “law of the old Sabbath; not by force of its 
 ‘‘terms or by preceptive obligation, but by its 
 “‘ being explanatory of the law of nature.”” Thus 
 writes Archbishop Bramhall—and to the extent 
 of holding “the assembling upon the first day 
 «ς of the week for the purposes of public worship 
 “‘ and religious instruction to be a law of Chris- 
 “ tianity of Divine appointment,’ Archdeacon 
 Paley supports him. Bishop Prideaux and 
 Bishop Cosin had anticipated him, and avoided 
 that confusion between change and superseding 
 into which he fell. But the venerable author 
 of “The Saint’s Rest,’ I mean Richard Baxter, 
 
LECTURE I. 15 
 
 (though he also is partially Sabbatarian, and 
 indeed holds that the Sabbath was communicated 
 to Adam,) is perhaps the clearest expositor of the 
 main points of this view. ‘I believe (says he), 
 “1. That Christ did commission His Apostles to 
 *‘ teach us all things which He commanded, and 
 “ to settle orders in His Church. 2. And that He 
 “‘ gave them His Spirit to enable them to do all 
 “this infallibly, by bringing all His words to 
 ““ their remembrance, and by leading them into all 
 “truth. 38. And that His Apostles by this Spirit 
 “ did de facto separate the Lord’s Day for holy 
 *‘ worship, especially in Church assemblies, and 
 “‘ declared the cessation of the Jewish Sabbaths. 
 «4, And that as this change had the very same 
 ** author as the Holy Scriptures (the Holy Ghost 
 “in the Apostles), so that fact hath the same 
 ‘kind of proof that we have of the Canon, and 
 “ of the integrity and uncorruptness of the parti- 
 * cular Scripture Books and Texts: and that, if 
 “so much Scripture as mentioneth the keeping 
 “ς οὗ the Lord’s Day, expounded by the consent 
 “‘ and practice of the Universal Church from the 
 «days of the Apostles (all keeping this day as 
 ‘holy, without the dissent of any one Sect, or 
 “single person, that 1 remember to have read 
 “of), I say, if all this history will not fully 
 “prove the point of fact, that this day was 
 “kept in the Apostles’ times, and consequently 
 ‘“‘ by their appointment, then the same proof will 
 ἐς not serve to evince that any text of Scripture 
 
16 LECTURE I. 
 
 “15. Canonical and uncorrupted; nor can we 
 “think that anything in the world, that is 
 “‘ past, can have historical proof.” 
 
 Of course I have not intended this enumera- 
 tion to be an exhaustive one. I have even pur- 
 posely omitted such authors as embrace in their 
 systems features belonging to very different 
 schools—Hooker, for instance, and Bishop Stil- 
 lingfleet. But on the whole, so far as I have been 
 able to classify them, these are the leading opi- 
 nions upon the relation of Sunday to the Sabbath 
 which have struggled for mastery in England since 
 the Reformation to the present hour. They have 
 caused and are causing great contention, partly 
 indeed by the principles supposed to be involved 
 in them, but more, perhaps, (such is the practical 
 character of the English people,) by the results to 
 which one class of them leads, and to which the 
 other is supposed to have a tendency to lead. I 
 say “‘one”’ and “the other,” for we may reduce 
 the six to two. The no Sabbath or perpetual 
 Sabbath opinion, and that which advocates the 
 Saturday Sabbath, may be omitted from our 
 estimate altogether ; they are rarely to be found 
 now, at least in a substantive shape, though the 
 former of them has reappeared as an excrescence 
 of the purely Ecclesiastical view. Of the re- 
 mainder, the third and fourth may be called—I 
 do not use the word in an invidious sense— 
 the Sabbatarian, and the fifth and sixth the 
 Dominical set of opinions. ‘These Sabba- 
 
LECTURE I. 17 
 
 tarians (say the Dominicals) would introduce 
 Judaism into the Christian Church, revive ordi- 
 nances which have long since past away, impose 
 upon consciences burthens which the Jews found 
 too heavy to be borne, call acts by the name of 
 sins which God has not so called; in fact, against 
 the advice of St. Paul, submit ‘to be judged in 
 respect of the Sabbath days.’ We find fault 
 with the assumption (unheard of in the ancient 
 Church) that the Fourth Commandment is the 
 ground of the observance of Sunday; with the 
 Logic which says, because God commanded afore- 
 time that the seventh day should be kept holy 
 by Jews, therefore the first day is to be kept 
 holy by Christians now ; and, as practical men, 
 we find fault with the ¢ristesse and rigor 
 which the Sabbatarian theory of Sunday would 
 introduce into the cheerful dispensation of Chris- 
 tianity. Scotland is an instance in point.” 
 “These Dominicals (thus argue the Sabba- 
 tarians on the other hand) evidently cast a slur 
 on the volume of the Old Testament ; evidently 
 set at nought the word of God uttered at the 
 Creation and solemnly repeated at the giving 
 of the Decalogue ; evidently use dishonestly a 
 prayer which they breathe every time they pub- 
 licly hear the Fourth Commandment ; evidently 
 substitute for a divine foundation of Sunday, one 
 of mere human invention, the authority of the 
 Church. Besides, as practical men, we fear that 
 if we do not adopt and urge for the Lord’s Day 
 ο 
 
18 LECTURE I. 
 
 the divine sanctions and regulations with which 
 Scripture has invested and ordered the seventh 
 day, men will gradually diminish their reve- 
 rence for it, and eventually either throw off all 
 restraint upon it, or, a few perfunctory services 
 got through, spend the remainder of it, if not in 
 licentiousness, at least in frivolity. The Conti- 
 nent may furnish a warning in this matter.” 
 Which of these two antagonistic opinions has 
 greater reason on its side—whether either of 
 them is entirely free from objection or to be 
 admitted without qualification—whether they 
 have any, and if so, what elements in common, 
 T now invite you to inquire, not indeed directly, 
 but indirectly, by examination, that is, into the 
 origin, history, and present obligation of that 
 Holy Day which we have every interest in honor- 
 ing, but which is very likely to be dishonored, 
 if advocated on grounds inconsistent with Scrip- 
 ture, and with the facts of the world without 
 and within. We live in an age in which the 
 titles, so to speak, of our ordinances are examined 
 into with most exact and juridical strictness. 
 Men, rightly or wrongly, (for my own part I 
 believe rightly,) demand that no weaker evidence 
 should be given of the right of the Lord’s Day 
 to succeed, in whatever degree, to the honors of 
 the Sabbath, than of the right of a family to 
 possess the temporal honors or the estates of 
 a family which has preceded it. And, let me 
 add, if they find it laying claim to a sanction 
 
LECTURE I. 19 
 
 which cannot be satisfactorily substantiated, they 
 are inclined to look incredulously upon, or not 
 to examine at all, the sanctions which it really 
 possesses. So true are those words of Aristotle : 
 Oi yap περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ ταῖς πράξεσι 
 λόγοι ἧττόν εἰσι πιστοὶ τῶν ἔργων. Ὅταν οὖν δια- 
 φωνῶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν καταφρονούμενοι καὶ 
 τἀληθὲς προσαναιροῦσιν. I propose, under God’s 
 blessing, to conduct my inquiry by illustrating 
 
 in succession a certain number of positions which | 
 
 appear to embrace the whole subject. With a 
 statement of these positions I shall occupy the 
 remainder of this day’s Lecture. 
 
 That the Lord’s Day (a festival on the first | 
 day in each week in memory of our Lord’s Resur- | 
 
 rection) is of Divine institution and peculiarly 
 
 Christian in its character, as being indicated in 
 the New Testament, and having been acknow- 
 ledged and observed by the Apostles and their 
 immediate followers as distinct from the Sabbath 
 (or Jewish festival on the seventh day in each 
 week), the obligation to observe which is denied, 
 both expressly and by implication, in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 That in the two centuries after the death of | 
 
 St. John the Lord’s Day was never confounded | 
 
 with the Sabbath, but carefully distinguished 
 
 from it, as an institution under the law of 
 
 liberty, as observed on a different day and with 
 
 different feelings; and moreover, that, as a 
 
 matter of fact, it was exempt from the severity 
 c 2 
 
20 LECTURE I. 
 
 of the provisions which had been the charac- 
 teristic of the Sabbath in theory, or in practice, 
 or in both. 
 
 That after the first three centuries, a new era 
 in the history of the Lord’s Day commenced ; 
 tendencies towards Sabbatarianism, or confusion 
 of the Christian with the Jewish institution, 
 beginning to manifest themselves. ‘These, how- 
 ever, were slight, until the end of the Fifth 
 Century, and are traceable chiefiy to and in the 
 civil legislation of the period. Afterwards they 
 developed themselves more decidedly; Sabba- 
 tarianism became at length systematized, in one 
 of its phases, in the ante-Reformation Church 
 both in England and on the Continent by the 
 later Schoolmen, probably in their desire to lay 
 down exact rules for consciences, and under a 
 fancied necessity of urging the precedent of 
 Jewish enactments in support of Christian Holy- 
 Days. 
 
 That Sabbatarianism, of every phase, was ex- 
 pressly repudiated by the chief reformers of 
 almost every country, (even by Calvin, the friend 
 of Knox, and by Knox himself, who is supposed, 
 though incorrectly, to have introduced it into 
 Scotland,) and in particular that it does not 
 appear in the fully authorized documents of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 That Sabbatarianism, as a dogma, sprang up 
 in England in this way. Men had been edu- 
 cated to reverence the Lord’s Day, and hap- 
 
LECTURE I. 21 
 
 pily retained their early prepossessions. But, 
 in the reaction from the bondage of tradition 
 which was the result of the Reformation, they 
 determined, rightly enough, to believe nothing 
 except what could be proved by Scripture. 
 Unfortunately they went on to demand from 
 Scripture, in reference to the Lord’s Day, more 
 than, as a law of liberty, it could be expected 
 to supply, ὁ.6. exact rules for the observance of 
 the day, and passages in which the day (or 
 something like it, for the age was not a critical 
 one) seemed to be legislatively enjoined. Accord- 
 ingly, (defending themselves, if assailed, by a 
 false method of spiritualizing, or, unintention- 
 ally of course, by a transparent fallacy of an 
 ambiguous term,) they took a good deal of what 
 is said in Scripture of the Sabbath, and unhesi- 
 tatingly applied it to the Lord’s Day. To this 
 period, by the way, must be assigned the common 
 use of the phrase Christian Sabbath, which had 
 hitherto been quite rare, if indeed it had been 
 at all known in the Church. 
 
 That Sabbatarianism, as a practical tenet, was 
 rendered acceptable to earnest men in England 
 as a refuge, they may have thought it the only 
 refuge, from the laxity with which the Lord’s 
 Day was observed even after the Reformation 
 had fairly set in; such laxity being a remnant 
 of Rome, whose practice differed much from 
 the theory of her Schoolmen. But that it was 
 not introduced as a dogma without attracting 
 
22 LECTURE I. 
 
 immediate notice from writers, generally of a 
 sounder character, but inclined to advance too 
 far in the opposite direction; or as ὦ practical 
 tenet without provoking that almost systematic 
 lowering in the tone of the Lord’s Day which 
 was evidenced in that strongest and strangest 
 development of Dominicalism, the Book of 
 Sports. 
 
 That meanwhile, through all the fluctuations of. 
 opinion within and about the English Church, 
 and though her Prayer-book was frequently re- 
 vised, Sabbatarianism never succeeded in esta- 
 blishing itself formally in any of her fully autho- 
 rized documents. 
 
 That this assertion is quite compatible with 
 the introduction into the Liturgy of the Fourth 
 Commandment and the accompanying responsive 
 petition (in the Second Book of King Edward 
 the Sixth), which may be understood and used 
 without either volatilizing that particular Com- 
 mandment or impairing the authority of the 
 Decalogue as in general moral. 
 
 _ That the position that the Fourth Command- 
 ment is binding in the very letter, and is par 
 excellence the ground for the observance of our 
 weekly festival, proves too much, for it would 
 drive us either to the observance of Saturday (as 
 the advanced and more consistent Sabbatarians 
 urged) or, at the very least, to a Judaic obser- 
 vance of the Lord’s Day. 
 
 That Sabbatarianism, the strange varieties 
 
LECTURE I. 23 
 
 of which really demand serious notice, is a 
 return not merely to Judaism but to theoretic 
 Romanism. 
 
 That the mention of God's rest after the 
 Creation in the Fourth Commandment, and the 
 introduction of the word ““ Remember,”’ do not 
 prove that the Patriarchs observed or even knew 
 of a Sabbath before Moses used the words, “ To- 
 morrow is a Sabbath,”’ &e. 
 
 That this assertion is quite compatible with 
 the existence of an hebdomadal division of time 
 anterior to the days of Moses. 
 
 That it is strengthened by the fact that the 
 heathen were never reproached with the non- 
 observance of the Sabbath, which we may pre- 
 sume they would have been, had the obligation 
 to observe it been a moral one, 7.6. a matter of 
 _ natural law. 
 
 That the Sabbath, as it appears in the Fourth 
 Commandment, was of the nature of a positive 
 
 ordinance on the part of the Almighty, andasa 
 
 positive ordinance was capable of being annulled 
 by the same authority, when it had served its 
 purpose, without alteration in the constitution 
 of His creatures; and that this is not the only 
 instance of the occurrence of something positive 
 in a table generally moral. 
 
 Yet, that the occurrence of a commandment 
 to keep the Sabbath, in a table generally moral, 
 implies that there is a moral element in that 
 commandment, (not a moral tendency merely, 
 
24 LECTURE I. 
 
 for this would embrace every type and cere- 
 mony, but a moral element,) viz. an obligation, 
 cognizable by the moral sense, to devote some 
 time, perhaps even a periodically recurring time, 
 to God’s service, and, inferentially, to rest from 
 worldly occupations as a necessary condition to 
 the performance of such obligation. 
 
 That the Sabbath, as it appears in the Fourth 
 Commandment, was a development of such moral 
 element in a manner suited to a particular 
 people, and being thus rendered political and 
 ceremonial, does not, in that form, come under 
 the precepts that are called moral. 
 
 Yet that the political and ceremonial elements 
 may be abolished, the moral element remaining 
 and being developed in a different way by Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 That the Creation labour and rest were exem- 
 plary, typical and consolatory, and were so un- 
 derstood by the writers of Holy Scripture and by 
 the Fathers—the antitheses being, 
 
 Labour and rest generally. 
 
 Israelitic labour in Egypt and in the 
 Wilderness and rest in Canaan. 
 
 The Old Dispensation and the New. 
 
 The Christian’s labour on earth and the 
 Divine peace which alleviates it. 
 
 The Christian’s general course in this world, 
 and his rest in the world to come. 
 
LECTURE I. 25 
 
 _ That to state the Divine institution and Apo- 
 stolical observance of the Lord’s Day as we 
 have stated them, is a very different thing from 
 making the sacred character of the day depend 
 upon merely ecclesiastical authority ; yet that, in 
 the highest sense of the word, such institution 
 and observance may be designated as ecclesi- 
 astical. 
 
 That though the Sabbath, as an ordinance, has 
 passed away, and though neither Apostles nor 
 early writers allude to it or to the Fourth Com- 
 mandment as a precedent or as the ground for 
 observing the Lord’s Day, we may conceive the 
 analogy of them to have been among the reasons 
 which determined the proportion of time which 
 should be the Lord’s. 
 
 That the same analogy may direct us, though 
 in a much fainter degree, because of the differ- 
 ent characters of the two dispensations, to the 
 employments and enjoyments suitable or not 
 unsuitable to the Lord’s Day. 
 
 That on the Sabbath itself there appears to 
 have been a greater liberty of employment and 
 enjoyment than is generally supposed; and that 
 our Lord, so far as He dealt with it, concerned 
 Himself, not with proving that it was about to 
 expire, (this it was to do, of course, when the 
 ceremonial and political laws generally were to 
 expire,) but in purifying it from superstitions, in 
 making it practically useful so long as it should 
 last, and in redeeming it from the charge of 
 enjoining absolute inactivity. 
 
20 LECTURE TI. 
 
 That still, though the Lord’s Day is not to be 
 Judaic in the way of over-strictness, it is not to 
 be Judaic (in the sense in which the later Jews 
 were often reproached by the Fathers for the use 
 of their Sabbaths) in the way of license; i.e. it is 
 not to be a mere gala-day, as on the Continent 
 with the Romanists, and, to a great extent, even 
 with the Protestant and Reformed Communions. 
 
 That the origin and obligation of the Lord’s 
 Day being such as is supposed, Divine and 
 Apostolic, the Church, subsequent to the age of 
 the Apostles, has not (as Calvin and others 
 imagined) ability to remove it to any other day in 
 the week, but that her authority over it extends 
 to arrangement of its services and recommen- 
 dation of employments upon it, provided that 
 ‘the diversity of countries and men’s man- 
 ners’’ is considered, and nothing is enjoined, 
 of obligation, incompatible with the “law of 
 ' liberty.” 
 
 That the Lord’s Day being intended for the 
 visible Church, in which evil is ever mingled 
 with the good, it is not very reasonable to urge 
 that it would be better if we could do without it. 
 This might be so; but then the present state of 
 things would have disappeared. 
 
 That the civil power should interfere as little 
 as possible with the observance of the Lord’s 
 Day, but that, a due regard being had to the 
 compound nature of man, it may fairly prohibit 
 on that day what offers men profound tempta- 
 
LECTURE 1. aT 
 
 tions to forget their souls or to wear out their 
 bodies. 
 
 Yet that, even here, care should be taken that 
 there be not one law for the rich and another for 
 the poor. 
 
 That the subject of prohibitions should be 
 approached both by legislators and by clergy, as 
 practical men, (so the preacher approaches it, 
 having lived in a great city for years,) and with 
 a due consideration for the different circum- 
 stances of town and country, and for the exigen- 
 cies of society. 
 
 That the exercise of such consideration is no 
 compromise of principle, but a lawful and neces- 
 sary discretion in a matter upon which no defi- 
 nite directions are found in Holy Scripture. 
 
 That care should be taken not to impose 
 burthens upon men’s consciences which are too 
 heavy to be borne, or to make that a matter of 
 right and wrong which is really a matter of 
 expediency. And this on two principles: Ist, 
 that to break a merely supposed obligation while 
 it is supposed to be a real one, has a weakening 
 effect upon the character ; 2d, that an advocacy 
 of what is right on insufficient grounds is sooner 
 or later exposed and called a pious fraud, and 
 produces disgust of all pious injunctions, whether 
 frauds or no. 
 
 That such an injunction as the following, if 
 used by those who are not absolutely satisfied of 
 the soundness of the Sabbatarian ground, is (for 
 
28 - LECTURE I. 
 
 truth can do no harm) a very faithless and 
 timorous policy; ‘Do not loosen men’s adhe- 
 rence to the Fourth Commandment, lest they 
 neglect the Lord’s Day altogether.” 
 
 That, since much will, after all, be left to in- 
 dividuals, the law of charity should induce every 
 one who can rest when he likes, to promote and 
 procure rest on the Lord’s Day for those who are 
 otherwise circumstanced. 
 
 That the present state of the controversy 
 respecting the observance of the Lord’s Day is 
 owing to these facts: first, that each side over- 
 states a truth by the implied addition of the 
 word exclusively; one side saying, “‘ Men’s souls 
 are to be cared for [exclusively], the other, 
 “< Men’s bodies are to be cared for [exclusively ] ;’ 
 and, secondly, that while the Sabbatarian ground 
 is wrongly presumed to be the true and only 
 ground on which the care of men’s souls can be 
 maintained, the Dominical ground is unfairly 
 charged with leading necessarily to exclusive 
 regard for men’s bodies. 
 
 That in reference to such social questions as 
 whether places of mere amusement or of secular 
 instruction should be opened, or travelling per- 
 mitted at all, or if at all in what degree, and the 
 like, on the Lord’s Day, principles should rather 
 be sought for than exact rules. 
 
 That, on the whole, the Lord’s Day, being an 
 institution so Divine and especially Christian, so 
 commended to us by prescription and universal 
 
LECTURE I. 29 
 
 adoption, even from the Apostles’ time, so 
 wonderfully preserved to us through many 
 vicissitudes, so founded on moral obligation, 
 so recommended to us by the analogy of the 
 Jewish polity, so adapted ὦ priori to the whole 
 nature of man, so recommended a posteriori 
 by the advantages which many ages have 
 enjoyed under it, should be jealously guarded 
 from vitiation, should not be made a yoke of 
 bondage on the one hand, or a cloke for licen- 
 tiousness on the other. 
 “The Sundays of man’s life 
 
 Threaded together on Time’s string, 
 
 Make bracelets to adorn the wife 
 
 Of the eternal, glorious King. 
 
 On Sunday, heaven’s gate stands ope ; 
 
 Blessings are plentiful and rife 
 More plentiful than hope.” 
 
 We shall, if God permit, begin our formal 
 discussion in the next Lecture, taking as our 
 starting-point the moment indicated in the text. 
 The last Sabbath of the old dispensation, that is, 
 the Saturday of our Lord’s lying in the grave 
 (called afterwards by the ancient Church the 
 Sabbatum Magnum), has passed, and with it the 
 honor of the seventh day has passed away. It 
 is very early in the morning, the first day of 
 the week. The sun has risen. The Sun of 
 Righteousness has risen also. The first day of 
 the week has become “The Lord’s Day.” 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 MARK XVI. 1, 2, 5, 6. 
 
 AND WHEN THE SABBATH WAS PAST, MARY MAGDALENE, AND MARY THE 
 MOTHER OF JAMES, AND SALOME, HAD BOUGHT SWEET SPICES, THAT 
 THEY MIGHT COME AND ANOINT HIM. AND VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING 
 THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THEY CAME UNTO THE SEPULCHRE AT THE 
 RISING OF THE SUN. AND ENTERING INTO THE SEPULCHRE, THEY SAW 
 A YOUNG MAN SITTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE, CLOTHED IN A LONG WHITE 
 GARMENT, AND THEY WERE AFFRIGHTED. AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, BE 
 NOT AFFRIGHTED: YE SEEK JESUS OF NAZARETH WHICH WAS CRUCIFIED : 
 HE IS RISEN. 
 
 Kal διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ 
 ᾿Ιακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν 
 αὐτόν. 
 
 Καὶ λίαν πρωΐ τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατέλλοντος 
 (v. 1. ἀνατείλαντος) τοῦ ἡλίου. 
 
 Καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον, εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον ἐν τοῖς 
 δεξιοῖς, περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν᾽ καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. 
 
 Ὃ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς, Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε. ᾿Ιησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν 
 ἐσταυρωμένον" ἠγέρθη. 
 
 Ir is very early in the morning, the first day of 
 the week. The sun has risen. The Sun of Right- 
 eousness has risen also. The first day of the 
 week has become ‘‘ The Lord’s Day.” 
 
 With these words, you will remember, I closed 
 my first lecture. Perhaps you may be inclined to 
 suppose that I meant to imply by them that at 
 the moment to which they refer, or almost imme- 
 diately afterwards, the Lord’s Day began to be 
 
LECTURE II. 91 
 
 observed as an ordinance of the Christian Church, 
 and to presume that our blessed Lord, either by 
 the very fact of His rising from the dead on the 
 first day of the week, or by instructions given to 
 His Apostles during “the Great Forty Days,”’ 
 sanctified and set apart that day for His own 
 service for ever. Now I meant nothing of the 
 sort. I cannot see, on the one hand, how an act 
 or a fact can establish an ordinance not neces- 
 sarily connected with it, unless it is declared by 
 the agent (as in the case of the Sabbath) that 
 it is intended to give sanction to it. On the 
 other hand, I find no Scriptural authority 
 for asserting that though Christ did, during 
 the interval alluded to, speak to His disciples of 
 ‘the things pertaining to the kingdom of God,” 
 this subject was amongst those upon which He 
 held high converse. The extent of my meaning 
 was this, that from that moment, the first day of 
 the week, on which Christ “‘ overcame the sharp- 
 ness of death and opened the kingdom of heaven 
 to all believers,’’ was invested with an interest 
 not before attached to it, and became worthy of 
 the new title which it afterwards obtained 
 from the partakers in and preachers of Christ’s 
 Resurrection. Besides, I hold that the Lord’s 
 Day is, as to its origin, much on a par with Con- 
 firmation. And this, while it would at once 
 exclude it from the category of positive institu- 
 tions ordained by Christ Himself, would also 
 enable me to claim for it (on this ground alone, 
 
o2 LECTURE 11. 
 
 whatever others may be adducible) an Apostolic, 
 and, so far as anything Apostolic can be called 
 divine, a divine origin. 
 
 Now we usually call Confirmation an Hccle- 
 siastical ordinance, and point to certain places in 
 Scripture from which we argue that it was a 
 custom introduced by the Apostles, and esteemed. 
 by them an element of the religion which they 
 were divinely commissioned to declare to man, 
 and, as far as it required immediate organization, ᾿ 
 to organize. For their practice in this matter we 
 refer to Acts viii. 14—17 and xix. 1—6, which 
 recount the proceedings of St. Peter and St. John 
 in Samaria, and of St. Paul at Corinth. For 
 their estimate of the custom we refer to Hebrews 
 vi. 2, where “laying on of hands” is mentioned 
 among “the principles of the doctrine of Christ,”’ 
 as a specimen of the fundamental points of 
 Christianity. It would appear then that if Con- 
 firmation has this origin (which is generally 
 admitted), and yet is of Ecclesiastical institu- 
 tion, that the word Ecclesiastical has, in reference 
 to it and to ordinances contemporaneous with 
 it and observed on the same grounds, a high 
 and peculiar sense. In the Ecclesia and its 
 authorities at that time were included” inspired 
 men, who, in reference to what they practised (1 
 do not mean as men, but as regulators of the 
 Church,) and what they ordained, were unable to 
 err. They might say, in a sense that the Church 
 could never say afterwards, “it hath seemed 
 
LECTURE II. oo 
 
 good to the Holy Ghost and to us.”” Whereas 
 ever since the time when the Canon of Scrip- 
 ture was closed, although “the Church has 
 power to decree rites and ceremonies,”’ and is re- 
 presented in General Councils, yet her Councils, 
 being ‘assemblies of men whereof all be not 
 governed with the Spirit and Word of God, may 
 err, and sometimes have erred, even in things 
 pertaining unto God.”’ In fact the Ecclesia after- 
 wards was composed of uninspired men, who, 
 though they might enjoin methods of procedure,— 
 let us say for the carrying out of what appears 
 in Scripture,—might not bestow upon their ordi- 
 nances a divine and lasting obligation. 
 
 We obtain, therefore, two distinct senses 
 of the word Ecclesiastical—the one, co-extensive 
 in the matters to which it applies with. the term 
 Apostolic, and in fact synonymous with it: the 
 other, that in which it may be employed at the 
 present hour, when, if deemed advisable, the 
 Church might meet and make regulations, 
 Ecclesiastical indeed, because they emanate 
 from her, but only of human authority, and 
 capable of being repealed the next day. It 
 is in the former sense that Confirmation, that 
 Orders, that Infant Baptism, and, I shall now 
 add, that the ordinance of the Lord’s Day, 
 and whatever Scripture attaches to them, are 
 Ecclesiastical. It is in the latter sense that 
 whatever else is attached to them (not being 
 actually read in Scripture or proveable thereby) 
 
 D 
 
94. LECTURE II. 
 
 as necessary or desirable for their being carried 
 out, and in itself of an indifferent or accidental 
 character, is Ecclesiastical. In this sense, too, 
 Church customs in general are Ecclesiastical. 
 
 If anything further is required to illustrate 
 my meaning, let it be this— 
 
 Ordinances emanating from Christ are of two 
 characters. 
 
 First. Those appointed by Christ Himself, as 
 Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These are 
 Divine in the strictest sense of the term. 
 
 Secondly. Those appointed by Christ, mediately 
 through His Apostles, of which I have just 
 exhibited specimens. These are Divine in a 
 secondary sense of the term. Under this head 
 would come things ordained by the Apostles, 
 not merely in so many words, but by the pre- 
 cedents which they supply in their actions. 
 
 Ordinances emanating from the Church are 
 also of two characters. 
 
 First. Exactly the same ordinances just de- 
 scribed as Divine in a secondary sense. The 
 Ecclesia practised them before the Canon of 
 Scripture was closed, while Apostles were yet 
 included among the Faithful, and before special 
 inspiration had ceased. They are, therefore, not 
 merely Ecclesiastical, but Scriptural, Apostolical, 
 Divine. 
 
 Secondly. Such other ordinances as the Church 
 has from time to time established in right of 
 her general power “to bind and loose,’ not 
 
LECTURE 11. 35 
 
 in right of any special inspiration. Under this 
 head would be included (I care not how early 
 the practice, if it be post-Apostolic,) all Holy 
 Days except the Lord’s Day; such things con- 
 nected with the celebration of matters contained 
 in the two higher classes as do not actually 
 appear in Scripture, and so are not of the essence 
 of those matters; particular forms of worship ; 
 varieties of Liturgies; the mingling of water 
 with wine in the Holy Eucharist; the use of 
 Exorcism before Baptism, or of Chrism at Con- 
 firmation; and the like. These are merely 
 Kcclesiastical; and even though they be admitted 
 to be not contrary to Scripture, they would come 
 under the things which “ every particular or 
 national Church hath authority to ordain, 
 change, or abolish.” The practice of “ praying 
 standing”’ on the Lord’s Day is another instance. 
 This, though it was used very early, and is sanc- 
 tioned by an Gicumenical Council, is rejected by 
 the Western Church. It has no authority in 
 Holy Scripture. But the Lord’s Day itself we 
 retain. It has authority in Holy Scripture, and 
 besides has the testimony in its favor that things 
 indisputably Apostolic have. i: 
 
 I shall scarcely, I think, be misunderstood in 
 my employment of the word inspiration. I do 
 not deny that Christ is, according to His pro- 
 mise, ever with the Church by His Spirit. I 
 admit that purely Ecclesiastical ordinances are 
 entitled to consideration, so far as they are 
 
 ~. 6) 
 Dayz 
 
90 LECTURE 11. 
 
 not opposed to Scripture, if agreed upon by 
 the particular Church to which men belong. 
 I only protest against what we should call in 
 literary matters the uncritical fashion of making 
 an authority to be an authority without much 
 reference to circumstances. And whatever the 
 spiritual guidance vouchsafed to the later Church 
 is, I cannot hold it to be such inspiration as 
 was enjoyed by the Apostles. 
 
 As little shall I be supposed to deny that 
 everything good in the individual Christian 
 comes down from “ the Father of lights,” and 
 is of the Holy Spirit. This, however, again, is 
 not the inspiration of which I am speaking, and 
 which rendered the acts of the Apostles, con- 
 sidered as Apostles, infallible. 
 
 But to return. The distinction in the senses 
 of the word Ecclesiastical, for which I contend, 
 has not, I think, obtained sufficient notice. And 
 yet it 15 ἃ most important one. For, first, it draws 
 a line of demarcation between what is inspired 
 and what is uninspired in the Church’s system 
 exactly where one is drawn already by common 
 consent between Canonical and Uncanonical 
 writings. This once supposed to exist, men are 
 no longer tempted so to associate the Apostles 
 and the early Fathers, as to give either a semi- 
 fallibility to the former, or a semi-inspiration 
 to the latter. Secondly, it exhibits to the two 
 parties who are at issue respecting the origin 
 of the Lord’s Day a possibility of mutual un- 
 
LECTURE II. 37 
 
 derstanding. The Sabbatarians might learn from 
 it, that whereas they allow that the Church has 
 had something to do with the matter in some 
 sense or other, for she has altered, according to 
 their way of expressing themselves, the day of 
 the observance of the Sabbath from the seventh 
 to the first, they have something in common 
 with their opponents. The Dominicals might 
 learn from it how to strengthen the term which 
 they press so much, Ecclesiastical, by admitting 
 an inspired element into the ideas which it 
 represents. They might also see respectively 
 that the observance of the Lord’s Day may be 
 Scriptural without such resort to Judaism as the 
 ancient Church both of Scripture and of the 
 first three centuries never thought of; and, that 
 it may be Ecclesiastical without being there- 
 fore capable either of being modified by change 
 to another day than the first, or of being abro- 
 gated like any regulation of the Church, required 
 perhaps for a time and “for the present dis- 
 tress,’ but to be supererogatory and superfluous 
 bye and bye. 
 
 Seven texts are usually adduced from Scrip- ο 
 ture for the purpose of proving that the Sabbath 
 was transferred from the seventh day to the 
 first day. I shall adduce them also, but with 
 a totally different purpose. They will show, 
 Jirst, that peculiar associations would be neces- 
 sarily connected in the minds of the Apostles 
 with the first day of the week. Secondly, that 
 
98 LECTURE II. 
 
 on this day they were accustomed to meet, and 
 recommended their followers to meet, and for 
 certain religious objects. Thirdly, that whether 
 from such associations or from the nature of 
 the relation to their Lord into which they were 
 thus brought on it, or from both united, the 
 term ‘“ Lord’s Day’’ was actually applied by 
 them to it. This I think will at least amount 
 to a high probability that the day would be 
 chosen by the Apostles as characteristic of the 
 New Dispensation, and to an evidence that it 
 was so chosen. At any rate, if we may judge 
 from parallel instances, it is all that the nature 
 of the case allows. If you desire dogmatic 
 statements on this class of subjects, I may say 
 to the Sabbatarians, you will not find them in 
 Scripture, in reference to Confirmation, Orders, 
 Infont Baptism, any more than in reference to 
 the ordinance now in question. And I may say 
 to the Dominicals, you may desert Scripture if 
 you please, and resort only to the Church of 
 the next two centuries for authorities on these 
 matters, but you will find there not dogmatic 
 _ statements, but simply testimonies to the facts 
 that the customs just mentioned were practised, 
 *‘ the Lord’s Day” honored. 
 
 On the first day of the week, then, our Lord 
 rose from the dead, and appeared on five different 
 occasions to His followers—to Mary Maedalene, 
 to the other women, to the two disciples on 
 their road to Emmaus, to St. Peter separately, to 
 
LECTURE II. 39 
 
 the Apostles collectively. After eight days,— 
 that is, according to the ordinary way of reckon- 
 ing, on the first day of the next week,—He 
 appeared to the Eleven. There is no record of 
 His having appeared in the interval, it may be 
 (as Dean Owen and Bishop Horsley conjecture) 
 to render that day especially noticeable by the 
 Apostles, or it may be because they had already 
 determined to meet on that day. But, however 
 this may have been, on the day of Pentecost, 
 which in that year occurred on the first day 
 of the week, ‘‘they were all with one accord 
 in one place.’ Thus, the day already asso- 
 ciated with the fulfilment of one of our Lord’s 
 promises, His Resurrection, received a most 
 signal mark in addition by the fulfilment of 
 a second promise, the descent of the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 We dwell not, however, on these facts, except 
 to urge, first, that whether from accident (so 
 to speak) or from intention, the main body of 
 believers at Jerusalem were, on the first day of 
 the week, assembled, and had religious commu- 
 nications made to them, or religious impressions 
 wrought on them; and that, on the last occasion 
 of the three, they began, having been benefited 
 themselves, to convey religious instruction and 
 religious gifts to the multitude who witnessed 
 the effects of a certain miracle: and further, 
 that if the Apostles be considered to be merely 
 uninspired persons, and in that capacity to have 
 
40 LECTURE II. 
 
 debated by what day they should mark their 
 religion, and carry out what may be conceived 
 to be a religious instinct, the duty of worshipping 
 God specially on one day, (the cycle of seven 
 being suggested by the form of religion from 
 which they were gradually emancipating them- 
 selves,) they would have been likely to choose 
 the day of the Resurrection. Christianity was 
 in especial the “Gospel of the Resurrection.” 
 
 But we proceed. At Troas (Acts xx. 7) many 
 years after the occurrence at Pentecost, when 
 Christianity had begun to assume a more settled 
 form, we find that something of this sort oc- 
 curred. St. Paul and his companions arrived 
 there, and ‘abode seven days, and upon the 
 first day of the week when the disciples came 
 together to break bread, Paul preached unto 
 them.’’ Now one would think that unless the 
 first day of the week had been already the 
 stated day of Christian assembling, St. Luke’s. 
 narrative would have run thus, “On the last 
 day of St. Paul’s stay, he called the disciples 
 together to break bread, and preached unto 
 them.” But his language is very different— 
 “the first day of the week,” evidently their 
 usual day of meeting for the religious purposes 
 of ‘‘ breaking bread”’ and receiving instruction, 
 if there was any one present to instruct them. 
 The matter of course way in which these cir- 
 cumstances are introduced seems to indicate that 
 these were points already established. 
 
LECTURE 11.. 41 
 
 It is fair to remark here that the phrase κλάσας 
 τὸν ἄρτον includes both the Holy Communion 
 and the ἀγάπαι, which at that time were inva- 
 riably connected, though the latter are now dis- 
 used. And if it be argued that ἀγάπαι were an 
 Apostolic custom or institution, and so must be 
 continued in the Church upon the principle given 
 above, an answer is ready. The same authority 
 which instituted them can annul them. Certain 
 words are written by St. Paul to the Corinthians : 
 “When ye come together, therefore, into one 
 place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For 
 in eating every one taketh before other his own 
 supper: and one is hungry, and another is 
 drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat 
 and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of 
 God, and shame them that have not? What 
 shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this ἢ 
 I praise you not.” The ἀγάπαι are also glanced 
 at by St. Jude, “These are spots in your Feasts 
 of Charity,” (οὑτοί εἰσιν ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν 
 σπιλάδες, verse 12) with at least a misgiving of 
 evil. Now these two passages taken together 
 prove satisfactorily, that though that custom was 
 Apostolic, it was abused, and by Apostolic autho- 
 rity so discouraged that on the abuse continuing 
 the Church was justified in disusing it. But a 
 simpler method of reconciling our theory with 
 the disuse of ἀγάπαι would be this. ΤῸ consider 
 them an accompaniment of the Holy Eucharist, 
 in fact, an accessory of its ceremonial, suitable 
 
42 LECTURE It. 
 
 in the earliest times, but, from the nature of the 
 case, unsuitable afterwards. For the same reason, 
 certain regulations about apparel, salutation é 
 φιλήματι ὡγίῳ or ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης; and * having 
 all things common,” have naturally disappeared. 
 Practices or injunctions also necessarily involv- 
 ing miraculous powers, Unction of the sick, for 
 instance, are no longer to be used. To retain such 
 Unction, now that either miraculous powers have 
 ceased, or miraculous results are no longer ex- 
 pected, would be, as our Church justly styles it, 
 “a corrupt following of the Apostles.” ‘ This 
 (says Thorndike very pertinently) is laid aside in 
 all the Reformed Churches, upon presumption of 
 common sense, that the reason is no longer in 
 force; being ordained, as you see, to restore 
 health by the grace of miracles that no more 
 exist.’’ It is mere childishness to say with the 
 authorized Italian Catechism, that “it a/so assists 
 in the recovery of bodily health, if that should be 
 useful to the health of the soul.” (Ed ancora 
 ajuta a ricevere la sanita del corpo; se quella sia 
 utile alla salute dell’ anima.) 
 
 1 am perfectly aware that some have con- 
 tended that “the first day of the week” cannot 
 mean the first day, but must be either the end 
 of the Sabbath, or the commencement of the 
 second day. I am content, however, to take the 
 Scripture as it stands. Those who are curious 
 on this question may see what Augustine says 
 in his thirty-sixth Epistle, (ad Casulanum) ; 
 
LECTURE II. 48 
 
 and also Chrysostom on Acts xx. 7, and on 1 
 Cor. xvi. 2. 
 
 An additional feature connected with “the 
 first day of the week”’ is introduced in the same 
 unstudied manner in 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2: “Now 
 concerning the collection for the saints, as I 
 have given order to the Churches in Galatia, 
 even so do ye. Upon the first 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 I come.” St. Paul seems here to allude to 
 the first day of the week as one already known 
 for the celebration of religious duties, and which 
 he need not therefore recommend for the first 
 time. ‘On that day, then, he says, let each of 
 you add to the other duties performed upon it, 
 the duty of almsgiving.” And though he does 
 not expressly say that the λογία, or collection of 
 alms, is to be made in the assembly taking place 
 on that day, it seems reasonable to suppose that 
 this would be the case. Every man would natu- 
 rally determine παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ, by himself, what to 
 give, and give ἕκαστος καθὼς προήρηται τῇ καρδίᾳ, 
 2 Cor. ix. 7. The words τιθέτω θησαυρίζων would 
 thus apply to his assigning and devoting in his 
 own mind, not to his house, as to the place in 
 which the offering was made. For if it was 
 made anywhere but in the assembly, St. Paul’s 
 wish would be frustrated, and the λογία from 
 each of the houses would have to take place on 
 his arrival. “This duty, he adds, I have already 
 
4A, LECTURE II. 
 
 enjoined in similar terms on the Galatians.” 
 (Afterwards he inculcated it, though more gene- 
 rally, on the Romans, enforcing it by the ex- 
 ample of the Macedonians and Achzeans.) ‘Do 
 you sanctify your gifts by offerimg them on the 
 day which you already reverence.” 
 
 The next passage that I would cite is that 
 well-known one in Heb. x. 25: ““Νού forsaking 
 the assembling of yourselves together, as the 
 manner of some is, but exhorting one an- 
 other.”” It is true that the first day is not 
 mentioned here in express terms, and that hence 
 some have said that the passage is not fairly 
 adducible for our purpose. To my mind it seems 
 very apposite. It alludes to an existing practice 
 too well known to need describing, ἐπισυναγωγή, 
 or meeting together—and to a matter which was 
 transacted at such meeting, exhortation—and to 
 a neglect of that practice, of which some had 
 been guilty, of whose fault the writer of the 
 Epistle speaks gravely, and desires that the 
 Hebrew Christians will not themselves be guilty 
 of it. Now it is obvious that multitudes cannot 
 assemble regularly without some stated time 
 being appointed. If there is no stated time, no 
 rebuke can lie. It would have been almost futile 
 to say, “Assemble yourselves at some time,”’ 
 for the answer would have been, “ We do so.” 
 The writer then. must have been alluding to 
 some stated time, and this can scarcely be any 
 other than that which we have already seen was 
 
LECTURE II. 45 
 
 dedicated to such a purpose, the first day of the 
 week. ; 
 
 One more passage yet remains—that remark- 
 able place in the Revelation in which St. John 
 speaks of himself as being in the Spirit on “the ἡ 
 Lord’s Day,” ἐν τῇ Κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ. Now what was 
 this day ? Could it have been the Sabbath Day ἢ 
 But, if so, the presumption is that the Apostle 
 would have called it by that name, which was 
 not obsolete or even obsolescent. Could it have 
 been Easter Day? To this we must reply in 
 the negative, for the oldest Greek and Latin 
 Ecclesiastical writers universally apply the term 
 (at least in its unqualified state), as we now 
 apply it, to Sunday, and not to Easter Day. 
 Could it have been the Day of Judgment, ἡ ἡμέρα 
 τοῦ Κυρίου, spoken of in 1 Cor. v. 5 and other 
 places? But surely St. John, though he might 
 in spirit see the Day of Judgment, would not 
 have spoken of that day as the time of dating 
 his vision, especially when he mentions, in 
 connexion with it, the place from whence he 
 wrote, Patmos, and the causes which brought 
 him thither. The only possible conclusion is 
 that ἡ Κυριακὴ ἡμέρα of St. John is the first day 
 of the week, already as we have seen marked 
 so signally, both by the event celebrated on it 
 historically and by the duties performed upon it 
 practically. This, now, being far removed from 
 the world and wrapt up in the contemplation of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ on His own day, he calls 
 
40 LECTURE II. 
 
 by the name which had become usual in the 
 Church to designate its divine origin and in- 
 stitution, “the Lord’s Day.” He himself was 
 engaged on it, all solitary though he was, in 
 thoughts and exercises, which, as they knit him 
 to his absent brethren, so they joined him espe- 
 cially “to the general assembly and Church of 
 the firstborn which are written in heaven, and 
 to God the Judge of all, and to Jesus the Medi- 
 ator of the New Covenant,” not “to the mount 
 which burned with fire,’ or the terrors with 
 which the Mosaic Covenant and its institutions, 
 Sabbatical or other, had been enforced upon the 
 Jews of old. 
 
 But you will of course have observed two 
 things. First, that the first day of the week has 
 only arrived by degrees at the honor which we 
 suppose the Apostles by divine direction to have 
 assigned to it. Secondly, that as we have made 
 no mention of the Sabbath, that institution 
 must either have determined altogether, or have 
 been transferred to the Lord’s Day. As to the 
 prevalence of the Lord’s Day being only gradual, 
 it is obvious to remark that it was only gradu- 
 ally that the Apostles developed other doctrines. 
 They were as cautious in their constructive ope- 
 rations, as they were tender and considerate in 
 those which were destructive. Besides, a religion 
 just struggling into existence, and exposed to 
 the enmity of the Jews and to the suspicions of 
 the heathen, possessed of no public edifices, and 
 
LECTURE II. 4 
 
 therefore obliged long after this to hold its 
 assemblies in private houses, in the open air, or 
 even in deserted cemeteries, could not at once 
 assume the regularity of a recognised or estab- 
 lished creed. It is possible that the Christians 
 were often obliged to intermit its observance for 
 a while. So of old time, the periodical rest was 
 occasionally intermitted, as when Jericho was 
 compassed about seven days. The. usurping 
 Queen, Athaliah, was dethroned on the Sabbath 
 Day. As to the determination of the Sabbath 
 in the days of the Apostles, in one sense it 
 had determined already. It was, as we shall 
 show in a subsequent Lecture, part and parcel 
 of the ceremonial and political law of the 
 Jews, and died naturally when the ceremonies 
 had been fulfilled in Christ, and the Jews, 
 to whom it was a sign, had ceased to be pecu- 
 liarly God’s people. In another sense it lingered 
 on for a while, though decreasing in honor and 
 eradually less esteemed, as the Lord’s Day in- 
 creased in honor and became gradually more 
 esteemed. Perhaps it was providentially arranged 
 that it should not die out quite at once, in order 
 that its diversity from the Lord’s Day might be 
 the better manifested. We have however to 
 answer these questions concerning it. Were the 
 obligations or rites connected with it transferred 
 to the Lord’s Day? or was any observance of a 
 Sabbath, either on its own Day or on the Lord’s 
 Day, enjoined on Christians? And in whatever 
 
48 LECTURE II. 
 
 way these questions may be answered, a third 
 must be answered also: How is the mention 
 of the Sabbath in the New Testament at all, and 
 the apparent respect paid to it by the Apostles, 
 after the Resurrection, to be accounted for ? 
 
 The replies may be made almost as concise as 
 the questions. In no one place in the New 
 Testament is there the slightest hint that the 
 Lord’s Day is a Sabbath, or that it is to be 
 observed Sabbatically, or that its observance 
 depends on the fourth Commandment, or that 
 the principle of the Sabbath is sufficiently carried 
 out by one day in seven being consecrated to 
 God. Whatever the Lord’s Day had, was its 
 own, not borrowed from the Sabbath, which was 
 regarded for religious purposes as existing no 
 longer. Nay more, when certain Judaizing per- 
 sons had troubled the Church by insisting that 
 the law of Moses was binding upon Gentile con- 
 verts, the Apostles met in council. Their decision 
 was that certain things should be abstained from 
 by the Gentiles, but they did not enjoin any 
 positive ceremonial observance connected with 
 the older Covenant, not-even the Sabbath. And 
 to this it should be added, that St. Paul in 
 writing to the Colossians (ii. 16) to the effect, 
 that “the handwriting of ordinances that was 
 against us, which was contrary to us,” was 
 ‘blotted out by Christ,” “taken out of the way 
 by Him,” and ‘nailed by Him to His cross,” 
 subjoins this remarkable exemplification of his 
 
LECTURE II. 49 
 
 meaning: ‘‘ Let no man, therefore, judge you in 
 meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, 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 writing to the Galatians (iv. 9, 10) 
 he says, in like manner, ‘‘ Ye observe days, and 
 months, and times, and years. I am afraid of 
 you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in 
 vain.” No testimony can be more decisive than 
 this to the fact that the Sabbath was of obliga- 
 tion no longer. 
 
 It has been urged here, that St. Paul is speaking 
 only of the Sabbath as it existed among the Jews, 
 or of their Sabbatical observances of which the 
 Sabbath was only one, but that he did not intend 
 to annul a Sabbath of more venerable antiquity, 
 whose origin dates from the Creation. This is 
 of course to assume a point which will be 
 discussed hereafter, that the Sabbath existed as 
 a practical ordinance before the time of Moses, 
 and has claims upon us anterior to the Mosaical 
 Law, and is not abolished with that law’s aboli- 
 tion. At present I will merely say, this is only 
 an assumption. 
 
 It has been urged again, that among the 
 things to come was the Lord’s Day, and that 
 the Sabbath, the shadow of it, virtually sub- 
 sists in the Lord’s Day. This is to assume 
 the whole point at issue, and, as we shall 
 show hereafter by the authority of Scripture 
 and by other great though subordinate autho- 
 
 E 
 
50 LECTURE It. 
 
 rities, to mistake the typical object of the 
 Sabbath. 
 
 It has been urged thirdly, that to adduce these 
 passages is to prove too much; that they make 
 the observance of all days, whether Christian 
 or Jewish, either to be directly wrong, or to be 
 a matter of indifference. This will be discussed 
 also in its proper place. 
 
 Many passages, no doubt, occur in the Acts 
 of the Apostles in which mention is made of 
 the Sabbath. SS. Paul and Barnabas enter into 
 the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia on the Sab- 
 bath Day. St. Paul speaks there of the prophets 
 being read every Sabbath Day, in the course of 
 his address to the people. He is asked to preach 
 the same words to them on the next Sabbath. On 
 the next Sabbath he complies with this request. 
 At Corinth he reasoned in the synagogue every 
 Sabbath. At Philippi he resorted on the Sabbath 
 to a Proseucha or Synagogue-chapel by the river- 
 side. At Thessalonica he reasoned three Sab- 
 bath Days out of the Scriptures. But why was 
 the Sabbath thus selected? Simply because the 
 persons to be converted in the first instance were 
 
 _ Jews; because the Jews assembled on the Sab- 
 bath Day; and because, being assembled, they 
 
 had those Scriptures before them out of which 
 the preachers of the Gospel were to prove that 
 He had come which should come. The Sabbath 
 is only mentioned naturally and in the course of 
 the narrative as the Day on which the Jews 
 
LECTURE II. 51 
 
 could be approached and were approached in 
 masses. Not one word is said by St. Paul or by 
 any of the Apostles in honor of the day, or in 
 commendation of its observance. It is curious 
 too that though at the Council of Jerusalem 
 St. James used the expression, ‘‘ Moses is read in 
 the synagogue every Sabbath Day,” and thus 
 incidentally brought the subject before it, it was 
 not thought desirable to place the observance of 
 that Day even among the matters which should 
 be conceded to Jewish prepossessions. Accord- 
 ingly, though the Jewish converts still observed 
 it, though even St. Paul, perhaps, observed it oc- 
 casionally, following the same rule of charitable 
 allowance for his brethren’s scruples that he did 
 when he purified himself after the Jewish manner, 
 and even circumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewish 
 mother, and though, as we shall see presently, it 
 dragged on a lingering existence for some time by 
 the side of the Lord’s Day, I think that the fol- 
 lowing propositions are at least tolerably clear ; 
 That the Lord’s Day (a festival on the first 
 day in each week) is indicated in the New 
 Testament, and was observed by the Apostles 
 and their immediate followers as distinct from 
 the Sabbath, (a Jewish festival on the seventh 
 day in each week,) the obligation to observe 
 which is denied both expressly and by impli- 
 cation in the New Testament. That being so 
 acknowledged and observed by the Apostles and 
 their immediate followers, it is of Divine institu- 
 E 2 
 
52 LECTURE 11. 
 
 tion, and so, in its essence, and in the circum- 
 stantials of it mentioned in Scripture, binding on 
 the Church for ever. 
 
 I have said, that these propositions are ¢ole- 
 rably clear. They will, I think, be proved to 
 demonstration by notices to be found in writers 
 of the next two centuries. From these it will 
 appear that, as a matter of fact, in all places 
 where Christianity was known, the same doctrine 
 prevailed on this subject, not as requiring proof, 
 but as a point which no one so much as thought 
 of disputing. 
 
 Whether some moral consideration, which the 
 Mosaical Law did not furnish for the first time, 
 and which therefore survived its abolition, did 
 not, from the nature of the case, constitute a 
 reason for the institution of the Lord’s Day 
 which we are justified in finding if we can; and 
 whether again the Mosaic law, as one develop- 
 ment of that moral consideration, was not as in 
 other matters, so in this, suggestive of something 
 connected with it, are points which I reserve for 
 the present. So far as we have gone, the ev- 
 ternal character of the Lord’s Day at the close 
 of the first century appears to be that of a 
 positive institution of the New Dispensation. It 
 is a day of Christian assembling at short periodic 
 intervals of time, on which certain duties to God, 
 to a man’s self, and to his neighbours were per- 
 formed. This positive institution would seem, 
 both in its essence and in the circumstantials 
 
LECTURE II. 53 
 
 which we have found attached to it, to possess 
 whatever of Divine sanction origination by in- 
 spired Apostles can bestow. As a matter of fact 
 the interval between one Lord’s Day and another 
 is of the same length as that between one Sab- 
 bath and another. But nothing Sabbatical, either 
 in the sense of commanded rest (though rest to 
 a certain extent would be a necessary condition 
 to the fulfilment of its duties, and indeed, as we 
 shall show hereafter, is implied in the very idea 
 of the Lord’s Day), or in the way of impli- 
 cation that the whole of it is to be employed 
 in directly religious observances, or that such 
 religious observances as are employed should 
 be cast in a particular mould, or that such 
 and such acts are prohibited during its con- 
 tinuance; nothing, I say, of this sort is to be 
 found in what we may call the Charter deed of 
 the institution of the Lord’s Day. Whatever of 
 this sort afterwards formally belonged to it, is of 
 Ecclesiastical ruling in the lower sense of the 
 term—is obligatory in a secondary degree only, 
 in deference to the voice of the ancient Church, 
 or to that of our own—or as suggested by the 
 nature of the case, or by Christian charity, or by 
 (what no good man will disregard) considerations 
 of public utility. 
 
 Let us now see in what manner the Lord’s 
 Day was spoken of in the second and third 
 centuries, both absolutely and in reference to 
 the Sabbath. Other points (which I reserve 
 
54 LECTURE 11. 
 
 for future discussion) will be exhibited inci- 
 dentally. Such for instance as the opinion of 
 early writers on the question of the exist- 
 ence of the Sabbath before the days of Moses, 
 and on the question of what the Sabbath was 
 typical. 
 
 Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, is the first 
 writer whom I shall quote. Here is a passage 
 from his Epistle to the Magnesians, containing, 
 as you will observe, a contrast between Judaism 
 and Christianity, and, as an exemplification of 
 it, an opposition between Sabbatizing and living 
 the life of the Lord, (Κυριακὴν ζωήν. I do not think 
 it necessary to reject, with Cotelerius, the word 
 fonv.) ‘* Be not deceived with heterodox opinions, 
 nor old unprofitable fables. For if we still live 
 according to Judaism, we confess that we have 
 not received grace. For even the most holy 
 prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. For 
 this they were persecuted, being inspired by 
 His grace, to assure the disobedient that there 
 is one God, who manifested Himself by Jesus 
 Christ, His Son, who is His Eternal Word... If 
 they then who were concerned in old things, 
 arrived at a newness of hope, no longer observ- 
 ing the Sabbath (μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες) but living 
 according to the Lord’s life (ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν Κυρια- 
 κὴν ζωὴν Sevres) by which our life sprung up by 
 Him and by His death, (whom certain persons 
 deny,)... how can we live without Him, whose 
 disciples even the prophets were, and in spirit 
 
LECTURE II. 55 
 
 waited for Him as their Teacher? Wherefore, 
 He whom they justly waited for, when He 
 came, raised them up from the dead... We 
 have been made His disciples, let us live accord- 
 ing to Christianity.” 
 
 Here is a passage from the Epistle ascribed to 
 St. Barnabas, which, though certainly not written 
 by that Apostle, was in existence in the early 
 part of the second century. The writer says, 
 in his explanation of Isaiah i. 18, (I do not 
 defend this critically, but those whose exegesis 
 of Scripture is indifferent may be admitted as 
 witnesses to matters of fact,) something to the 
 following effect: ‘“‘We celebrate the eighth day 
 with joy, on which too Jesus rose from the 
 dead.”’ (ἐν ᾧ καταπαύσας τὰ πάντα, ἀρχὴν ἡμέρας 
 ὀγδόης ποιήσω, ὅ ἐστιν, κόσμου ἀρχήν" διὸ καὶ ἄγομεν 
 τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν 7 καὶ ὁ 
 Ἰησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς 
 τοὺς οὐρανούς.) 
 
 We now come to a pagan document, too well 
 known almost to need quotation, the celebrated 
 letter of Pliny to Trajan, written while he 
 presided over Pontus and Bithynia. ‘ The 
 Christians,”’ says he, “‘affirm the whole of their 
 euilt or error to be, that they were accustomed 
 to assemble together on ὦ stated day, before © 
 it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ as 
 a God, and to bind themselves by a Sacra- 
 mentum, not for any wicked purpose, but 
 never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, 
 
56 LECTURE II. 
 
 never to break their word, or to refuse, when 
 called upon, to deliver up any trust; after 
 which it was their custom to separate, and 
 to assemble again to take a meal, but a general 
 one, and without guilty purpose.” 
 
 The next writer whom 1 shall quote is Justin 
 Martyr. He flourished Α.Ὁ. 140, and writes thus: 
 “On the day called Sunday, is an assembly 
 of all who live either in the cities or in rural 
 districts, and the memoirs of the Apostles and 
 the writings of the Prophets are read.” Then 
 he goes on to describe the particulars of the 
 religious acts which are entered upon at this 
 assembly. They consist of Prayer, of celebration 
 of the Holy Eucharist, and of Collection of 
 Alms. He afterwards assigns the reasons which 
 Christians had for meeting together on the Sun- 
 day. These are, ‘“ because it is the ‘ First Day,’ 
 on which God dispelled the darkness (τὸ σκότος) 
 and the original state of things (τὴν ὕλην), and 
 formed the world, and because Jesus Christ 
 our Saviour rose from the dead upon it.” In 
 another passage he makes circumcision a type 
 of Sunday. ‘‘The command to circumcise in- 
 fants on the eighth day was a type of the 
 true circumcision by which we were circum- 
 cised from error and wickedness through our | 
 Lord Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead 
 on the first day of the week (τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαβ- 
 βάτων) ; therefore it remains the first and chief 
 of all the days.” As for σαββατίζειν, he con- 
 
LECTURE ΤΙ. 57 
 
 stantly uses that with exclusive reference to 
 the Jewish Law. He carefully distinguishes 
 Saturday (7 xpowxn), the day after which our 
 Lord was crucified, from Sunday (ἡ μετὰ τὴν κρονικὴν 
 ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ TOU ἡλίου ἡμέρα). upon which He rose 
 from the dead. He asserts, that the fathers before 
 Abraham, and Abraham himself and his sons 
 up to the days of Moses, pleased God, without 
 keeping Sabbath (μὴ caBBaticavres)—that as 
 before Abraham’s days there was no need of 
 circumcision, so before those of Moses, there was 
 no need of σαββατισμὸς and Feasts and Offerings 
 —that the New Law requires us to keep a per- 
 petual Sabbath, a position which he contrasts 
 strongly with the conduct which he attributes to 
 the Jews, namely, their placing the whole of their 
 religion in cessation of work for one day—(caf- 
 Barifew [ ὑμᾶς, corr.| ἡμᾶς ὁ καινὸς νόμος διαπαντὸς 
 ἐθέλει, καὶ ὑμεῖς μίαν ἀργοῦντες ἡμέραν εὐσεβεῖν δοκεῖτε, 
 μὴ νοοῦντες διὰ τί ὑμῖν mpocetayn)—and that to turn 
 from sin is to keep the delightsome and true 
 Sabbaths of God. (σεσαββάτικε τὰ τρυφερὰ καὶ 
 ἀληθινὰ σάββατα τοῦ Θεοῦ.) 
 
 I have only two remarks to make upon these 
 quotations. You will have noticed Justin’s em- 
 ployment of the heathen designations for the 
 seventh and first days of the week. It should 
 be remembered that before the death of Hadrian, 
 A.D. 188, the hebdomadal division, (which Dion 
 Cassius, writing in the third century, derives, 
 together with its nomenclature, from Egypt), 
 
δ8 LECTURE II. 
 
 had, in matters of common life, almost univer- 
 sally superseded, in Greece, and even_among the 
 Romans, the national divisions of the lunar 
 month. And you will have observed also that 
 , the same writer who speaks of the whole of a 
 _ Christian’s life being a perpetual Sabbath, speaks 
 also of Sunday being held in especial honor. It 
 is obvious that, as Holy Scripture itself does, he 
 is in the one case spiritualizing the now defunct 
 Jewish Law, in the other, mentioning a Christian 
 ordinance on its own independent grounds. 
 
 Two very short notices stand next on my list, 
 but they are important from their casual and un- 
 studied character. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, 
 A.D. 170, in a letter to the Church of Rome, a 
 fragment of which is preserved by Eusebius, says, 
 ‘“* To-day we kept the Lord’s Holy Day, in which 
 we read your letter.” (τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν 
 dytav ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ἡ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν τὴν 
 ἐπιστολήν" ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νου- 
 θετεῖσθαι.) Melito, Bishop of Sardis, his contem- 
 porary, is stated to have composed, among other 
 works, a treatise on the Lord’s Day. (ὁ περὶ τῆς 
 Κυριακῆς λόγος.) 
 
 The next writer is Irenzeus, Bishop of Lyons, 
 » A.D. 178. His view respecting the Sabbath was 
 this—that like the whole Jewish Law, it was 
 symbolical, that it was intended to teach men 
 to serve God every day, and that it was likewise 
 typical of the future kingdom of God, in which 
 he who has persevered in godliness shall rest 
 
LECTURE Il. 59 
 
 and partake of the Table of God. (‘ Regnum, 
 in quo requiescens homo ille, qui perseveraverit 
 Deo assistere, participabit de mensa Dei.’’) 
 ‘“ Abraham without circumcision, and without 
 observance of Sabbaths believed in God, and it 
 was counted unto him for righteousness, and 
 he was called the friend of God. This is an 
 evidence of the symbolical and temporary cha- 
 racter of those ordinances, and of their inability 
 to render the comers thereunto perfect.” But 
 coincident with this abolition of the Sabbath, 
 his evidence as to the existence of the Lord’s 
 Day is clear and distinct. It is spoken of in 
 one of the best known of his Fragments. And 
 a record of the part which he took in the Quarta- 
 Deciman controversy shows that in his time it 
 was an institution beyond dispute. The point in 
 question was this. Should Easter be celebrated in 
 connexion with the Jewish Passover, on whatever 
 day of the week that might happen to fall, with the 
 Churches of Asia Minor, Syria and Mesopotamia; 
 or on the Lord’s Day, with the rest ofthe Christian 
 world? The Churches in Gaul, then under the | 
 superintendence of Irenzeus, agreed upon a syno-— 
 dical epistle to Victor, Bishop of Rome, in which 
 occurred words somewhat to this effect, ““ The 
 mystery of the Lord’s Resurrection may not be 
 celebrated on any other day than the Lord’s Day, 
 and on this alone should we observe the breaking 
 off of the Paschal Fast.”’ (ὡς ἂν μηδ᾽ ἐν ἄλλῃ ποτε 
 
 iad K a ς 7 - a 5] a > / > 
 THS uptaKkns HNMEPa TO TNS EK νεκρῶν aAVACTAGEDWS εἸἼΓι- 
 
00 LECTURE It. 
 
 τελοῖτο τοῦ Κυρίου μυστήριον, καὶ ὅπως ἐν ταύτῃ μόνῃ 
 τῶν κατὰ τὸ πάσχα νηστειῶν φυλαττοίμεθα τὰς ἐπι- 
 λύσει...) You will observe that while traditions 
 vary as to the yearly celebration of Christ’s 
 Resurrection, the weekly celebration of it is one 
 upon which no diversity exists, or is even hinted 
 at. The latter is an established Apostolic day, 
 the former is a mere Ecclesiastical ordinance, not 
 settled till long after the Apostolic Era. 
 
 The next writer is Clement of Alexandria, 
 A.D. 194. He has several passages very much 
 to our purpose. ‘The Sabbath seems to me, 
 he says, by refraining from evil things to indi- 
 eate figuratively self-command.” (δ ἀποχῆς κακῶν 
 ἐγκράτειαν αἰνίττεσθαι.) In the same work, he has 
 (7 ἑβδομὴ τοίνυν ἡμέρα ἀνάπαυσις κηρύττεται ἀποχὴ 
 κακῶν, ἑτοιμάζουσα τὴν ἀρχίγονον ἡμέραν, τὴν τῷ ὄντι 
 ἀνάπαυσιν ἡμῶν, τὴν δὴ καὶ πρώτην τῷ ὄντι φωτὸς 
 γένεσιν᾽ ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα συνθεωρεῖται καὶ πάντα κληρονο- 
 μεῖται) words which Bishop Kaye interprets as 
 contrasting the Seventh day of the Law with the 
 Highth day of the Gospel. Clement takes occasion 
 to reprove those who interpreted the rest of God 
 (Gen. ii. 2) as if it meant that God had then 
 ceased to work; for ‘‘ He is good, and if He ever 
 ceased to do good, He would cease to be God.” 
 As for Christian days, (observes Bishop Kaye), 
 “When Clement says, that the Gnostic does 
 not pray in any fixed place, or on any stated days 
 or Festivals, but throughout his whole life, he 
 gives us to understand that Christians in general 
 
LECTURE II. 61 
 
 did meet together in fixed places and at appointed 
 times for the purposes of prayer.”’ We are not, 
 however, left to mere inference on this important 
 point, for he speaks of the Lord’s Day as a well- _ 
 known and customary Festival, and in one place 
 gives a mystical interpretation of the name. (οὗτος 
 ἐντολὴν τὴν κατὰ TO εὐαγγέλιον διαπραξάμενος, Κυριακὴν 
 ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν ποιεῖ, ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἀποβάλλῃ φαῦλον νόημα 
 καὶ γνωστικὸν προσλάβῃ, τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ τοῦ Κυρίου ἀνάσ- 
 τασιν δοξάζων.) It will hardly of course be sup- 
 posed that I have quoted Clement as if I agreed 
 with his view of the true Gnostic, beautiful and . 
 transcendental as it is, (Bishop Kaye gives a 
 noble paraphrase of it), or that I at all accept 
 the true Gnostic’s spiritualization of the Deca- 
 logue. I only quote him as an evidence of the 
 existence of the Lord’s Day as an admitted fact, 
 and as a recognized Christian ordinance, quite 
 distinct from the Sabbath. 
 
 The great and learned enthusiast, Tertullian, 
 is our next writer. His date may be placed at 
 the termination of the second century. Of course 
 I do not forget that he became a Montanist . 
 about A.D. 202, and that, therefore, the ortho- 
 doxy of some of his works is more than question- 
 able. But I quote him, as in other cases, as a 
 witness to facts. Here are some of his expres- 
 sions :—‘‘ He who argues for Sabbath-keeping 
 and Circumcision must show that Adam and 
 Abel, and the just of old time observed these 
 things.” (Qui contendit et Sabbatum adhuc 
 
62 LECTURE 11. 
 
 observandum, quasi Salutis medelam, et circum- 
 cisionem octavi diei, propter mortis commi- 
 nationem ; doceat, in preeteritum justos sab- 
 batizasse et circumcidisse, et sic amicos Dei 
 effectos . . . cum neque circumcisum neque sab- 
 batizantem Deus Adam instituerit, consequenter 
 quoque sobolem ejus Abel offerentem sibi sacri- 
 ficia, incircumcisum nec sabbatizantem laudavit.) 
 Then he goes on to insist upon the idea which 
 we have found elsewhere, that the Sabbath was 
 figurative of rest from sin, and typical of man’s 
 final rest in God. It and other ceremonial 
 matters belonging to the Mosaic dispensation, 
 were only intended to last until a new law- 
 giver should arise who should introduce the 
 realities of which these were shadows. Of the 
 Lord’s Day, he says, in other works, “ Sunday 
 we give to joy.” (Diem solis leetitia indulgemus. ) 
 “We have nothing to do with Sabbaths or the 
 other Jewish Festivals, much less with those 
 of the Heathen. We have our own solem- 
 nities, the Lord’s Day, for instance, and Pente- 
 coste. As the Heathen confine themselves to 
 their Festivals and do not observe ours, let us 
 confine ourselves to ours and not meddle with 
 those belonging to them.”’ (Nobis, quibus Sab- 
 bata extranea sunt et neomenic et feria a Deo 
 aliquando dilectze; Saturnalia et Januariz, et | 
 Brume, et Matronalia frequentantur, munera 
 commeant, strenze consonant, lusus, convivia 
 constrepunt? O melior fides nationum: que 
 
LECTURE II. 63 
 
 nullam solemnitatem Christianorum sibi vindicat, 
 non Dominicum diem, non Pentecosten.) Again, 
 “We consider it wrong to fast on the Lord’s 
 Day, or to pray kneeling during its continuance.” 
 (Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de 
 geniculis adorare.) And in speaking of some 
 who refrained from kneeling in prayer on the 
 Sabbath, he has the following remarkable expres- 
 sion, to which [I would draw your attention: 
 “Nos vero, sicut accepimus, solo die Dominico 
 Resurrectionis non ab isto tantum (the bowing 
 of the knee) sed omni anxietatis habitu et officio 
 cavere debemus, differentes etiam negotia, ne 
 quem diabolo locum demus.’’ Canon Robertson 
 considers this to be the first evidence of cessa- 
 tion from worldly business on the Lord’s Day. 
 Neander finds in the passage indications of a 
 transfer of the Jewish law of the Sabbath to 
 the Lord’s Day, and says that Tertullian seems 
 to have regarded it as sinful to attend to any 
 business whatever on the Lord’s Day. I con- 
 fess that I find in it nothing Sabbatarian-— 
 nothing in fact more than I should have ex- 
 pected considering that the Church had now 
 become somewhat settled—that, rather than that 
 the duties peculiar to the Lord’s Day should 
 be neglected, worldly business was put off to 
 another day. It is especially said that this is 
 not due to the Sabbath, or indeed to any other 
 day whatever. 
 
 IT now come to Origen. This writer speaks 
 
64 LECTURE 11. 
 
 very strongly of the duty of honoring the Lord’s 
 Day, which he says had its superiority to the 
 Sabbath indicated by manna having been given 
 on it to the Israelites, while it was withheld 
 on the Sabbath. (Quod si ex Divinis Scrip- 
 turis hoc constat, quod die Dominica Deus pluit 
 manna de ccelo, et in Sabbato non pluit, intel- 
 ligant Judi, jam tunc prelatam esse Domi- 
 nicam nostram Judaico Sabbato.) It is one of 
 the marks of ‘the perfect Christian to keep the 
 Lord’s Day.” As for the Sabbath, it has past 
 away, as a matter of obligation, (as every thing 
 else purely Jewish has passed away,) though its 
 exemplary and typical lessons are evident still. 
 [He has a curious comment, by the way, on the 
 phrase ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς of St. Paul, which he sup- 
 poses that the Apostle intended to contrast with 
 the ὁλόκληρος καὶ ἀδιάλειπτος ἑορτὴ Of the faithful, 
 both in this life and in the life to come. | 
 
 I will just mention that Minucius Felix, who 
 lived A.D. 210, wrote a supposed dialogue, called 
 ‘* Octavius,’ between a Christian and a Heathen, 
 in which the latter at length professes himself 
 overcome. The following phrase is put amongst 
 others into the mouth of the Heathen :—“ The 
 Christians come together to a repast on a solemn 
 day.” He indeed misrepresents the repast, but 
 this is nothing to our purpose. 
 
 The next writer is Cyprian, Bishop of Car- 
 thage. He writes thus, adopting the ordinary 
 notion, that the Jewish Circumcision on the 
 
LECTURE II. 65 
 
 Highth day prefigured the newness of life of 
 the Christian, to which Christ’s resurrection 
 introduces him, and pointed to the Lord’s Day, 
 which is at once the Highth and the First. 
 “Nam quod in Judaica& circumcisione carnali 
 octavus dies celebrabatur, sacramentum est in 
 umbra atque imagine ante premissum, sed 
 veniente Christo veritate completum. Nam quia 
 octavus dies, id est, post Sabbatum primus, dies 
 futurus erat, quo Dominus resurgeret, et nos 
 vivificaret, et circumcisionem nobis spiritalem 
 daret ; hic dies octavus, id est, post Sabbatum 
 primus et Dominicus precessit in imagine, quee 
 imago cessavit superveniente postmodum veri- 
 tate, et data nobis spiritali circumcisione.”” And 
 this passage, be it observed, has the greater 
 authority, because it occurs in a_synodical 
 epistle, emanating not from Cyprian merely, - 
 but also from his sixty-six colleagues in his 
 Third Council of Carthage, a.p. 253. 
 
 I shall conclude our present list by observing 
 that Commodian, who is placed by Lardner about 
 the year A.D. 270, mentions the Lord’s Day; 
 that it is contrasted, in a very remarkable pas- 
 sage, with the Parasceue and the Sabbath, by 
 Victorinus, a martyr and Bishop of Petabio in 
 Pannonia, (now Pettau in Styria,) a.p. 290; 
 and that Peter, also a martyr and Bishop of 
 Alexandria, A.D. 300, says of it, ‘“‘ We keep the 
 Lord’s Day as a day of joy, because of Him who 
 rose thereon.” (τὴν γὲρ Κυριακὴν χαρμοσύνης ἡμέραν 
 
 F 
 
66 LECTURE II. 
 
 ἄγομεν, διὰ τὸν ἀναστάντα ἐν αὐτῇ, ἐν ἣ οὐδὲ γόνατα 
 κλίνειν παρειλήφαμεν.) 
 
 We have now gone through the principal 
 writers of the two centuries after the death of 
 St. John, and I think that we have gained this 
 as the result of our inquiry. That in these two 
 centuries, the Lord’s Day, (a name which now 
 comes out more prominently, and is connected 
 more explicitly with the Resurrection of our 
 Lord than before) existed as a part and parcel 
 of what was recognised as Scriptural (not merely 
 as Ecclesiastical) Christianity ; that it was never 
 confounded with the Sabbath, but was carefully 
 distinguished from it as an institution under 
 the law of liberty, observed in a different way 
 and with different feelings, and exempt from the 
 severity of the provisions which were supposed 
 to characterize the Sabbath. 
 
 Against this result I know of only three ob- 
 jections that can be urged. 
 
 The first is, that the passages now adduced 
 from early writers have done service for a very 
 different purpose, in fact that they have been 
 alleged to prove that the Lord’s Day is merely 
 an Ecclesiastical institution. 
 
 The second, that considering the great im- 
 portance which we are in the habit of attaching 
 to the Lord’s Day, they are hardly sufficient in 
 number to warrant the belief that it was con- 
 sidered by the primitive Christians to be a 
 Scriptural institution. 
 
LECTURE II. 67 
 
 The third, that there is a wide difference 
 between “ keeping a day holy,’ and simply 
 commemorating an event upon it, yet that the 
 latter easily degenerates into the former idea ;” 
 and that therefore, though we admit that the 
 primitive Christians commemorated the Resur- 
 ‘rection of Christ on a given day, and even called 
 it the Lord’s Day, that day was not necessarily 
 kept holy by them. 
 
 As regards the first objection I would say this. 
 Let any one look at these passages and compare 
 them with those which are adduced from Romish 
 or from foreign Protestant and Reformed writers, 
 in order to make out that the Lord’s Day was 
 always held to be of merely Ecclesiastical insti- 
 tution. He will find in these latter, direct 
 allusions to Church authority, or mention of 
 general agreement, or arguments from expe- 
 diency, blended with confessions that after all 
 the Lord’s Day is not of Scriptural obligation 
 on the conscience. He will find nothing of the 
 sort in the ante-Nicene period. The writers 
 speak of the Lord’s Day, just as they speak of 
 other matters which they have received from 
 the original promulgators of Christianity. And 
 they do this with so little effort, and so un- 
 affectedly, that one cannot doubt the simplicity 
 and heartiness of their belief. What the Church 
 is found to be practising, is not necessarily a 
 mere Kcclesiastical institution, but may have a 
 higher sanction. 
 
 F 2 
 
68 LECTURE II. 
 
 And now for the second objection. It is, I 
 think, impossible to estimate the comparative 
 importance of an institution in the ancient 
 Church by the mere number of times on which 
 it is mentioned. The Sabbath is seldom spoken 
 of in the historical parts of the Old Testament, 
 albeit it was “the sign’? between God and the 
 Israelites. It was always and everywhere im- 
 plied. So the Lord’s Day was implied, under 
 Christianity. For it should be borne in 
 mind that the Κυριακὴ Ἡμέρα of old was the 
 day on which the Κυριακὸν Δεῖπνον was cele- 
 brated, on which Christians realized their con- 
 nexion with Christ and with each other, in a 
 word, their “risen life,’ most especially. He 
 who absented himself from this Ordinance vir- 
 tually severed himself from ‘the Body of Christ”’ 
 and relapsed into heathenism. It was, there- 
 fore, scarcely necessary, in addressing those who 
 had no earthly inducements to be Christians, 
 but had rather every discouragement to being 
 such, to urge them to honor the Lord’s Day. 
 Their visible joining in the Ordinance of the 
 Holy Eucharist was of itself a doing of honor 
 to the day on which it was celebrated. After- 
 wards, when Christianity became tolerated, and 
 still more when it was actually established, as 
 the religion of the Empire, or as the religion 
 of the several States into which the Empire was 
 broken up, the tone of Christian writers altered 
 considerably. It seemed necessary, as we shall 
 
LECTURE II. 69 
 
 find is done in several post-Nicene documents 
 both private and public, to warn Christians to 
 observe the Lord’s Day, and to partake in the 
 Lord’s Supper; to remind them that the Chris- 
 tian name was a mockery or a nullity, if un- 
 accompanied with that visible honoring of their 
 Lord in His Day and in His Sacrament, which 
 those of elder times had gloried in and found 
 to be their stay and support. Hence, though 
 other causes were no doubt at work, arises the 
 difference which will appear in the language of 
 Theophilus, of Jerom, of Augustine, of Chryso- 
 stom, of the Councils of Eliberis, of Antioch, 
 and of Laodicea, from that of earlier Christian 
 writers. And, partially at least, to the same 
 source must be traced, through the Middle Ages 
 to the present hour, the gradually increasing 
 practice of insisting on Lord’s Day observance. 
 So far, then, from considering the infrequency 
 of exhortation to keep the Lord’s Day to be an 
 argument that it was not held by the primi- 
 tive Christians to be a Scriptural institution, 
 I conceive that it is an argument which tells 
 just the other way. I should have been sur- 
 prised to find more said about it. 1 should 
 have suspected either the genuineness of the 
 documents put into my hands, or a latent 
 distrust on the part of the writers as to the 
 status of the institution. 
 
 To the third objection it is more difficult to 
 reply, not however so much from its intrinsic 
 
“ 0 LECTURE II. 
 
 weight as from the almost impossibility of find- 
 ing common ground with those who speak of 
 the stated celebration of Christ’s Resurrection 
 as “simply commemorating an event.” It is a 
 commemoration, indeed; but what is the event 
 commemorated ? Is it one like the Battle of the 
 Nile or even the Battle of Waterloo, important 
 indeed at the time, and involving great heroism 
 and great suffering, but of which the effects 
 may at length cease to be traceable even on 
 the nations benefited by them, and in which the © 
 ereater part of the world was never interested 
 at all? Or, is it not rather an event unex- 
 ampled in the history of our race, the triumph 
 of the Son of God “ made perfect by suffering ”’ 
 over His and our enemies, and one by which He 
 who enacted it, not merely rose Himself but 
 caused mankind to rise with Him, gave them 
 a new principle of life here and became the 
 firstfruits of their resurrection hereafter? Is 
 it not an event which increases in interest, yea, 
 which becomes more overpoweringly mysterious 
 year by year, and hour by hour, as soul upon 
 soul enters upon this scene of the flesh to 
 perform his part in the strength of it, or departs 
 from this scene ‘“‘in sure and certain hope” of 
 the benefits obtained by his Forerunner? He 
 who knows “ the power of Christ’s Resurrection’’ 
 cannot celebrate it as a man “simply com- 
 memorates an event,’”’ a dead past fact, in which 
 his forefathers were chiefly concerned : 
 
LECTURE II. 71 
 
 “Like circles widening round 
 Upon a clear blue river 
 Orb after orb, the wondrous sound 
 Is echoed on for ever.” 
 
 He must adore the love and mercy which 
 brought that event to pass, which sustains its 
 efficacy, which makes it a living fact, yea, very 
 life to himself. Such a celebration is not “a 
 degeneration into keeping the day holy on which 
 it is commemorated :”’ of itself, and in right 
 of the ideas which it involves, it makes the 
 commemorative Day a holy one. So we doubt 
 not, that the early Christians, those who “ of 
 all men were most miserable if in this life only 
 they had hope in Christ,’’ did indeed keep with 
 holy joy their Lord’s Resurrection Day. 
 
 In a similar way may be explained the omis- 
 sion on the part of early writers of the enforce- 
 ment of rest on the Lord’s Day. They realized, 
 very perfectly, I believe much more perfectly 
 than we do, the Humanity of our Blessed Lord, 
 and their own participation in His nature as 
 the Son of Man. Hence, remembering that He 
 “‘was wearied and sat by the well,’ the wor- 
 shippers of the Son of Man, so far as they 
 could, rested on His own day with Him. 
 
 But we must not further anticipate. 
 
 Many interesting points have been brought 
 to our notice in the quotations adduced. The 
 writers speak variously of the Sabbath, some 
 insisting on the fact of its abrogation, some 
 bringing out its allegorical and typical cha- 
 
72 LECTURE II. 
 
 racter. And they speak variously of the Lord’s 
 Day ; some referring to the Circumcision day 
 as a type of it; some to the commencement 
 of the manna shower, as an honor conferred 
 by anticipation upon it; some to the primeval 
 creation of light for its sanction; some, in 
 fact the great majority, to the Lord’s Resur- 
 rection as having been its reason. ‘They are 
 not critics, and perhaps we cannot always 
 coincide with their exegesis of Scripture, or 
 sympathize with all their expressions, either in 
 the passages now adduced or in the rest of their 
 compositions. But with every abatement, their 
 negative agreement is most valuable. None of 
 them speak of the Sabbath as binding upon 
 Christians, or as connected with the Christian 
 life, except in a typical and instructive sense; 
 none of them identify it with the Lord’s Day ; 
 none of them transfuse the spirit of the Sabbath 
 into the Lord’s Day, or refer either to the 
 Fourth Commandment or to God’s rest after the 
 Creation for the sanctions of the Lord’s Day. 
 With the exception perhaps of what is said in 
 that one passage of Tertullian, (which however 
 need mean no more than I have attributed to 
 it,) and with merely this difference, that a form 
 of worship, an orderly arrangement of teaching, 
 and of administration of the Lord’s Supper have 
 sprung up, and that recognised buildings for the 
 holding of its Christian assemblies now exist, 
 the Lord’s Day is the same free and purely 
 
LECTURE II. io 
 
 Christian institution, after the lapse of so long 
 a time, as it was when St. Paul preached at Troas, 
 or St. John was in the spirit on the desert rock 
 in the Aigeean. 
 
 The Sabbath, it is true, either through the 
 charity of the orthodox Christians, or through 
 the pertinacity with which Christians of Jewish 
 descent adhered to their ancestral preposses- 
 sions, (as in an instance which I shall mention 
 directly,) for a time obtained a partial respect. 
 And provided that it was not insisted upon as 
 necessary to be imposed on Gentile Christians, 
 but only cherished as a matter of private regard, 
 the Church did not seriously object to this. It 
 was natural enough, that in the words of Hooker, 
 “So long as the glory of the Temple continued, 
 and until the time of that final desolation was 
 accomplished, the [very] Christian Jews should 
 continue with their sacrifices and other parts of 
 legal service.’ They did so continue. The 
 Apostles did not interfere with them; and even 
 showed by their own occasional conformity, that 
 they considered their prepossessions to be, under 
 the circumstances, excusable, and in themselves 
 harmless. Besides, as in the words of Bishop 
 Stillingfleet, “The laws of Moses were incorpo- 
 rated into the very republic of the Jews, and 
 their subsistence and government depended upon 
 them, and their religion and laws were so inter- 
 woven one with the other, that one could not 
 be broken off from the other,’ the Apostles 
 
74. LECTURE II. 
 
 no doubt considered this adherence to the old 
 forms to be a matter of national usage, with 
 which, so long as it was not absolutely anti- 
 Christian, Christianity was not bound to meddle. 
 The Jewish ceremonies (says one of old), though 
 mortua, were not mortifera. And the same 
 charitable and wise forbearance was exercised 
 even after the destruction of the Temple: The 
 Nazarenes, (a name at first applied to all Chris- 
 tians, but eventually limited to Judaizing Chris- 
 tians, especially those who withdrew to Pella as 
 the last days of Jerusalem seemed nigh,) were con- 
 nived at, and, in their origin at least, considered to 
 be orthodox, on this principle, that they merely 
 took the law upon themselves without making any 
 attempt to impose it on the Gentiles. But forbear- 
 ance had its limits, even in Apostolic times. St. 
 Paul would not circumcise Titus, who was a 
 Greek; and so the Ebionites of the second cen- 
 tury and later, who, besides their other errors, 
 consideréd the Sabbath, which they rigorously 
 observed themselves, to be of universal obligation, 
 were held to be heretics. It is one argument 
 against the genuineness both of the larger edition 
 of Ignatius’ Epistles and of the document called 
 “the Apostolical Constitutions,” that they go 
 counter to the whole stream of ante-Nicene testi- 
 mony and teaching,—the former in asserting that 
 the early Church observed, the latter in asserting - 
 that it ought to observe, the Sabbath as well 
 as the Lord’s Day. (See Lardner, c. 85, and 
 
LECTURE II. 75 
 
 Pseudo-Ign. to Magn. peta τὸ σαββατίσαι, &C.) 
 It is true, again, that other Festivals began 
 to be added to the Christian ritual, and that 
 certain Fasts began to be instituted, probably 
 in development of an idea which is apparent 
 in the New Testament, and which no doubt, 
 under the divine guidance, influenced the 
 Apostles in the choice of the day of the Resur- 
 rection as a weekly Christian Festival; that 
 Christ is to be seen in everything, and that 
 His course is a type and allegory and earnest 
 of the Christian’s life. But side shoots from 
 a tree, so far from altering the character of the 
 parent stem, rather evidence its vigorous exist- 
 ence, and the distance to which its roots have 
 spread themselves in the adjacent soil. 
 
 And what if the Sabbath was considered in the 
 Western Church (with the exception perhaps of 
 the Church at Milan) to be a Fast, before the end 
 of the third century had quite setin? It was so 
 considered, not in right of its being a Jewish 
 institution, z.e. not as the Sabbath, but in con- 
 nexion with something altogether Christian. 
 Friday had become a Fast, in commemora- 
 tion of our Lord’s Crucifixion ; by-and-by this 
 Fast was continued into the Saturday. Thus 
 the Sabbath came to be observed by way of 
 ὑπέρθεσις Or super-positio, not for its own sake, 
 but as a corollary to the day which preceded 
 it. Somewhat later it formed a recognised part 
 of the discipline and preparation for the Κυριακὴ, 
 
76 LECTURE 11. 
 
 the day of joy. The Eastern Church, professedly 
 for reasons of its own, which will be noticed 
 hereafter, but, no doubt, in consequence of the 
 greater proportion of Jewish elements in its 
 composition, gradually came to rank the Sab- 
 bath as a Festival, coordinate, or nearly so, 
 with the Lord’s Day. It is not exactly known 
 when this became general in that branch of the 
 Church. It may have become so in the ante- 
 Nicene period; but probably, not for some time 
 afterwards. It finds its chief encouragement in 
 the Apostolical Constitutions, which relate prin- 
 cipally to the Eastern Church. For the Western 
 practice of fasting on the Sabbath another excuse 
 was discovered in later times: ““ δύ. Peter fasted 
 on that day to prepare himself for the dispute 
 with Simon Magus.” With such points, how- 
 ever, as the origin and obligation of Holy 
 Seasons and Holy Days, beyond and besides the 
 Lord’s Day, we are not here concerned. The sole 
 object of the latter part of this present Lecture 
 has been to inquire whether at the end of the 
 Third Century the Lord’s Day remained the 
 same simple and unencumbered ordinance which 
 the Apostles bequeathed to the Church. I think 
 we have answered this question in the aflir- 
 mative. Whether it continued such, in the 
 centuries from that date to the Reformation, I 
 shall consider in the next Lecture. 
 
LECTURE 111. 
 
 GALATIANS II. 18. 
 
 FOR IF I BUILD AGAIN THE THINGS WHICH I DESTROYED, I MAKE MYSELF A 
 TRANSGRESSOR. 
 
 5 A a [2 - 2 » loll 2 > A 
 Ei yap ἃ κατέλυσα, ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνι- 
 στάνω. 
 
 Iv is very difficult to determine in what manner 
 the celebrated edict of Constantine, which intro- 
 duces a new era in the history of the Lord’s 
 Day, should be regarded, or how his motives 
 should be interpreted. There is scarcely a single 
 portion of it which has not been criticised, and 
 criticised in different ways. The document itself 
 is as follows :— 
 
 IMPERATOR ConstantiInus σα. HELPIDIO. 
 
 Omnes judices urbaneque plebes et cunctarum artium officia 
 venerabili die Solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi agrorum culture 
 liberé licenterque inserviant, quoniam frequenter evenit ut non 
 aptius alio die frumenta sulcis aut vines scrobibus mandentur, ne 
 occasione momenti pereat commoditas ccelesti provisione concessa. 
 Dat. Non. Mart. Crispo IT. et Constantino II. Coss. 
 
 Toe Emperor ConstTANTINE AUG, TO HELPIDIUS. 
 
 On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrates and people 
 residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, 
 however, persons engaged in the work of cultivation may freely and 
 
78 LECTURE III. 
 
 lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that 
 another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting ; 
 lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the 
 bounty of heaven should be lost. Given, the seventh day of March. 
 Crispus and Constantine being Consuls, each of them for the second 
 time. (A.D. 321.) 
 
 One of the Westminster Divines, whose work 
 has been already noticed, I mean Cawdrey, ap- 
 pears to think very highly both of the document 
 itself, and of the position occupied by Constan- 
 tine in working out the development of a law of 
 the Almighty. In fact, he compares the Empe- 
 ror to Moses, and intimates that he performed a 
 part in reference to the Lord’s Day analogous to 
 that which he ascribes to Moses in reference to 
 the Sabbath. His comparison is so unique, and 
 is withal so little known, that I venture to 
 quote it. It is part of a series of analogies, but 
 T content myself with the first four. 
 
 “As the first Sabbath was kept, (it is pro- 
 bable,) by God Himself alone, and was pro- 
 pounded as a copy for Adam to imitate; so 
 likewise the first Lord’s Day was kept by Christ 
 alone, and commended to the practice of His 
 Apostles, and the Church’s. | 
 
 “ Adam and the Patriarchs, whether by com- 
 mand or inspiration, did, (we think) imitate 
 God in the observation of a weekly day, but in 
 a different manner from after times, viz. in 
 their private families, in which the Church, as 
 then, resided. So the Apostles, upon the same 
 grounds, (as we conceive) imitated their Lord 
 
LECTURE III. 79 
 
 -and Master, but in private families at first, or 
 private meetings, not so publicly as afterward. 
 
 “The children of Israel (the then only people 
 of God) being in Egypt, under sore pressure, 
 nor did, nor could keep the Sabbath in any 
 solemn manner, not being permitted either 
 rest or assemblies. So the Church of the New 
 Testament for three hundred years, living in 
 persecution, could not keep the Lord’s Day with 
 that solemnity that they should or would; but 
 as for place secretly, so for time as they could 
 find opportunity, in the day or night. 
 
 “The want of a settled government and a 
 governor of their own, together with the 
 former consideration, made some think that 
 Moses was the first that settled the Sabbath, 
 so that however the observation of it might be 
 voluntary before, yet not necessary till now: 
 so, the want of a Christian magistrate for the 
 first three hundred years of the Church, makes 
 some also think and say, that Constantine was 
 the first that commanded the observation of 
 the Lord’s Day: whereas Moses did but re- 
 vive what was by long tract of time almost 
 obliterated, nor did Constantine constitute but 
 confirm the day which had been from the 
 very Apostles’ times, and by the Apostles 
 themselves instituted, and by the succeeding 
 Churches constantly observed, as well as they 
 might. And this is so certainly and con- 
 fessedly true, that we cannot but wonder that 
 
80 LECTURE III. 
 
 any should ever question it. And herein they 
 are alike; that as Moses did settle the obser- 
 vation of the Sabbath, not institute it; so, the 
 most that Constantine did, was but to rectify 
 the observation of the Lord’s Day, not to appoint 
 the day itself.” 
 
 There can be little doubt that Constantine is 
 unduly exalted by this comparison of him to the 
 Jewish Lawgiver, who, whatever he did in refe- 
 rence to the Sabbath, whether he instituted it or 
 revived it, (a question which I waive for the 
 present) was directly commissioned from heaven. 
 
 It is worth noticing, too, that though Euse- 
 bius has anticipated our Presbyterian writer in 
 instituting an historical parallel between these 
 two personages, he ignores the very points from 
 which the other has drawn his parallel. 
 
 Others have looked at the transaction in a 
 totally different light, and refused to discover in 
 the document, or to suppose in the mind of the 
 enactor, any recognition of the Lord’s Day as a 
 matter of divine obligation. They remark, and 
 very truly, that Constantine designates it by its 
 astrological or heathen title, Dies Solis, and insist 
 that the epithet venerabilis with which it is 
 introduced has reference to the rites performed 
 on that day in honor of Hercules, Apollo and 
 Mithras. And in support of their assertion they 
 urge that in the same year Constantine promul- 
 gated an edict of an unquestionably heathen 
 character for the better observance of sacrificial 
 
LECTURE III. 81 
 
 customs. They would have it that the edict is 
 purely a kalendarial regulation, and that the 
 Dies Solis is only rendered by it a holiday in a 
 civil sense, not authoritatively stamped as a holy 
 day, much less as the Lord’s Day in a religious 
 sense—that much confusion had arisen by the 
 astrological week being all but universally em- 
 ployed in private matters, while for public pur- 
 poses the older division by Kalends, Nones, Ides 
 and Nundines prevailed—that festivals had be- 
 come multiplied and diversified, according to the 
 diversities of religions, to a very inconvenient 
 extent (this had been a matter of complaint as 
 long ago as the Actiones Verrine)—and that 
 therefore he determined to compose these chro- 
 nological difficulties, by a weekly holiday, which 
 would be acceptable in the existing state of 
 public feeling, both to his heathen and to his 
 Christian subjects. 
 
 A still lower view of the transaction is this. 
 It is known from several sources that the heathen 
 deity to whom, before his conversion, the Emperor 
 professed to be especially devoted, was Sol or 
 Apollo. It is known also, that whether from 
 their constant use of the Scripture phrase, “‘ the 
 Sun of Righteousness,” which described Christ 
 aS ὁ μέγας ἥλιος, OY from their Holy Day being 
 ἡ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμέρα, Or from their ordinary practice of 
 praying towards the East, the Christians were 
 popularly represented as sun-worshippers. In 
 vain had Tertullian and others protested against 
 
 G 
 
82 LECTURE III. 
 
 such a misrepresentation. This, and many other 
 extravagant fables were widely spread and cur- 
 rently believed. Constantine, as yet only partially 
 informed as to the nature of Christianity, may 
 have been somewhat misled by it. He had an 
 empire of strangely jarring elements which 
 required to be consolidated. The best bond of 
 union was obviously agreement in religion. 
 Accordingly, he may have had in view the 
 formation of a hybrid creed, which should em- 
 brace the common points and carefully suppress 
 the differences of heathenism and Christianity. 
 Neither his own heathenism nor that of his day 
 was of the old-fashioned sensuous kind, which 
 would assign the statue of Christ a place in the 
 Pantheon, or receive Christ among the gods. It 
 was of a more abstract character, and an abstract 
 religion was easily confounded with a spiritual 
 religion. Besides, his own consistency as a sun- 
 worshipper was to be maintained. A regulation 
 in honor of the sun might unite his subjects— 
 promote the truth—and exhibit himself,.though 
 a reformer in religious matters, yet one whose 
 own belief had been always in the right direction. 
 
 But to return to the purely Theological aspect 
 of the edict. 
 
 Prohibition of work, &c. in the cities, some 
 have regarded as an approximation to Sab- 
 batarianism unknown before in the Church, 
 and lamented it as being an infringement = 
 Christian liberty. 
 
LECTURE III. 83 
 
 Others, on the contrary, have considered it to 
 be a movement in the right direction, but not to 
 have gone so far as it was desirable it should have 
 gone. Hooker, for instance, writes thus: “The 
 Emperor Constantine having with over great 
 facility licensed Sunday labour in country vil- 
 lages, under that pretence whereof there may 
 justly no doubt sometimes consideration be had, 
 namely lest anything which God by his Provi- 
 dence hath bestowed should miscarry, not being 
 taken in due time; Leo, which afterwards saw | 
 that this ground would not bear so general and 
 large indulgence as hath been granted, doth by | 
 a contrary edict, both reverse and severely cen- 
 sure his predecessor’s remissness.”’ 
 
 Others, as Heylin, considering the observance 
 of the Lord’s Day to be altogether a matter of 
 custom, (though of Ecclesiastical custom,) and so 
 to be much on a par with the observance of other 
 Christian holydays, seem to regard this edict as 
 merely one of the steps by which this Christian 
 holyday, as others afterwards, received assistance 
 and countenance from the state, by which, in 
 fact, not a Divine and Apostolic ordinance, but a 
 Church custom, was enabled to prevail in the 
 world. — 
 
 We are not, I think, bound to weigh too accu- 
 rately the motives of Constantine. His position 
 was no doubt a difficult one, both externally and 
 internally. He had to deal with an empire in 
 
 α 2 
 
84. LECTURE III. 
 
 which there was a great mixture of religions, 
 though reducible for practical purposes to two 
 denominations, Paganism and Christianity. He 
 was more than half convinced of the insufficiency 
 of Paganism, and nearly half convinced of the 
 truth of Christianity. He dared not however 
 offend the Pagans, much as he wished to en- 
 courage the Christians, to whom he had already 
 eranted toleration by the edict of Milan (a.D. 
 313). Was there any way in which he might 
 advantage both, and yet confer a special though 
 not obtrusive boon upon the latter? All his 
 subjects, it is probable, felt the condition of the 
 kalendar to be a crying and practical incon- 
 venience like that of the old and new style in 
 later times. And the division of his population 
 into two classes was perpetuated by the existence 
 of days for judicature, which one half of them, 
 the heathen, considered to be Fasti, from the fact 
 of their not being heathen festivals—the other 
 half to be Nefasti, or days, to say the least, in- 
 convenient for legal purposes, from the fact of 
 their Christian Festivals being held upon them, 
 and requiring cessation from worldly matters for 
 their due celebration. To meet this state of 
 things he selected for a day of rest for the whole 
 Empire a day already, as we believe, regarded 
 by the Christians as a Festival of Divine in- 
 stitution ; calling it by its civil name, as one 
 which the Christians were well acquainted with 
 and did not scruple to employ, but which could 
 
LECTURE III. 85 
 
 not offend the heathen as having nothing dis- 
 tinctively Christian in it. The Christians would 
 accept it gladly. It was an evidence to them 
 that the kingdoms of this world were becoming 
 visibly, though the world knew it not, sub- 
 servient to the Lord of the Day. The Pagans 
 could not object to it. It produced uniformity 
 in their Festivals and remedied various incon- 
 veniences which met them at every turn. As 
 for the rural districts, where Paganism espe- 
 cially prevailed, these had an exception made in 
 their favor, which obviated every pretence of 
 hardship. Both Christians and Pagans,—the 
 former as far as they could, and from their 
 religious rites requiring their time, the latter 
 altogether,— had been accustomed to Festival 
 Rests; Constantine made these Rests to syn- 
 chronize. His enactment then, though a poli- 
 tical and politic one, was not Sabbatarian, or an 
 advance towards Sabbatarianism ; nor was it, on 
 the other hand, a formal permission of labour 
 to Christians which was not enjoyed before. It 
 was such an assistance as the civil power, sup- 
 posing it to be Christian, was bound to render 
 to ordinances which Christians consider sacred ; 
 the care that public proceedings should be admi- 
 nistered in such a manner as not to necessitate 
 either submission to wrong on other days, or 
 neglect of divine offices on the Lord’s Day. 
 It was, at the same time, all that the Emperor 
 could then do. Eusebius well describes his 
 
86 LECTURE III. - 
 
 policy. It was “to effect the turning of man- 
 kind to God by gentle means”’ (ἠρέμα σύμπαντας 
 ἀνθρώπους θεοσεβεῖς ἀπεργάσασθαι), and any more 
 decided declaration would. have defeated that 
 policy. The suspension of heathen games on 
 the Lord’s Day, and the rendering the inter- 
 diction of labour general, might be taken up 
 by his successors. He himself ventured upon 
 something more afterwards. His enactment, 
 IT say, was not Sabbatarian. There is in it 
 no reference to the Sabbath of the Fourth Com- 
 mandment. There is in it no discouragement 
 of the εὐφροσύνη or cheerfulness, with which 
 the genius of Christianity would suggest that 
 the day should be associated, and with which 
 the testimony of the Fathers proves that it was 
 associated. The willingness with which the 
 Christians, who were mostly in the cities, sub- 
 mitted to the ordinance, is an evidence that rest 
 from their ordinary labours on the day of their 
 religious assemblies was no new thing to them. 
 Thus public interdiction of such labours and of 
 legal proceedings only gave sanction to a rest 
 which probably, to their worldly detriment, they 
 had already observed, or which (for there is reason 
 for believing that the First Day of the week was 
 a court day) they had, against their consciences, 
 neglected to their spiritual detriment. 
 
 ~ [When I say that Constantine afterwards ven- 
 tured upon something more, I would not be 
 understood to endorse the assertion sometimes 
 
LECTURE III. 87 
 
 made, that he decreed an honour to Friday and 
 Saturday, similar to that which he decreed to 
 Sunday. (‘ Eusébe affirme que Constantin avait 
 ordonné qu’on honorat aussi le samedi, et Sozo- 
 méne y joint méme le vendredi,” says Prince 
 Albert de Broglie; but he adds very truly, “Rien 
 de semblable ne se trouve dans les lois.”) The 
 Justinian and Theodosian codes are silent on this 
 supposed supplemental ordinance. So far as 
 Friday is concerned, it depends upon the testimony 
 of Sozomen. (τὴν δὲ Κυριακὴν καλουμένην ἡμέραν, ἣν 
 ἽἝβραιοι πρώτην τῆς ἑβδομάδος ὀνομάζουσιν, “Ελληνες 
 δὲ τῷ ἡλίῳ ἀνατιθέασιν, καὶ τὴν πρὸ τῆς ἑβδόμης ἐνο- 
 μοθέτησε δικαστηρίων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πραγμάτων σχολὴν 
 ἄγειν πάντας, καὶ ἐν εὐχαῖς καὶ λιταῖς τὸ θεῖον θεραπεύειν" 
 ἐτίμα δὲ τὴν Κυριακὴν, ὡς ἐν ταύτῃ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναστάν- 
 τος ἐκ vexpav’ τὴν δὲ ἑτίραν, ὡς ἐν αὐτῇ σταυρωθέντο-.) 
 As for Saturday, the passage in Eusebius is so 
 manifestly corrupt, that unless we adopt the 
 emendation of Valesius, (τὴν πρὸ τοῦ Σαββάτου, for 
 tas τοῦ Σαββάτου,) we can make nothing of it ; 
 while, if we do thus amend it, it will speak of 
 Friday, as that in Sozomen does, not of Saturday. 
 (καὶ ἡμέραν δὲ εὐχῶν ἡγεῖσθαι κατάλληλον, THY κυρίαν 
 ἀληθῶς καὶ πρώτην ὄντως Κυριακήν τε καὶ σωτήριον 
 διετύπου . .. . διὸ τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν Ρωμαίων ἀρχὴν πολι- 
 τευομένοις ἅπασι, σχολὴν ἄγειν ταῖς ἐπωνύμοις τοῦ 
 Σωτῆρος ἡμέραις ἐνουθέτει. ὁμοίως δὲ τὴν πρὸ τοῦ 
 Σαββάτου (corr. for τὰς τοῦ Σ.) τιμᾶν" μνήμης ἕνεκά 
 μοι δοκεῖν τῶν ἐν ταύταις τῷ κοινῷ Σωτῆρι πεπράχθαι 
 
 μνημονευομένων.) In whatever way the passage is 
 
88 LECTURE III. 
 
 to be read, I would rather trust the Codes than 
 statements which were probably suggested by con- 
 fusion of current practice with imperial legisla- 
 tion. I have only alluded to them, because they 
 are sometimes alleged in derogation of what I 
 believe to be the fact, that Ἢ Κυριακὴ ‘Hyépa was 
 the day which would strike an inquirer as neces- 
 sarily to be observed under Christianity. But to 
 return. | 
 
 With every abatement for the state of things 
 already existing, we may justly call the edict of 
 Constantine the inauguration of a new era in the 
 history of Lord’s Day. Christians had now a 
 document, and that not necessarily a Christian 
 document, provided for the observance of a day 
 which had heretofore been reverenced solely as 
 an ordinance existing in and dating from the life- 
 time of the inspired Apostles. Men are always 
 more inclined to lean on visible and living 
 authorities, than on authorities past out of sight, 
 however venerable: and, if both exist, to refer to 
 the former rather than to the latter. And the 
 former sort of authority having once established 
 itself and having once felt its power, is inclined 
 to extend it. So it was even in matters of the 
 Church. The Lord’s Day had, as a festival, 
 hitherto stood almost alone in the Christian ritual 
 (with the exception of Pentecoste, or the interval 
 between the Resurrection and Whit-Sunday). 
 But now, the Church seeing the Lord’s Day so 
 unreservedly recognised, began to establish other 
 
LECTURE III. 89 
 
 Festivals, more or less resembling it, though des- 
 titute of the same sure foundation. These were 
 multiplied, as time went on, in great abundance, 
 and the aid of the state, so efficient in one case, as 
 -it seemed, was called in for other cases. And 
 in order to justify this, by the time that the 
 Reformation commenced, the following state of 
 things, which may in a manner be called Sab- 
 batarian, had completely set in. The Jewish 
 law, or at least the supposed analogy of it, was 
 continually and systematically quoted in favour 
 of these multiplied Festivals. Exact and strin- 
 gent rules had been laid down, professedly for 
 the guidance of consciences, but really to their 
 serious entanglement, in the observance of these 
 Festivals. The results were, that the ideas of 
 the Lord’s Day and of the Sabbath, origi- 
 nally quite distinct, and indeed almost antago- 
 nistic, became confused; and that the reverence 
 especially due to the Lord’s Day was swamped 
 amid claims to reverence on the part of other 
 days, depending solely on Ecclesiastical authority 
 in the lower sense of that phrase. 
 
 Some time (in fact, nearly two centuries) is yet 
 to be traversed before this altered state of things 
 becomes at all clearly visible. We will examine 
 these two centuries together, taking as expo- 
 nents of the Church’s feeling and_ practice 
 upon the subject, individual writers, councils, 
 general or provincial, and such imperial edicts 
 as bear more or less upon it, and are more 
 
90 > LECTURE III. — 
 
 or less attributable to the influence of the 
 Church. 
 
 At the commencement of the fourth century, 
 A.D. 806, Lactantius, the Christian Cicero as he 
 has been sometimes called, mentions the Sab- - 
 bath. But it is with him not the Lord’s Day, or 
 even a type or precursor of the Lord’s Day, but 
 a type of the Millennium. 
 
 The Nicene Council, A.D. 325, speaks of the 
 Lord’s Day, but not as a thing newly invented, 
 or which had had its title questioned. It only 
 says that on that day and during Pentecoste 
 (ev ταῖς τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἡμέραι5), persons are to 
 pray standing—a custom more or less prevalent 
 already. ᾿ 
 
 Eusebius, the Ecclesiastical Historian, and 
 Bishop of Czesarea in Palestine, flourished a.p. 
 315. He mentions the Lord’s Day as a festival 
 well known even in Ireneeus’ time. He even 
 makes the somewhat questionable assertion that 
 the Apostles had an Haster Festival, and cele- 
 brated it on the Lord’s Day. He says that Con- 
 stantine “‘appointed for prayer that day which 
 is really the first and chief of days, which is 
 truly the Lord’s Day, and a day of salvation.” 
 In another place he repeats his statement in the 
 same words with some enlargements. Again, he 
 eulogizes Constantine for commanding that “all 
 should assemble together every week, and keep 
 that day which is called the Lord’s Day as a festi- 
 val, to refresh even their bodies and to stir up 
 
LECTURE III. 91 
 
 their minds by divine precepts and instruction.” 
 The Sabbath Eusebius speaks of in quite a 
 different manner. ‘It was part of the legisla- 
 tion of Moses. Those before Moses ([Ἑῤβραιοι 
 πρεσβύτεροι Μωσέως γενόμενοι τοῖς xpovois) were free 
 from it and indeed from all accurately pre- 
 scribed ordinances for devotion.” 
 
 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 326, 
 in his treatise ‘‘De Sabbatis et de Circumci- 
 sione’’ (if indeed it be his), is most clear in 
 enforcing the facts, that the Sabbath, the end of 
 the Old Creation, has deceased, and that the 
 Lord’s Day, the commencement of the New 
 Creation, has set in. According to his account, 
 the very Sabbath itself was of a more spiritual 
 character than is generally supposed. It was 
 not instituted for the sake of mere inactivity, 
 but with a view to knowledge of the Creator, 
 and of rest from “the form of this creation,” 
 i.e. of rest from sin. In support of this mystical 
 meaning, he urges that certain days not really 
 Sabbaths receive the name of Sabbaths, because 
 of the remission of sins and knowledge of God 
 connected with them. And had literal rest 
 (apyia) been its prime object, circumcision would 
 scarcely have been permitted upon it, and the 
 seven days’ compassing of Jericho would have 
 involved a serious violation of the law.  Atha- 
 nasius discovers an allusion to the Lord’s Day 
 in the title of the sixth Psalm, and one yet 
 more evident in those words of the hundred 
 
02 LECTURE III. 
 
 and eighteenth Psalm, v. 24: ‘This is the day 
 which the Lord hath made.” ‘‘ What day can 
 this be,’’ (he asks) ‘‘but the resurrection day 
 of the Lord—the day which brought salvation to 
 all nations, the day on which the stone rejected 
 by the builders became the head of the corner ? 
 The phrase signifies the resurrection day of our 
 Saviour, which has received its name from 
 Him to wit, the Lord’s Day.” In his Ency- 
 clical Letter, too, he speaks of certain Arians 
 who had violated by their cruelties the Lord’s 
 Day, and converted it into a day of grief to the 
 servants of Christ. 
 
 Some doubt has been thrown, as I have ob- 
 served, on the genuineness of the treatise “‘ De 
 Sabbatis.”’ Both the Benedictines and Fabricius 
 class it amongst the questionable works of Atha- 
 nasius. But, as the former qualify their some- 
 what hasty judgment by the words ‘“Sané 
 quandam dignitatis speciem preefert hoc opus- 
 culum, ut si non Athanasii sit, alicujus saltem 
 pii doctique viri opus esse putetur,’’ and as the 
 latter pronounces it “‘Athanasio fortasse haud 
 indignum opusculum,’? I have ventured to 
 quote it here. [Another work ascribed to Atha- 
 nasius, and entitled ‘Opiria εἰς tov σπόρον, or 
 De Semente, I reject, for the reasons assigned by 
 the Benedictines, without scruple. They speak 
 most slightingly of it, and Fabricius has not a 
 word to advance in its favour. I only mention 
 it because of a peculiar phrase which is found 
 
LECTURE III. 93 
 
 in it, and which has by some been interpreted as 
 declaring that the Sabbath lives in the Lord’s 
 Day—vperéOnne δὲ ὁ Κύριος τὴν τοῦ Σαββάτου ἡμεραν 
 εἰς Κυριακήν. Even admitting, which we cannot, 
 the treatise to be genuine, the words need mean, 
 when taken with the context, no more than this, 
 **The Sabbath, the shadow of things to come, 
 is no more. The truth, and the Lord of truth, 
 have been manifested, and are commemorated 
 in the Lord’s Day.” | 
 
 Juvencus, a Spanish Presbyter, A.D. 345, in his 
 metrical version of the Gospels, represents Christ 
 as assuming to Himself power over all Sabbaths. 
 
 Macarius, a Presbyter of Upper Egypt, a.p. 
 350, spiritualizes the Sabbath, which he calls 
 a purely Jewish institution, almost in the words 
 of Justin Martyr. ‘It was a type and shadow 
 of the true Sabbath given by the Lord to the 
 soul.” ‘The Lord when He came gave man 
 the true and eternal Sabbath, and this is freedom 
 from sin.” ‘They who rest from sin, keep a 
 true, delightsome and holy Sabbath” (καὶ ἀργοῦσι 
 ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας, σαββατίζουσαι σάββατον ἀληθινὸν, 
 τρυφερὸν, ἅγιον). 
 
 Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, A.D. 845, says in 
 his Catechetical Lectures, “Turn thou not out of 
 the way unto Samaritanism or Judaism. For 
 Jesus Christ hath redeemed thee henceforth. 
 Reject all observance of Sabbaths, and call not 
 meats which are really matters of indifference, 
 common or unclean.”’ 
 
94 LECTURE III. 
 
 Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, a.p. 350, has a 
 magnificent passage in his Tract on the ninety- 
 second Psalm, which is headed, as you will recol- 
 lect, ‘A Psalm or Song for the Sabbath day.” 
 He makes the whole of this life a preparation for 
 the eternal Sabbath of the next, and adduces the 
 analogy of the Jewish Law, under which all 
 things were made ready for the “ Sabbatum 
 seeculare’’ on the day previous. In his general 
 prolegomena to the Psalms he speaks as follows : 
 — Cum in septima die Sabbati sit et nomen et’ 
 observantia constituta, tamen nos in octava die, 
 quee et ipsa prima est, perfecti Sabbati felicitate 
 letamur.’? The Lord’s Day is something better 
 than, and beyond the Sabbath. 
 
 Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia (formerly 
 called Salamis), the chief city of Cyprus, A.D. 
 368, speaks of the Lord’s Day as a Festival 
 established by the Apostles. He attributes the 
 same origin to the observance of Wednesday and 
 Friday. And though he may be mistaken in 
 this point, he may be admitted as an evidence of 
 the distinction between the Lord’s Day and the 
 Sabbath. He is very clear in his statement that 
 the latter is abolished. He calls it τὸ σάββατον 
 τὸ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, TO μικρὸν σάββατον, as contrasted 
 with the Great Sabbath, τὸ μεγὰ σάββατον, which 
 is Christ Himself. The Sabbath was allegorical 
 of rest from sin. Its strict rest was a matter of 
 inferior importance. Christ Himself broke it— 
 ‘*My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” 
 
LECTURE III. 95 
 
 The compassing about of Jericho broke it. So 
 did the sacrifices in the Temple, so did the act of 
 circumcision. The Sabbath was made for man, 
 not man for it. It was not ordained for inter- 
 dictions, but for good works (οὐ γέγονε yap τὸ 
 σάββατον εἰς ἀπόκλεισιν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἔργον ἀγαθόν). 
 Incidentally he gives us to understand that the 
 Eastern Church had by this time begun to 
 observe the Sabbath as a Festival, or at any rate 
 not asa Fast. The heretic Marcion professed to 
 fast upon it, in order to do despite to the God of 
 the Jews. We, says Epiphanius, do not hold 
 his doctrine or follow his example. 
 
 Our next authority is Ambrose, Bishop of 
 Milan, a.p. 374. He frequently speaks of the 
 Lord’s Day as a Festival—those who fast upon 
 it are as heretical as the Manichees. There are 
 several passages in his works in which he elabo- 
 rately contrasts the living and evangelical Lord’s 
 Day, with the defunct and legal Sabbath. In his 
 oration “ De Obitu Theodosi,”’ he has a beauti- 
 ful reference to the “Magnum Sabbatum”’ 1.6. 
 Christ, ‘‘the rest of the just.’’ Occasionally he 
 seems to call the Lord’s Day a Sabbath, meta- 
 phorically, but he does not refer to the Fourth 
 Commandment as the ground of its obligation. 
 He mentions certain other Festivals. 
 
 Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, A.D. 372, speaks con- 
 stantly of Κυριακή. Of Σάββατον he says that it was 
 part of the old law, and to be classed with the other 
 ordinances of that law, circumcision, distinctions 
 
96 LECTURE III. 
 
 of meats, sacrifices and the like. The scope of 
 all these was allegorical; in particular by the 
 Sabbath is intimated rest from sinful works (διὰ 
 δὲ Tot σαββατισμοῦ τὴν ἐν τῷ κακῷ ἀπραξίαν διδά- 
 σκεται). In one place in his works, which by the 
 way evidently shows the spurious honor now 
 beginning to be attributed to the Sabbath, he 
 calls that and the Lord’s Day, ἀδελφαὶ ἡμέραι. 
 He probably means to allegorize them both, and 
 to make the Sabbath a type of this life, the 
 Lord’s Day of the next, for he concludes with 
 the words, οὐδὲ ἐμμελῶς ποιῇ τῆς σαυτοῦ ἀθανασίας 
 τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. 
 
 Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constan- 
 tinople, A.D. 381, has a curious discussion on the 
 qualities of the number Seven, and makes the 
 fiftieth day, over and above the square of seven, 
 in Pentecost, an emblem first of the Lord’s 
 Day, and then of the general Resurrection to 
 which the Lord’s Day looks forward. That 
 day, he says, apostrophising his mother Nonna, 
 who died suddenly while praying in church, 
 
 παντὸς σοὶ μύθοιο καὶ ἔργματος ἦεν ἔρεισμα 
 ἮΜμαρ Κυριακόν" 
 but, as for the Sabbath, to reverence it is but to 
 imitate the Hypsistarii, that strange composite 
 sect of heretics, whose religion is made up of 
 selections from Judaism and from Heathenism. 
 
 Basil, Bishop of Czesarea in Cappadocia, A.p. 
 
 370, is very eloquent in his commendation of the 
 
LECTURE III. 97 
 
 Lord’s Day. It is the first, and yet the eighth 
 day mentioned in certain titles of the Psalms. 
 It sets forth the condition of things after this life 
 ended, ‘‘ the day never to be concluded, to have no 
 evening, no successor, the life which shall never 
 cease and never grow old.” It is the day on 
 which Christ rose, and on which we rose with 
 Him. “On it,” he says, “the Church prays 
 standing.” So she does throughout Pentecoste ; 
 and he speaks of ‘‘ praying towards the Hast in 
 recollection of Eden, as a very ancient tradi- 
 tion.”” We may question his authority for this 
 assertion, and perhaps consider his account of 
 τὰ ἄγραφα τῆς ἐκκλησίας μυστήρια, upon which he 
 dwells a good deal, to be rather fanciful. Thus 
 much however is clear, that in his time the 
 Lord’s Day had very definite associations, and 
 those entirely belonging to the New Covenant, 
 intimately connected with it. 
 
 Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia, A.D. 387, thus 
 describes the first day, and contrasts it with the 
 sixth day: ‘“ On the first day, the world began ; 
 on that same day, which became the Lord’s 
 Day, Christ renewed man, for whose sake He 
 had made the world.” ‘The sixth day was 
 that on which man was formed, and on which 
 also Christ suffered for man.” 
 
 Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, a.p. 398, 
 writes thus: (I quote the Greek, because the 
 terms are important) καὶ τὸ ἔθος καὶ τὸ πρέπον 
 ἡμᾶς ἀπαιτεῖ πᾶσαν κυριακὴν τιμᾶν καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ 
 
 Η 
 
08 LECTURE III. 
 
 πανηγυρίζεσθαι, ἐπειδήπερ ἐν ταύτῃ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν 
 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν ἡμών ἐπρυ- 
 ὙΠ ἄνευσ εν. 
 
 Jerom, the Presbyter, A.D. 392, elaborately 
 contrasts Jewish and Christian ordinances. The 
 Sabbath he places amongst the former, the 
 Lord’s Day amongst the latter. He is at great 
 pains to defend Christian ordinances from the 
 imputation of Judaism. His view is that Jewish 
 rites were fixed and determinate. The Jews 
 might not at all times or in all places, “ im- 
 molare agnum, Pentecosten agere, tabernacula 
 figere, jejunare quotidie,”’ and the like. Chris- 
 tianity is not so bound. It is obvious that his 
 argument proves too much, for the same method 
 of spiritualizing which he liberally applies to 
 Christianity, may be applied to Judaism. But 
 it is possible that the apology appeared neces- 
 sary in consequence of the great increase of 
 holy days in the Church. Still his testimony 
 to the positive observance of the Lord’s Day 
 is valuable. He describes the Egyptian cenobite, 
 as ‘employing themselves on that Day in nothing 
 but prayer and reading the Scriptures.” (Domi- 
 nicis diebus orationi tantum et lectionibus vacant : 
 quod quidem et omni tempore completis opusculis 
 faciunt. Quotidie aliquid de Scripturis discitur.) 
 Paula and her companions were diligent in daily 
 devotions—they had six distinct hours in the 
 twenty-four, in which they chanted the Psalter. 
 (Mane—hora tertia—sext&’a—non&a—vespere— 
 
LECTURE 117, 99 
 
 noctis medio Psalterium cantabant.) “ But on 
 the Lord’s Day they went to Church” (Die tantum 
 Dominico ad Ecclesiam procedebant, ex cujus habi- 
 tabant latere.) Jerom does not, however, appear 
 to have considered it indispensable to refrain on 
 Sunday from all ordinary employments, for he 
 subjoins, “‘ On returning from Church, they would 
 apply themselves to their allotted works, and 
 make garments for themselves or others.” 
 (Inde revertentes instabant operi distributo, et 
 vel 5101 vel ceeteris indumenta faciebant.) It is 
 curious also to find the “ Recluse of Bethlehem,” 
 who in his later days recalled so vividly, and 
 lamented so bitterly the sins of his youth, men- 
 tioning without. self-reproach one of what we 
 should call his Sunday recreations. ‘‘ Whilst 
 I was at Rome, (says he), as a boy, pursuing my 
 education, I frequently joined a party of similar 
 ages and pursuits, in visits, on Sundays, to the 
 sepulchres of the Apostles and Martyrs; and 
 - then he goes to narrate how he penetrated into 
 the catacombs, and depicts with taste and classi- 
 cal feeling his early impressions of the scene. 
 And he introduces this, not as a subject of regret 
 for ‘“‘ lavished hours and love mis-spent,” but as 
 a passing illustration of a passage of Scripture. 
 (Dum essem Rome puer, et liberalibus studiis 
 erudirer, solebam cum ceteris ejusdem eetatis et 
 propositi diebus Dominicis sepulchra Aposto- 
 lorum et Martyrum circuire, crebro que cryptas 
 ingredi, quee in terrarum profunda defosse ex 
 H 2 
 
100 LECTURE III. 
 
 utraque parte ingredientium per parietes habent 
 corpora sepultorum, et ita obscura sunt omnia 
 ut propemodum illud propheticum compleatur, 
 ‘ Descendant ad infernum viventes,’ (Psalm. lv.16,) 
 et raro desuper lumen admissum horrorem tem- 
 peret tenebrarum, ut non tam fenestram quam 
 foramen demissi luminis putes : rursum que pede- 
 tentim acceditur, et czecd nocte circumdatis illud 
 Virgilianum proponitur, 
 
 “ Horror ubique animos, simul ipsa silentia terrent.”— An. 2. 
 With Jerom this was quite consistent with reve- 
 rent regard for the institution. In other places 
 he declares his opinion that the Law should be 
 understood spiritually, not carnally, as the Jews 
 too often understood it. We are not to be of 
 the ‘sex diebus,”’ 2.6. we are not to be men of 
 this world. We are to keep Sabbath in its 
 true sense, by abstaining from sin. The precept 
 “ποῦ to move out of our place on the Sabbath 
 day’ should not have been taken literally. 
 “Turning away our foot from the Sabbath,” 
 and ‘‘ bearing no burthen on the Sabbath,’ are 
 each of them susceptible of an interpretation 
 reaching far beyond the mere letter. 
 
 Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius in Africa, 
 flourished a.p. 395. He spiritualizes the Jewish 
 ordinances, and amongst them the Sabbath. 
 “The Lord’s Day and certain other days which 
 he mentions are Christian institutions.” “It 
 is not, however, (as he apologetically remarks,) 
 that we observe the times, but what is signified 
 
LECTURE III. 101 
 
 by the times. The ordinances of the Old Cove- 
 nant were the burdens of slaves, those of the 
 New Covenant are the glory of children.” No 
 doubt he felt the difficulty of maintaining the 
 distinctive character of Christianity, now that 
 holy days were become very numerous, which 
 we have already seen was felt by Jerom. There 
 are many places, however, in his works in which 
 he asserts the primitive observance of the Lord’s 
 Day, and its connexion with the Resurrection ; 
 as for instance, “Dies tamen Dominicus non 
 Judzis sed Christianis resurrectione Domini 
 declaratus est, et ex illo habere ccepit festivi- 
 tatem suam.”’ “'To fast on the Sabbath (he says) 
 may be excused ... but to fast on the Lord’s 
 Day is a grave scandal, especially since the ap- 
 pearance of that detestable heresy, Manicheism, 
 which is decidedly opposed to the Catholic Faith 
 and the Divine Scriptures. Its professors have 
 in a way appointed it to their disciples as the 
 regular day for fasting, and this fact makes it 
 the more horrible to fast on that day.’? [One 
 passage he has, in which, after urging the Scrip- 
 tural and Apostolical character of the Lord’s 
 Day, and its connexion with the resurrection of 
 Christ, he goes on, though the sequence is scarcely 
 apparent, to speak thus: “ Ac ideo sancti Doc- 
 tores Ecclesiz decreverunt omnem gloriam Judaici 
 Sabbatismi in illum, viz. Diem Dominicum trans- 
 ferre, ut quod ipsi in figura, nos celebraremus in 
 veritate . . . sequestrati ab omni rurali opere, et 
 
102 LECTURE III. 
 
 ab omni negotio soli divino cultui vacemus.” The 
 genuineness of the treatise, “ De Tempore,” from 
 whence it 1s extracted has been much questioned. 
 If not genuine, we need not concern ourselves 
 about it. If genuine, it may be interpreted in 
 the same manner as the passage from the “ De 
 Semente’’ ascribed to Athanasius. | 
 
 I have delayed till now the consideration of 
 the remarkable document called the ‘ Aposto- 
 lical Constitutions.”’ It is impossible, for many 
 reasons, to suppose that it was written by Cle- 
 mens Romanus. And its whole tone, and its pre- 
 ceptive manner, and the state of things to which 
 it alludes, make the notion of its being even an 
 ante-Nicene collection very questionable. It is 
 probably to be relegated to the latter part of the 
 Fourth or the earlier part of the Fifth Century. 
 But it is valuable for the following reasons. 
 It shows that the Lord’s Day was held in high 
 and indeed in increasing honor, at the time it 
 was written, and that it was not in any way 
 identified with the Sabbath; and it furnishes 
 a step in the history of the Lord’s Day. It 
 evidences incidentally, first, in what degree its - 
 singularity as the Scriptural Christian Festival 
 had begun to be obscured by the appoint- 
 ment of Festivals coordinate with it, though 
 emanating from an inferior authority; and se- 
 condly, to what extent the liberty in which the 
 termination of the Third Century had left it, 
 was becoming circumscribed. Here are some 
 
LECTURE III. 103 
 
 of its expressions. ‘‘ He that fasts on the Lord’s 
 Day is guilty of sin.” ‘ Keep as Festivals the 
 Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.” “Every Sab- 
 bath, except the one, (¢.e. the Great Sabbath 
 during which the Lord lay in the grave,) and 
 every Lord’s Day, make your assemblies and 
 rejoice.” ‘* Let the servants work five days, but 
 cease from labour and be at church on the Sab- 
 bath and on the Lord’s Day, that they may be 
 taught religion.” ‘‘ Assemble yourselves, espe- 
 cially on the Sabbath Day, and on the day on 
 which the Lord rose, the Lord’s Day.’ The 
 formal respect paid to the Sabbath in this docu- 
 ment may in part be accounted for by the fact 
 mentioned above, that the Eastern Church (to 
 whose customs the book of ‘“ Constitutions ”’ 
 especially refers) desired to discountenance the 
 heresy of Marcion. But, with every abatement, 
 when I find such multiplied days, and such 
 minute regulations concerning them, and such 
 injunctions to absolute rest upon them, as appear 
 therein, I cannot but consider the document in 
 which they appear to be an evidence that a taste 
 for Judaism had in many respects insinuated itself 
 into the Church by the time that it was set forth. 
 I have spoken in several places of Judaism 
 intruding itself into the Church. I mean by the 
 word, both Judaism as it originally existed, which 
 though intended to exist under the Old Dispen- 
 sation, was utterly out of place under the New, 
 and the over-strained or Pharisaical Judaism 
 
104, LECTURE III. 
 
 rebuked by our Lord, which was never intended 
 to exist at all. It is curious, however, to find the 
 Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, when 
 these two sorts of Judaism were most to be feared, 
 directing their energies against a third sort of 
 Judaism of a very different character. The Jews 
 of those ages seem to have reverted to the days of 
 the Prophets in their employment of their rest on 
 Sabbaths, New Moons, and other National Fes- 
 tivals. Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alex- 
 andria, Theodoret and Prudentius, with one voice 
 accuse them of spending these days not merely 
 in worldliness, but in licentiousness. What- 
 ever charges Hosea, or Amos, or Isaiah, or 
 Ezekiel had brought against them of old, these 
 writers declare to be applicable to them at that 
 hour. Hence, in all probability, the contem- 
 porary proverbial expression, ‘‘ Luxus Sabba- 
 tarius,’’ which is found in Sidonius. And hence 
 also the variety of contemptuous meanings with 
 which in later times the word “ Sabbat”’ is asso- 
 ciated on the Continent of Europe. 
 
 Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, a.p. 
 398; ΟΥ̓], Bishop of Alexandria, a.p. 412; 
 Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, who flourished 
 in the reign of Theodosius the Younger, A.D. 
 408—450, and were continuators of the Eccle- 
 siastical History of Eusebius, will almost com- 
 plete the list which we proposed. 
 
 Chrysostom extracts a spiritual meaning from 
 the ordinances of the Jewish Law. He solemnly 
 
LECTURE III. 105 
 
 warns Christians against Sabbatizing with the 
 Jews, and refers to 1 Cor. xvi. 2 as sanctioning 
 the Lord’s Day. In his own eloquent manner, 
 too, he speaks of St. Paul’s preaching on the 
 Lord’s Day at Troas. He desires some of his 
 hearers not to hesitate to come to a second 
 σύναξις on that day, even after the hour of refec- 
 tion (μετὰ τὴν ἑστίασιν). At the same time he 
 warns them that Christian ordinances, as well as 
 those of the Jews, admit of a spiritual interpre- 
 tation. He has a very remarkable passage in 
 his Commentary on Genesis, c.1 (the first I 
 think of the kind which is to be found in the 
 Fathers), in which he refers to God’s words at 
 the beginning, as in a figure exhibiting our duty 
 of consecrating the first day in the week to Him. 
 (Ἐντεῦθεν ἐκ προοιμίων αἰνιγματωδῶς διδασκαλίαν ἡμῖν 
 ὁ Θεὸς παρέχεται, παιδεύων τὴν μίαν ἡμέραν ἐν τῷ 
 κύκλῳ τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἅπασαν ἀνατιθέναι καὶ ἀφορίξειν τῇ 
 τῶν πνευματικῶν ἐργασίᾳ.) Considered dogmati- 
 cally, this passage, by the words αἰνιγματωδῶς 
 and ὥπασαν, shows that a sort of change has 
 come over the patristic treatment of the Lord’s 
 Day. (Though it is to be observed that Chry- 
 sostom does not say μέαν in the seven, but τὴν μέαν 
 in the seven.) I think, however, that we gather 
 necessarily from it no more than this, that the 
 Lord’s Day was conceived by him to have an 
 analogy to something in the Jewish Law, and 
 to come under the general head of foreseen and 
 ordained Rest. 
 
106 LECTURE III. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria is clear as to the spiritual 
 and allegorical character of the Sabbath. But it 
 had other and immediately practical uses. The 
 Jews were prone to the worship of the Sun and 
 of the heavenly bodies. But. by this weekly rest 
 they were reminded of the Great Creator and 
 Artificer, whose servants indeed all these things 
 were. The Sabbath, as an observance, is now 
 abolished. The First Day of the week, on which 
 Christ rose and we with Him rise to newness of 
 life, is to be honored. | 
 
 Theodoret condemns the Ebionites for joining 
 the observance of the Sabbath after the law of 
 the Jews, with that of the Lord’s Day after the 
 manner of Christians. This passage is worth 
 notice, because it shows that whatever regard 
 the Christians paid to the Sabbath in Theo- 
 doret’s day, it was not such a regard as the Jews 
 paid to it; and besides, it clearly contrasts the 
 Christian way in which the Lord’s Day was hal- 
 lowed with the Jewish way of hallowing the 
 Sabbath. The Sabbath was not an institution of 
 nature, but a matter of positive precept. It was 
 an ordinance peculiar to the Jews. It had its 
 moral and political uses. It was an induce- 
 ment to humanity—a bond of union—a sign 
 between God and His people—a peculiarity in 
 legislation likely to attach the people to their 
 legislator. 7 
 
 Another of the continuators of Eusebius, So- 
 crates, has an expression occurring incidentally, 
 
LECTURE III. 107 
 
 in which the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day are 
 both mentioned as weekly Festivals on which 
 συνάξεις were usually held: ἡνέκα ἑκάστης ἑβδομάδος 
 ‘oprat κατελάμβανον, φημὶ δὴ τό τε Σάββατον καὶ ἡ 
 Κυριακὴ, ἐν αἷς αἱ συνάξεις κατὰ τὰς ἐκκλησίας εἰώθασι 
 γενέσθα. And a third continuator, Sozomen, 
 intimates, in a passage already quoted, that what 
 Constantine did for the First Day of the week was 
 not to make it the Lord’s Day, but to render it 
 an authorized holiday. Suicer observes upon his 
 language, ‘‘ Non dicit a Constantino appellatam 
 Κυριακὴν, sed, ‘jam ante sic vocatam, feriatam esse 
 decrevit.’’”’ Of course you will have noticed in 
 both these historians the dignity, unknown to the 
 early Church, attached in one case to the Saturday 
 and in the other to the Friday. A chapter in 
 Socrates (V. 22) is sometimes referred to in proof 
 that the Lord’s Day is purely of ecclesiastical 
 institution. But he is obviously arguing against 
 the apostolical origin of such Feasts and Fasts as 
 Easter and Lent, and of certain observances con- 
 nected with them. The Lord’s Day is mentioned 
 in the passage, but no question is raised about it. 
 
 I might, as you are aware, quote various 
 other writers within the period which I have 
 assigned to myself, Ccelius Sedulius, for in- 
 stance, a Presbyter towards the end of the fifth 
 century. He speaks thus of the Sabbath and 
 the Lord’s Day :— 
 
 Coeperat interea post tristia Sabbata felix 
 Irradiare dies, culmen qui nominis alti 
 
108 LECTURE III. 
 
 A Domino dominante trahit, primusque videre 
 Promeruit nasci mundum, atque resurgere Christum. 
 Septima nam Genesis cum dicit Sabbata, claret 
 Hunc orbis caput esse diem, quem gloria regis 
 
 Nunc etiam proprii donans fulgore tropei, 
 
 Primatum retinere dedit. 
 
 But I pass on to consider what notice was taken 
 of the Sabbath and of the Lord’s Day respec- 
 tively during the two centuries with which we 
 have been engaged, by Provincial Councils of 
 the Church. I have already stated what was 
 said of it by the only General Council which 
 touched upon it, the Council of Nicezea. 
 
 The Council of Eliberis, a.p. 305, very stre- 
 nuously promotes religious worship on the Lord’s 
 Day, and threatens suspension from communion 
 to any person living in a town who shall absent 
 himself for three Lord’s Days from church. The 
 Council of Gangra (the date of which is doubt- 
 ful, but which took place between a.p. 320— 
 370) condemns those who make the Lord’s Day 
 a day of fasting (as being no Catholics, and 
 savouring of the heresy of the Manichees), 
 and also those who despise the House of God 
 and frequent schismatical assemblies. The 
 Council of Sardica, about a.p. 345, repeats the 
 language of that of Eliberis, mentioned already. 
 And a Canon passed by the Council of Antioch, 
 A.D. 840, was to the effect that, ““ If any one came 
 to church to hear the Scriptures read and the 
 sermon preached, but refused to join in the prayers 
 or the reception of the Holy Eucharist, (which 
 
LECTURE III. 109 
 
 was then administered every Lord’s Day,) he was 
 to be excommunicated and reduced to the state 
 of a penitent, as one who had brought confusion 
 and disorder into the Church.” The First Council 
 of Toledo, a.p. 400, enforced the same point. The 
 Fourth Council of Carthage, a.p. 436, added that 
 ‘If any one left the church while the ‘ Sacerdos’ 
 was preaching, he was to be excommunicated.”’ 
 The Council of Laodicea, A.D. 363 or thereabouts, 
 speaks in the following terms: ὅτι ov δεῖ Χρισ- 
 τιανοὺς ᾿Ιουδαΐζειν, καὶ ἐν τῷ Σαββάτῳ σχολάζειν, ἀλλὰ 
 ἐργάζεσθαι ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ, τὴν δὲ Κυριακὴν προτι- 
 μῶντες, εἴγε δύναιντο, σχολάζειν ὡς Χριστιανοί" εἰ δὲ 
 εὑρεθεῖεν ᾿Ιουδαϊσταὶ, ἔστωσαν ἀνάθεμα παρὰ Χριστῷ. 
 The meaning of this Canon, which I have pur- 
 posely quoted in the original, has been much 
 disputed ; but it seems to me to be tolerably 
 clear. All Judaizing is forbidden, whether such 
 as keeps the Sabbath by making it a day of σχολὴ, 
 or such as keeps the Lord’s Day by observing a 
 sort of Judaic σχολὴ upon it. There is, however, 
 a Christian σχολὴ which is appropriate to the 
 Lord’s Day; let this be observed by all means, 
 only let its distinctiveness, as a Christian one, 
 be carefully kept in view. The Fourth Council 
 of Carthage discouraged going to Games or into 
 the Public Circus on the Lord’s Day. At the 
 same time it repeated the condemnation given 
 by the Council of Gangra to asceticism upon it. 
 But let me now turn, as I proposed, to inquire 
 what language the Civil power has held respect- 
 
101 LECTURE III. 
 
 ing the Lord’s Day since the date of Constantine’s 
 edict. Eusebius mentions a law by which he 
 enjoined the Christian section of his army to rest 
 on the Lord’s Day from military exercises, and 
 to repair with all diligence to divine worship. 
 By another law he is said to have desired even 
 his pagan soldiery to lay aside their arms on that 
 day, and repair to the fields, where they were to 
 offer up a prayer composed by himself to the 
 Supreme King of all. About sixty years later, 
 the transaction of business (negotiorum intentio) 
 was forbidden by Theodosius the Great, A. Ὁ. 386, 
 who, in the words of Canon Robertson, also 
 “‘ abolished the spectacles in which the heathen 
 had found their consolation when the day had 
 been set apart from other secular uses by Con- 
 stantine.” Theodosius the younger, Α.Ὁ. 425, 
 in legislating on the subject, stated, that the 
 honors due to the Emperor were less important 
 than the observance of the Lord’s Day, and of 
 certain sacred seasons which he specifies. Leo 
 and Anthemius, A.D. 469, held yet stronger lan- 
 suage. If the Emperor’s birthday fell on that 
 day, the acknowledgment of it which was accom- 
 panied by Games was to be put off. It does 
 not however appear that the Christians, now 
 greatly increased in number, so much objected to 
 the Emperors that all relaxation on the Lord’s 
 Day was unlawful, but that these Games, being 
 idolatrous, indecent, and cruel, and so unfit for 
 a Christian to attend on any day, were especially 
 
LECTURE III. 111 
 
 unfit to engage his thoughts or attract his at- 
 tention on the Lord’s Day. In particular, the 
 weaker brethren were likely to be led away by 
 them. The very words of the law of these Em- 
 perors show what kinds of amusements were 
 interdicted :—‘‘ Nec hujus tamen religiosi diei otia 
 relaxantes, obsccenis quemquam patimur volupta- 
 tibus detineri. Nihil eodem die sibi vindicet 
 scena theatralis, aut circense spectaculum, aut 
 ferarum lacrimosa spectacula: et si in nostrum 
 ortum aut natalem celebranda solennitas inci- 
 derit, differatur.”’ 
 
 A few notices as to legal proceedings may 
 conclude this portion of our subject. Constan- 
 tine qualified his general prohibition of law 
 business on the Lord’s Day, by soon afterwards 
 permitting the acts of conferring liberty and legal 
 rights (manuwmissio, for instance, or giving free- 
 dom to the slave, and emancipatio, or setting the 
 son free from the paternal power). This law was 
 followed, under Valentinian and Valens, A.D. 368, 
 by one prohibiting the exacting on that day, from | 
 any Christian, the payment of any debt. And both 
 enactments were repeated in the succeeding reign, 
 ~ A.D. 386, with the additional prohibition of trials 
 before arbitrators, even though deriving their 
 authority from the assent of the parties; and 
 with the declaration that violation of the sacred 
 rites of religion should be considered not only 
 infamous but sacrilegious ‘‘on the day of the 
 Sun, which our fathers rightly named the Lord’s 
 
112 LECTURE III. 
 
 Day.” Theodosius the Great confirmed all this, 
 but made his prohibition include not merely the 
 * Dies Solis qui repetito in se calculo revolvun- 
 tur,” but such a number of other days as to 
 constitute one hundred and twenty-four gjudicial 
 holidays in the course of the year. This was 
 in A.D. 389. And the law of Leo and Anthemius, 
 quoted already, speaks thus earnestly and even 
 eloquently on the subject. “The Lord’s Day,” 
 thus it runs, *‘ we decree to be ever so honored 
 and revered, that it should be exempt from all 
 compulsory process: let no summons urge any 
 man; let no one be required to give security 
 for the payment of a fund held by him in 
 trust; let the serjeants of the courts be silent ; 
 let the pleader cease his labours; let that day 
 be a stranger to trials; be the crier’s voice un- 
 heard; let the litigants have breathing time and 
 an interval of truce; let the rival disputants have 
 an opportunity of meeting without fear; of com- 
 paring the arrangements made in their names 
 and arranging the terms of a compromise. If 
 any officer of the courts, under pretence of public 
 or private business, dares to despise these enact- 
 ments, let his patrimony be forfeited.” 
 
 And now what is the result of our inquiries 
 into the state of feeling and practice in reference 
 to the Lord’s Day, since the conclusion of the 
 Third Century? A great tendency to multi- 
 plication of days and observances has manifested 
 itself. The Sabbath has raised its head again, 
 
LECTURE III. 115 
 
 though in a diverse manner, both in the East 
 and in the West. Christians have found them- 
 selves compelled to apologize for the multitude of 
 their Festivals, and while, on the one hand, they 
 sometimes defend themselves from the charge of 
 Judaizing by nice distinctions between observing 
 the tumes and observing what is signified by the 
 times, on the other they occasionally resort to 
 the analogy of the Jewish law, or if not that 
 to the authority of the Church purely. They 
 thus incur the twofold hazard (especially when 
 the Sabbath dies out again, as it soon does) of 
 forgetting that the Lord’s Day is a New Testa- 
 ment ordinance distinct from the Sabbath, and 
 that the antiquity and Apostolicity of it place 
 it above all purely Ecclesiastical ordinances. 
 (So, if I may venture upon an illustration drawn 
 from a parallel case, the Church of Rome, of her 
 own authority, has mixed up with the degrees of 
 consanguinity and affinity within which marriage 
 is forbidden in Scripture, other degrees not so 
 forbidden, and called all alike mere Ecclesiastical 
 prohibitions.) Insensibly, in part from depen- 
 dence upon secular aid and imitation of secular 
 legislation, (which must be universal in its terms 
 and stringent in the enforcement of its com- 
 mands,) and in part from the profession of 
 Christianity being now attended with no danger ; 
 rest, though emphatically a Christian rest, is 
 beginning to be insisted upon, attendance at 
 Divine worship, heretofore a service of love, is 
 I 
 
114. LECTURE III. 
 
 enforced by Ecclesiastical penalties, and fre- 
 quenting of irregular assemblies is discouraged 
 in a similar manner. It has been found neces- 
 sary to forbid Christians to appear at heathen 
 public games, so long as they are allowed, on 
 the Lord’s Day. And the Civil power has con- 
 sented to close the law courts, and forbidden, at 
 any rate in towns, a man’s public pursuit of his 
 calling; it has at length put down the scandal of 
 such games as were offensive and a snare to Chris- 
 tians, on that day. In all these respects a certain 
 change is observable, and therefore I call these 
 two centuries the commencement of a new era 
 in the history of the Lord’s Day. But with all 
 this, in no clearly genuine passage that I can 
 discover in any writer of these two centuries, or 
 in any public document Ecclesiastical or Civil, 
 is the Fourth Commandment referred to as the 
 ground of the obligation to observe the Lord’s 
 Day. In no passage, too, is there anything like 
 a reference to the Creation words, as the ground 
 of the obligation to observe it, with the excep- 
 tion perhaps of that one passage in Chrysostom 
 in which the command for the seventh day is 
 made aiviypatwdeés to shadow forth the command 
 for the first. In no passage is there anything 
 like the confusion between “the seventh day,” 
 and “one day in seven,” of which we have heard 
 so much in England since a.p. 1595. In no 
 passage is there any hint of the transfer of the 
 Sabbath to the Lord’s Day, or of the planting 
 
LECTURE III. 115 
 
 of the Lord’s Day on the ruins of the Sabbath, 
 those fictions of modern times. If the Sabbath 
 appears, it appears as a perfectly distinct day. 
 And what is still more to our purpose, looking 
 at the matter as a practical one, though law 
 proceedings are forbidden, and labours for gain 
 (at any rate in towns) are forbidden, and amuse- 
 ments unseemly for a Christian on any day are 
 forbidden, no symptom is as yet discoverable of 
 compulsory restrictions of, or conscientious absti- 
 nence from such recreations and necessary duties 
 (other than trades and professions) as are per- 
 missible on other days, so long as they do not 
 interfere with Divine worship, and the things 
 connected with it, and appropriate to the Lord’s 
 Day. It seems to have been still assumed that 
 the religious character of the day, its institution 
 as the Lord’s Day, (and that Lord, the Son of 
 Man,) once admitted, and guarded as we have 
 seen it guarded, not merely would Praise and 
 Bounty be rendered to God, but its Rest be 
 enjoyed harmlessly. The day is not to be a 
 Fast, for it is a day of Joy: the Church has 
 always considered it to be a day of Joy, and 
 none but heretics have thought otherwise of it. 
 In fact, we may at least say, that though to a 
 certain extent formalized, and to a certain extent 
 divested of its unique claims to the Christian’s 
 regard, the Lord’s Day at the end of the Fifth 
 Century is not transformed into anything like 
 the Sabbath as the Jews had it. 
 τ 
 
116 LECTURE III. 
 
 But a more serious change is at hand. In the 
 centuries ranging from the Sixth to the Fifteenth, 
 we find Civil Rulers and Councils, and Eccle- 
 siastical writers by degrees altering their tone. 
 Holydays are multiplied more and more. Then, 
 as the Church has established so many that it 
 is impossible to observe them all, and as her 
 authority, from being exercised so often and in 
 a manner so difficult to be complied with, begins 
 to be thought lightly of, holy days must be 
 distinguished, and some sanction which shall 
 vividly reach the conscience must be found for 
 days of special obligation. The Old Testament 
 has been already referred to for the analogy of 
 many of her Festivals. The step from analogy 
 to identification is not a startling or a violent 
 one. Thus a gradual identification of the Lord’s 
 Day with the Sabbath sets in. This naturally 
 leads to the Fourth Commandment. The Fourth 
 Commandment once thought of, vexatious restric- 
 tions follow, thwarting men in their necessary 
 employments or enjoyments by an application 
 of its terms either strictly literal or most inge- 
 niously refined. Councils condescend to notice 
 whether “‘oxen may or may not be yoked on 
 the Lord’s Day,” and not unfrequently contradict 
 each other. The Second Council of Macon, A.D. 
 585, enjoins, “that no one should allow himself 
 on the Lord’s Day, under plea of necessity, to 
 put a yoke on the necks of his cattle; but all 
 be occupied with mind and body in the hymns 
 
LECTURE III. Pie 
 
 and the praise of God. For this is the day of 
 ‘perpetual rest; this is shadowed out to us by 
 the seventh day in the law and the prophets.” 
 It then goes on to threaten punishments for 
 profanation of the holy day either by pleading 
 causes or by other works. Offenders will dis- 
 please God, and besides will draw upon them- 
 selves the “implacable anger of the clergy.” 
 Lawyers will lose their privilege of pleading 
 causes; clerks or monks will be shut out for 
 six months from the society of their brethren ; 
 “ Rusticus aut servus gravioribus fustium ictibus 
 verberabitur.”’ Still, even in this Council, there 
 is a recognition of the true origin of the Lord’s 
 Day, ‘‘ Keep the Lord’s Day, whereon we were 
 born anew, and freed from all sins.”’ 
 
 Things go on much in this way. Clothaire, 
 King of France, issues an edict prohibiting all 
 servile labours on the Lord’s Day, assigning as 
 a reason, “ Quia lex prohibet et sacra scriptura 
 in omnibus contradicit.”’ A synod held at 
 Friuli, a.p. 791, under Pepin King of France, 
 makes a remarkable canon in reference to it,— 
 *‘ Etiam a propris conjugibus, &c.’’ which savours 
 very strongly of Judaism. In the early part of 
 the ninth century, in two councils, held, the one 
 at Mayence, and the other at Rheims, in the 
 reign of Charlemagne, canons are made against 
 doing servile work on the Lord’s Day, which is 
 directed by the former council to be held in all 
 reverence; whilst the latter, grounding its pro- 
 
118 LECTURE III. 
 
 hibition on ‘the precept of the Lord,” proceeds 
 also to prohibit public largesses on that day. 
 The Lord’s Day is embodied in the capitularies 
 of the Frank emperors; and its observance is 
 enforced by severe penalties, which we find spe- 
 cified in another law of the same code to this 
 effect :—“‘To yoke a pair of oxen to a cart and 
 walk by the side of it on the Lord’s Day, shall 
 involve the loss of the right ox; to do other 
 servile acts, prohibited by Canonical authority, 
 shall render the offender liable to pay a fine to 
 the clergy, and also to perform whatever penalty 
 they may impose, according to the nature of 
 the offence ;’? and “the judges are directed to 
 aid the clergy and enforce obedience to their 
 mandates.’’ The language under Charlemagne’s 
 direction is singularly like that of Clothaire— 
 “‘Secundum id quod Dominus in lege preecepit,”’ 
 and no doubt involved a similar dependence on 
 the Fourth Commandment, taken literally. 
 
 In the East, the exemption granted to agri- 
 cultural labours by Constantine, which had been 
 embodied in the code of Justinian, was repealed 
 by the Emperor Leo Philosophus, a.p. 910, who 
 animadverted in somewhat severe terms on the 
 law of his great predecessor. 
 
 A great variety of restrictive injunctions were 
 issued in England from the seventh to the twelfth 
 century, of which I can only notice a few. Ina, 
 King of the West Saxons, a.p. 673, and the 
 Council of Berkhampstead, a.p. 697, forbade 
 
LECTURE III. 119 
 
 all work on the Lord’s Day, under penalties 
 strangely and almost fantastically graduated. So 
 did the Constitutions of Egbert, Archbishop of 
 York, a.p. 749, and the Convention between 
 Edward the Elder and Guthrun the Dane, A.D. 
 906. The Council of Clovishoff, a.p. 747, for- 
 bade travelling; a law of Athelstane, A.D. 925, 
 trading; and in a law of Edgar the Peaceable, 
 A.D. 958, we find that the Lord’s Day is to com- 
 mence at ‘three o’clock in the afternoon on 
 Saturday, and to last until the dawn of Monday.” 
 It would be tedious to mention the number of 
 holy days for which similar reverence is de- 
 manded, or the vexatious enactments relating to 
 them. It may suffice to say that a Judaic and 
 almost more than Judaic strictness was intro- 
 duced, both into them and into the Lord’s Day, 
 under the sanction of Church authority, and 
 that generally it was a greater crime to do 
 wrong on a Festival than on an ordinary day. 
 
 A few more instanees, taken almost at random, 
 may conclude this part of our subject. At the 
 end of the eighth century, we find Alcuin 
 asserting, that “the observation of the former 
 Sabbath had been transferred very fitly to the 
 Lord’s Day, by the custom and consent of 
 Christian people.’ In the twelfth century, 
 Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaulx, grounds the Lord’s 
 Day and the other Holy Days on the Fourth 
 Commandment. ‘ Spirituale obsequium Deo 
 preebetur in observantid sanctarum solemni- 
 
120 LECTURE III. 
 
 tatum, unde tertium (quartum) preceptum 
 contexitur.” Petrus Alphonsus, in the same 
 century, has the expression, ‘“ Christian Sab- 
 bath”? (Heylin asserts that it is first found 
 in his works); ‘‘ Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resur- 
 rectionis, que sue salvationis causa exstitit, 
 Christianorum Sabbatum est.” In England 
 again, A.D. 1201, in the time of King John, 
 Eustace, Abbot of Flay, preaches the observance 
 of the Lord’s Day with a strictness eminently 
 Judaical, and descending to the most ordinary 
 occupations. He professes to confirm his doctrine 
 by a letter, purporting to be from our Saviour, 
 and miraculously found on the altar of St.Simeon 
 at Golgotha. Various apocryphal judgments over- 
 took persons transgressing in the slightest degree 
 the commands set forth in this document. It had 
 said, that from the ninth hour of the Sabbath, 
 (Saturday) to sunrise on Monday, no work was 
 to be done: and it is curious to find that the in- 
 stances of punishment seem to cluster about the 
 profanation of the later hours of Saturday. At 
 length the Church, almost as a rule, though still 
 asserting that the Lord’s Day, and all other Holy 
 Days, were of Ecclesiastical institution (not indeed 
 in the high sense of that word, for they are not de 
 Jure Divino, but de Jure Humano Canonico), had 
 erected a complete Judaic superstructure upon an 
 Keclesiastical foundation. Thomas Aquinas (in 
 the thirteenth century), says Heylin, fits every 
 legal Festival with some that were observed in 
 
LECTURE III. 121 
 
 ΕΣ 
 
 the Christian Church, on the ground that ours 
 are observed in the place of theirs. ‘ Sabba- 
 tum mutatur in diem Dominicum, similiter aliis 
 solennitatibus veteris legis novee solennitates suc- 
 cedunt.” ‘* Bellarmine (says Mr. Baden Powell) 
 afterwards maintained that the distinction of 
 days and festivals was not taken away, but 
 changed by the Christian Church; which, as 
 being infallible, had doubtless power to make 
 such change in divine institutions; though other- 
 wise it manifestly had πού. And Archbishop 
 Chichele, at the beginning of the fifteenth cen- 
 tury, in his desire to prevent barbers and other 
 persons from exercising their callings on the 
 morning of the Lord’s Day, actually confuses 
 that day with “the seventh day, which the Lord 
 blessed, which He sanctified, and in which, after 
 the works of the six days, He rested from His 
 work.’ His words are, ““ Die Dominico, vide- 
 licet, die Septimo.” 
 
 The most perfect development, however, of 
 this ecclesiastical Sabbatarianism is displayed by 
 Tostatus, Bishop of Avila, in the fourteenth cen- 
 tury, in his Commentary on the twelfth chapter 
 of Exodus. He proceeds there to lay down 
 a series of ordinances minutely regulating its 
 observance, and I fear bringing him under the 
 words of St. Paul, “If I build again the things 
 which I destroyed, I make myself ἃ trans- 
 gressor.” I mention a very few of them, and 
 those by no means the most vexatious, with 
 
122 LECTURE III. 
 
 two objects ;—first, that you may compare the 
 state of the Lord’s Day (I mean the theoretical 
 state of it), at the end of this period, with what 
 you have seen of it in Scripture, and at the end 
 of the third, or even at the end of the fifth 
 century. Secondly, that I may exhibit the 
 identity of this sort of Sabbatarianism, with 
 the Pharisaism apparent in the Jews of the 
 New Testament, and developed in the Talmud, 
 with the Puritan doctrine concerning Sunday, 
 and with the practice obtaining in Scotland. 
 Of this, however, bye and bye. 
 
 “Tf a musician (says Tostatus) wait upon a 
 gentleman, to recreate his mind with music, and 
 they are agreed upon certain wages, or he be 
 only hired for a present time, he sins in case he 
 play or sing to him on Holy Days (including the 
 Lord’s Day), but not if his reward be doubtful 
 or depend only on the bounty of the parties who 
 enjoy his music.” ‘A cook that on the Holy 
 Days is hired to make a feast or to dress a 
 dinner, commits a mortal sin; but not if he be 
 hired by the month or year.” ‘Meat may be 
 dressed upon the Lord’s Day or the other Holy 
 Days, but to wash dishes on those days, is 
 unlawful—that must be deferred to another 
 day.” ‘A man that travels on Holy Days, to 
 any special shrine or saint, commits no sin, but 
 he commits sin if he returns home on those 
 days.”’ ‘* Artificers which work on these days 
 for their own profit only, are in mortal sin, 
 
LECTURE III. 125 
 
 unless the work be very small (quia modicum 
 non facit solennitatem dissolvi), because a small 
 thing dishonoreth not the Festival.” But I 
 forbear to proceed with this catalogue of pue- 
 rilities. I should not have touched upon it— 
 at all, except for the reasons which I have 
 already mentioned. 
 
 Of course, as the dates will have shown, all 
 this did not come in at once; and it did not 
 come in at all without remonstrance. Clear 
 eyes, and faithful hearts, and well-stored minds, 
 and vigorous pens were to be found, even in 
 this superstitious period. The third Council of 
 Orleans, a.D. 538, though recommending absti- 
 nence from rural labours, considers that posi- 
 tive and precise ordinances on such subjects ‘ as 
 travelling, or preparing anything for food, or 
 doing anything conducive to the cleanliness of 
 houses or men on the Lord’s Day, belong rather 
 to Jewish than to Christian observances.” At the 
 commencement of the seventh century, Gregory 
 the First wrote against Sabbatarianism (his lan- 
 suage is strong, for he perceived, that clear- 
 sighted man, that the tendency against which he 
 directed it admitted of no compromise) ; and yet, 
 as you will see from his concluding words, he 
 was not deficient in recognising the religious 
 character of the Lord’s Day. ‘ Antichristus 
 veniens diem Sabbatum atque Dominicum ab 
 omni faciet opere custodiri.” ‘Nos, quod de 
 Sabbato scriptum est, spiritualiter accipimus, 
 
124 LECTURE III. 
 
 spiritualiter tenemus. Sabbatum enim requies 
 dicitur. Verum autem Sabbatum ipsum Re- 
 demptorem nostrum Jesum Christum Dominum 
 habemus, et qui lucem fidei ejus agnoscit, si 
 peccata concupiscentiz ad mentem per oculos 
 trahit, in die Sabbati onera per portas intro- 
 ducit. Aliud quoque ad nos perlatum est, 
 vobis a perversis hominibus esse predicatum, ut 
 Dominico die nullus debeat lavari. Et quidem, 
 si pro luxu animi et voluptatis quis lavari ap- 
 petit, hoc fieri nec reliquo die concedimus. Si 
 autem pro necessitate corporis, hoc nec Dominico 
 die prohibemus. Scriptum namque est; ‘ Nemo 
 carnem suam odio habuit, sed nutrit et fovet 
 eam.’ Si Dominico die corpus lavare peccatum 
 est, lavari ergo die eodem nec facies debet. 
 Dominico verd die a labore terreno cessandum 
 est, atque omnimodo orationibus insistendum, ut 
 si quid negligentiz per sex dies agitur, per 
 diem resurrectionis precibus expietur.”’ Thus far 
 Pope Gregory. Theodulphus, Bishop of Orleans 
 (in the eighth century), urged, in language re- 
 calling an earlier period, the claims of the Lord’s 
 Day to regard on anything but Jewish grounds. 
 ‘Since in it God created the light; in it He 
 rained down manna in the wilderness; in it the 
 Redeemer of the human race, who of His own 
 will died for our salvation, rose again from the 
 dead; in it He poured out the Holy Spirit on 
 His disciples, such ought to be our reverence 
 for it, that nothing should be performed but 
 
LECTURE III. 125 
 
 prayers and the. solemnities of the mass, and 
 what is connected with the preparation of food ; 
 and if there be occasion for sailing or travelling, 
 and license is given, it should be under the con- 
 dition that the attendance on mass and prayers 
 should not be omitted if there be opportunity.” 
 He goes on indeed to exact what neither Scrip- 
 ture nor the Fathers appear to exact, the spiritual 
 employment of the entire day. But I quote his 
 words as not misstating the origin of the Lord’s 
 Day, or confounding it in theory with the Sab- 
 bath. Pope Nicholas the First (in the ninth 
 century) was so far from having a Judaic view 
 of the Lord’s Day, as to justify even war, in case 
 of necessity, during its continuance, by the pre- 
 cedents of the assault on Jericho, which he sup- 
 poses to have taken place on the Sabbath day, 
 and by the conduct of the Maccabees. ‘ The 
 Christians do not place their hope in days, but 
 look for their salvation in the living and true God 
 alone.” Even the Emperor Leo Philosophus, who, 
 as we have seen, forbade rural labours on the 
 Lord’s Day, does so on the ground that “ it 
 pleased the Holy Ghost and the Apostles ordained 
 by Him, that all on this sacred day, wherein we 
 were restored to our immortal nature, should 
 abstain from labour.” And he goes on to argue, 
 that “if the Jews honored the Sabbath, ἃ fortiori 
 should Christians honor that Day which God has 
 chosen for His service.’ And various Church- 
 men and Synods at different times and places 
 
126 LECTURE III, 
 
 set themselves to stem the torrent of Judaism 
 which was flowing into the Church. Archbishop 
 Islip of Canterbury, in the fourteenth century, 
 while enjoining ‘ abstinence from secular works, 
 even though useful to the State, on the sacred 
 day of the Lord,” gives a caution that men do 
 not ‘meet before the hour of vespers on the 
 Sabbath,” or Saturday, ‘lest we seem to partake 
 in the Jewish profession.” And so a Synod 
 assembled at York under Neville, the Archbishop 
 of that see, A.D. 1466, set forth an exposition of 
 the Decalogue as a guide for the clergy in their 
 addresses to the people. Passages occur in this 
 document in reference to the Third (Fourth) 
 Commandment to the following effect. “It is 
 said, ‘ Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.’ 
 By this the observance of the Christian worship 
 is enjoined, which is of obligation alike on the 
 clergy and laity. But it is to be known here, 
 that the obligation to keep holyday on the 
 legal Sabbath, according to the form of the 
 Old Testament, wholly expired with the other 
 ceremonies of the law. And that under the 
 New Testament it is sufficient to keep holyday 
 for the Divine worship on the Lord’s Days, and 
 the other solemn days ordained to be kept as 
 holydays by the authority of the Church ; 
 wherein the manner of keeping holyday is to 
 be taken, not from the Jewish superstition, 
 but from the directions of the Canons.” I do 
 not of course quote this as speaking of the 
 
LECTURE III. 427 
 
 Lord’s Day, after the ante-Nicene manner, but 
 it is, as far as it goes, a valuable disclaimer of 
 Sabbatarianism as a practical tenet. Its Eccle- 
 siasticism, in reference to other solemn days, will 
 not have escaped your notice. 
 
 There were those also who were goaded, by 
 finding too much imposed upon them, to reject 
 everything in the shape of Fast and Festival 
 (a reaction very natural). Peter de Bruys, for 
 instance, who founded the ephemeral sect called 
 Petrobrussians in the regions of the Pyrenees, A.D. 
 1110, was a remarkable instance of this. His 
 views in reference to ordinances appear to have 
 resembled those held by certain Anabaptists long 
 afterwards, and were propagated with similar 
 violence. The Waldenses, at the close of the 
 Thirteenth Century, disparaged all distinction 
 - of days. ‘‘ Quod unus dies sit sicut alius,’’ was 
 their maxim in this matter. The Lollards, at the 
 beginning of the Fourteenth Century, entertained 
 a strong antipathy to Saints’ Days, and extended 
 it even to the weekly Festival of the Resurrection. 
 No doubt these were irregular and eccentric pro- 
 tests, but the abuses in reference to the Lord’s Day 
 and to other matters, which gave rise to them, 
 and the fact that the more elaborate and com- 
 plicated Lcclesiastical Sabbatarianism became 
 in theory, the more religion was practically dis- 
 regarded, and the Lord’s Day perverted to 
 unholy uses, were among the causes that pro- 
 voked in due time that more systematic and 
 general movement, the Reformation. 
 
128 LECTURE III. 
 
 This important event, found, as we have said, 
 the Lord’s Day obscured by a sort of Sab- 
 batarianism established on an Ecclesiastical 
 foundation. It purified it from this, and 
 in England, proceeded, authoritatively at least, 
 no further. On the Continent, so far as the 
 movement extended, it did something more. 
 This however I shall hope to discuss hereafter. 
 But the Fourth and Fifth Lectures will be de- 
 voted to an examination into the origin and 
 nature of the Sabbath, and its connexion, if any, 
 with the Lord’s Day. This digression is the 
 more necessary, because I believe that we shall 
 discover, as we proceed, that a good deal of what 
 is called Sabbatarianism has been founded, not 
 on the institution itself as Moses bequeathed it 
 to his people, but on corrupt forms of it, existing 
 in our Lord’s time, and persisted in by the later 
 Jews. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 COLOSSIANS II. 16, 17. 
 
 LET NO MAN THEREFORE JUDGE YOU IN MEAT ORIN DRINK, OR IN RESPECT 
 OF AN HOLY-DAY, OR OF THE NEW MOON, OR OF THE SABBATH DAYS, 
 WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME: BUT THE BODY IS OF CHRIST. 
 
 Es “ Ἁ f [ “ A 
 Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἡ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ 
 x ᾿ 
 νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, 
 lod , \ ~ “ 
 "A ἐστιν σκια τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστοῦ. 
 
 ΤῊΑΛΤ the Lord’s Day is a positive ordinance 
 of Scriptural and Apostolic Christianity, stand- 
 ing on grounds, and supported by considera- 
 tions, peculiarly its own, and not borrowed or 
 continued from the older Dispensation—that 
 the Sabbath was not held to be of obligation 
 upon Christians, so far as the Apostles and 
 the early Church may be cited as authorities— 
 and that attempts to regulate the Lord’s Day by 
 the exactness of the precedent of the Sabbath, 
 or to found it primarily on the command given 
 to the Jews for the establishment of the Sab- 
 bath, seem therefore to be a rebuilding of 
 things which have been destroyed, and to make 
 those who do so transgressors—has been the 
 argument of the previous Lectures. There are, 
 K 
 
130 LECTURE IV. 
 
 however, two points in respect of which it is 
 as yet by no means complete. We have to 
 show how Sabbatarianism developed itself in 
 the post-Reformation, as well as in the ante- 
 Reformation Church. This is one point, but 
 it may stand over for the present. The other 
 point is, a full elucidation of the nature of 
 the Sabbath. Its history subsequent to our 
 Lord’s Resurrection has been treated, though 
 incidentally, with sufficient minuteness. We 
 have seen, that, as a matter of fact, it was not 
 considered of obligation upon Christians in the 
 days of the Apostles. We have not found any 
 practice or statement which contradicts this 
 state of things in the Church of the second 
 and third centuries, or which materially breaks 
 in upon it, even of the fourth and fifth cen- 
 turies. And we might perhaps be contented with 
 this clear evidence from antiquity that Sabba- 
 tarianism at any period would be an intruder 
 into the Church. But, in England especially, 
 the controversies subsequent to the Reformation 
 bring the Sabbath very prominently forward, 
 and raise questions concerning it which were 
 never mooted in primitive times. It seems, 
 therefore, desirable, and, indeed, necessary, be- 
 fore we enter upon those questions, to settle 
 these: What was the Sabbath? On what 
 ground was it observed, until the time when, 
 as we suppose, it ceased to be obligatory? How 
 was it intended to be observed, and how was it 
 
LECTURE ΤΥ. 181 
 
 observed, while in force? And, why did it cease 
 (if indeed it did cease) to be in force when our 
 Lord rose from the dead ? 
 
 The first questions to be determined may be 
 stated thus: Was the observance of the Sabbath 
 a matter of Natural or Moral Law, or did it 
 arise solely from external command? If not the 
 former, why not? If the latter, to whom was 
 the external command, which originated the 
 observance, given ἢ 
 
 It was scarcely, I think, a matter of Natural 
 or Moral Law, in the sense of being an obliga- 
 tion discoverable without express revelation. No- 
 thing that man finds within him could possibly 
 direct him to the seventh day, in preference to 
 any other day, as a day of rest and worship of 
 God. The utmost that can be said in this © 
 respect is what I am going to state. In so far 
 as the commandment to observe the Sabbath 
 implies positions discoverable by the light of 
 reason (namely, that our Creator demands our 
 gratitude and worship, and that these are best 
 exhibited and most surely paid by periodic ap- 
 propriation of time to Him), there is a Natural 
 or Moral element on which the commandment is 
 founded. Of course, when an external command 
 has been given, obedience to it may and does 
 become moral in a secondary sense—we may see 
 the reasonableness of it, and our duty to conform 
 our conduct to its requirements, considering the 
 relations in which we stand to the promulgator. 
 
 K 2 
 
192 LECTURE IV. 
 
 But this is not the question at present. In 
 the strict acceptation of the term, the duty of 
 observing the Sabbath is not natural or moral. 
 Perhaps, if we were to ascend to the very 
 earliest conceivable point in the history of the 
 human heart, we should find the moral element 
 of which we are speaking reducible yet further, 
 to general gratitude to the Creator. It was 
 developed as “ day unto day uttered speech, and 
 night unto night showed knowledge”’ (Ps. xix. 2, 
 B. Vers.). Indeed it would be absurd to suppose 
 that all the laws called Natural or Moral mani- 
 fested themselves in man’s heart at once. They 
 would, at least the greater part of them would, 
 have been unmeaning to him, antecedently to 
 experience, and could only have dawned upon 
 him as society expanded. There was nothing 
 to provoke their violation. The ideas could 
 not at first have suggested themselves of honor- 
 ing parents, or abstaining from adultery, covet- 
 ousness, theft, or false testimony, or even 
 depriving of life (for death had not entered into 
 the world). On the same principle, I submit, 
 Adam could not have understood a positive com- 
 mand to rest on the seventh day, before the cycle 
 of days had begun, or labor had become laborious 
 enough to necessitate repose. Instincts implanted 
 by the Creator expanded as circumstances called 
 them forth, into the recognition of what we call 
 moral commandments; but no instinct whatever 
 could, without express revelation, expand into 
 
LECTURE IV. 1338 
 
 the recognition of the seventh day, as God’s day. » 
 It is necessary to insist upon this, because, from 
 the point which some persons make of establish- 
 ing the morality iz toto of the Fourth Command- 
 ment, and their indisposition to be contented 
 with the acknowledgment of a moral element in 
 it, one would suppose them to hold that the 
 Decalogue was imprinted in a formal shape, as 
 the foundation of all morality, on the hearts of 
 our first parents. Virtually, whatever is moral 
 in the Decalogue was there. Formally, very 
 little was there. (Of course, I do not mean 
 to say that no positive precept could be under- 
 stood by Adam. He had one given to him 
 which he could understand—to abstain from the 
 fruit of a tree obvious to his senses—and he 
 broke it, transgressing thereby one of the few 
 moral obligations of which he was as yet con- 
 scious, the obligation to obey his Maker. All I 
 am contending for is, that whatever determina- 
 tion we come to, as to the origin of the observ- 
 ance of the Sabbath Day, such observance was 
 not a matter of natural or moral law, at any 
 rate as to its circumstances. Those circum- 
 stances I hold to be, first the particular day, 
 and then the manner in which it was to be 
 observed. ) 
 
 My position may be further illustrated by the 
 words of Hooker. ‘Even nature” (he says) 
 “has taught the heathens.... first, that fes- 
 tival solemnities are a part of the exercise of 
 
134. LECTURE ΤΥ. 
 
 religion; secondly, that praise, liberality and 
 rest are as natural elements whereof solem- 
 nities consist.” (V. 70, 5.) Nature did not 
 teach even these things in the earliest spring of 
 mankind, but they are founded on the natural 
 or moral instincts to which we have already 
 adverted, and therefore are natural or moral in 
 a sense in which the direction of these instincts 
 to the seventh day, or even to one day in seven, 
 can never be. That ¢his is not natural is evident 
 from a consideration strongly put by Archbishop 
 Bramhall, that the old-world fathers from Adam 
 to Moses are not represented as keeping the 
 Sabbath-day, which we may suppose they would 
 have done had the obligation been discoverable 
 from within. ‘“ We find” (says he) “ oblations, 
 and priests, and sacrifices, and groves or ora- 
 tories, and prayers, and thanksgivings, and vows, 
 and whatsoever natural religion doth dictate 
 about the service of God; but we find not one 
 instance of the execution of this supposed law 
 of the seventh-day Sabbath.” . I may add, that 
 had the law of its observance been natural or 
 moral, the heathen of Canaan, who are re- 
 proached and with singular minuteness, for many 
 transgressions of the law of nature, and were 
 therefore cast out before the children of Israel, 
 
 would surely have been reproached for trans- 
 gression of this. Now they are nowhere so 
 reproached. Had it again been one of the laws 
 of nature, there would not, I humbly conceive, 
 
LECTURE IV. 135 
 
 have been assigned as reasons for its observance, 
 in one passage, a fact which could not have 
 been known except by revelation, ‘‘ God’s work- 
 ing six days and resting the seventh ;”’ in another, 
 a fact which occurred long after man was created, 
 and in which not humanity in general, but one 
 nation only was-interested. ‘‘God brought thee 
 forth out of Egypt, therefore God commanded 
 thee to keep the seventh day’’ (Deut. v. 15). 
 But, though the Sabbath was not a natural 
 or moral institution, was it not appointed so 
 early in the world’s history, that, positive though 
 it be, it may be almost deemed a part of man’s 
 nature, and so, binding upon mankind for ever ἢ 
 Do we not read in Genesis 11. 3, that “God 
 blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, be- 
 cause that in it He had rested from all His 
 work which God had created and made”? We 
 do read this. But what does it amount to? 
 It is merely an announcement of what God did, 
 not a setting forth to man of what man should 
 do. Besides, when was it enjoined upon man? 
 One would suppose, from the place in which it 
 is mentioned, immediately after he was created, 
 in Paradise, and under circumstances which, as 
 has been observed already, would have rendered 
 its terms unmeaning to him. And the other - 
 arguments about the old-world fathers and the 
 heathen would apply here. Had the Sabbath 
 been a positive institution at any time anterior 
 to the legislation of Moses, the former would 
 
196 LECTURE IV. 
 
 have been noticed as keeping it, the latter cen- 
 sured for neglecting it. 
 
 But still, the blessing and sanctifying of the 
 seventh day is mentioned so long before it was 
 actually imposed upon man. This is, at any 
 rate, a stubborn fact. How is it to be accounted 
 for? We may reply with Bede, God sancti- 
 fied the Sabbath, ‘‘non actu et reipsd, sed 
 decreto et destinatione sud, quasi diceret, ‘ Quia 
 quievit Deus die septimo, hine illum diem ordi- 
 navit Sibi sacrum, ut indiceretur festus colendus 
 a Judeis.’’? We may remember, that though 
 we know perfectly well the cosmogony as_ it 
 is set forth in Genesis, nay the very words 
 uttered by the Creator during and after the 
 completion of His work, and the counsel and 
 confederation of the glorious Three in One in 
 accomplishing it, there is not sufficient evi- 
 dence for believing that its great and wondrous 
 tale was disclosed to mankind before Moses 
 wrote it. Genesis was a revelation to Moses, 
 not to Adam.’, We may urge, with Archbishop 
 Bramhall, “‘ that the sanctifying of the seventh 
 day there, is no more than the ‘sanctifying’ 
 of Jeremy ‘ from his mother’s womb,’ that is the 
 designing or destinating of him to be a prophet; 
 or than the ‘separating’ of St. Paul ‘from his 
 mother’s womb.’ So the sanctification of the 
 seventh day may signify the decree or deter- 
 mination of God to sanctify it in due time; but 
 as Jeremy’s actual sanctification, and St. Paul’s 
 
LECTURE IV. 137 
 
 actual separation, followed long after they were 
 born, so the actual sanctification of the Sabbath 
 might follow long after the ground of God’s 
 decree for the sanctification of that day, and the 
 destination of it to that use.’”? Or we may reply 
 fully on the whole question with Archdeacon 
 Paley. He is arguing that the Sabbath was given 
 to the Jews peculiarly and at a certain time. ‘If 
 the Sabbath had been instituted at the time of 
 the Creation, as the words in Genesis may seem 
 at first sight to import; and if it had been ob- 
 served all along from that time to the departure 
 of the Jews out of Egypt, a period of about two 
 thousand five hundred years; it appears unac- 
 countable that no mention of it, no occasion of 
 even the obscurest allusion to it should occur, 
 either in the general history of the world before 
 the call of Abraham, which contains, we admit, 
 only a few memoirs of its early ages, and those 
 extremely abridged; or, which is more to be 
 wondered at, in that of the lives of the first 
 three Jewish patriarchs, which in many parts of 
 the account is sufficiently circumstantial and 
 domestic. Nor is there, in the passage above 
 quoted, (he has mentioned Exod. ὁ. xvi.) any 
 intimation that the Sabbath, when appointed to 
 be observed, was only the revival of an ancient 
 institution, which had been neglected, forgotten, 
 or suspended ; nor is any such neglect imputed 
 either to the inhabitants of the Old World, or 
 to any part of the family of Noah: nor, lastly, 
 
188 LECTURE IV. ~ 
 
 is any permission recorded to dispense with the 
 institution during the captivity of the Jews in 
 Egypt, or on any other public emergency.” 
 And then he proceeds, ‘‘ The passage in the 
 second chapter of Genesis, which creates the 
 whole controversy on the subject, is not incon- 
 sistent with this opinion: for, as the seventh 
 day was erected into a Sabbath, on account of 
 God’s resting upon that day from the work of 
 creation, it was natural enough in the historian, 
 when he had related the history of the Creation, 
 and of God’s ceasing from it on the seventh day, 
 to add, ‘And God blessed the seventh day and 
 sanctified it, because that on it He had rested 
 from all His work which God had created and 
 made;’ although the blessing and sanctification, 
 i.e. the religious distinction and appropriation 
 of that day, were not actually made till many 
 ages afterwards. The words do not assert, that 
 God then ‘blessed and sanctified’ the seventh 
 day, but that He blessed and sanctified it for 
 that reason; and if any ask, why the Sabbath, 
 or the sanctification of the seventh day, was then 
 mentioned, if it was not then appointed, the 
 answer is at hand: the order of connexion and 
 not of time introduced the mention of the 
 Sabbath in the history of the subject which 
 it was ordained to commemorate.”’ 
 
 Other reasons may be brought forward, and 
 they will appear in their proper place, to account 
 for this early mention of the seventh day as 
 
LECTURE IV. 139 
 
 connected with blessing and sanctification. But 
 we are, at this moment, only concerned to show 
 that its early mention, and the early declaration 
 of its existence as a Sabbath, in the mind of the 
 Almighty, by no means necessitate an equally 
 early promulgation to man. It is possible, how- 
 ever, that it may be urged that a septenary 
 division of time is to be found very early in 
 Scripture, and that it was almost universal in 
 the heathen world; that such a division would 
 hardly have suggested itself to man without 
 some positive revelation on the subject; that 
 we are bound therefore to suppose that there 
 was a positive revelation, and that the words in 
 Genesis constituted a positive revelation. Hence, 
 it is concluded triumphantly, as those words 
 imply the Sabbath, the Sabbath must have been 
 revealed very early. 
 
 This argument, if argument it can be called, 
 may be ingenious, but its premises are scarcely 
 sound, and though they be admitted to be sound, 
 will scarcely prove the point desired. In the 
 first place, though it is true that a septenary 
 division of time is to be found very early in 
 Scripture, it is not true that it was ever general 
 in the heathen world. The month of the Romans 
 was divided into Kalends, Nones, and Ides; 
 and coexistent with these was another division, 
 said to be Etruscan, into Nundines, or market 
 periods, markets being held at intervals of nine 
 days. Then the Greeks divided their month into 
 
140 LECTURE IV. 
 
 Decades. It is only in the East that anything 
 like a septenary division is found to prevail. 
 _ The Egyptians had it; the Persians had it; and 
 we are told that it may be traced in the Sanscrit, 
 and in all the languages and dialects of India. 
 But when we consider the intercourse of the 
 Jews with Egypt; the expeditions of Egyptian 
 conquerors into Scythia, which, according to Sir 
 Henry Rawlinson, was the cradle of the Persians 
 and the Hindoos, we shall have little difficulty 
 in accounting for this limited prevalence, without 
 imagining a special revelation on the subject. 
 The solar month of the Chinese is, like that of 
 the Greeks, divided into Decades: they have 
 also a division of the year into twenty-four half- 
 months, as we may call them, of about fifteen 
 days each, which are again subdivided into fives. 
 Here is no trace of sevens. If we turn to the 
 New World, we find septenary institutions utterly 
 unknown to the aboriginal inhabitants of the 
 two Americas and of Polynesia; Months are 
 sometimes traceable. So much then for the 
 assertion that the septenary division was almost 
 universal in the heathen world. It may be added 
 that even were it absolutely universal, it would 
 be of no avail unless it were found accompanied 
 by the Sabbath. This we may fearlessly assert: 
 it never is. The passages quoted to the effect 
 that the seventh day was a sacred one, have been 
 sufficiently examined by Selden. They are either 
 nothing to the purpose as referring rather to the 
 
LECTURE Iv. 141 
 
 day of the month than to that of the week, or 
 they are accidental usages of the number seven, 
 which might be paralleled in abundance by 
 similar usages of other numbers, or they are 
 allusions to heavenly phenomena such as could 
 not fail to strike an attentive observer of nature, 
 or they are obviously derived from intercourse 
 with the East. And, if the septenary division 
 is found out of Scripture, without the Sabbath, 
 why may it not occur im Seripture, without it ἢ 
 Why may it not be mentioned that Noah was 
 in the Ark seven days before the Flood began 
 (Gen. vil. 10), that intervals of seven days took 
 place in his proceedings twice after the Flood 
 (Gen. vill. 10, 12), that the Syrian Laban spoke 
 of a week (Gen. xxix. 27) in reference to his 
 daughter’s marriage, and that Joseph mourned 
 for his father seven days, without it being at all 
 implied that the Sabbath day was an ordinance 
 known and observed before the time of Moses ? 
 To what then, it may be asked, is the division 
 of time to be traced? I answer without hesi- 
 tation, to man’s observation of those “lights in 
 the firmament of heaven”? which God placed 
 there ‘‘to divide the day from the night,’’ and 
 of which He said further, ‘“‘ let them be for signs 
 and for seasons and for days and years.” It 
 required no special revelation to direct men to 
 these as convenient indicators of time. The 
 course of the moon, and especially the appear- 
 ance of the new moon or νουμηνία, would suggest 
 
142 LECTURE IV. 
 
 a division, roughly stated, of twenty-eight days. 
 This perhaps would be the first and most preva- 
 lent division. It certainly was all but a universal 
 one, for it is found even where weeks were 
 unknown, and where they are still unknown— 
 among the aborigines of the New World. The 
 full moon would supply the fortnight, and the 
 half of it each way, as men grew more and more 
 exact, would supply an approach to a perfect 
 septenary division of time. Seasons would by- 
 and-by be suggested, by the coincidence of the 
 heliacal rismg and setting of certain constella- 
 tions with the state of the productions of the 
 earth ; and later, the year itself, by similar 
 observations of the course of the sun as seen 
 by man. With this, however, we are not further 
 concerned. Our purpose is merely to show that 
 a septenary division of time might have suggested 
 itself to man’s reason acting upon the luminaries 
 which we find God’s providence intended for his 
 guidance in such matters, without any special 
 revelation, much less any hint of the Sabbath 
 being necessarily implied in the existence of such 
 a division. 
 
 Before I quit this branch of my subject, I may 
 remark that Dr. Owen institutes a singular com- 
 parison (although the point of comparison is not 
 obvious) between Sacrifices and the Sabbath. It 
 is this :—‘*‘ Sacrifices were constantly observed in 
 Patriarchal times, though we read not of their 
 express institution. Of the Sabbath we have 
 
LECTURE ΤΥ. 148 
 
 an express institution, though we read nothing 
 of its observance.’”? The remark at once offers 
 itself. Assuming that Sacrifices are of divine 
 institution, and passing over the petitio principii 
 that the divine declaration in Genesis was equi- 
 valent to a promulgation of the Sabbath to man, 
 and in fact allowing that the cases are exactly 
 parallel, what is the result? If parallel at first, 
 they must continue to be parallel. If they 
 begin together, they must endure, or determine 
 together. Therefore, either both are in force now, 
 which is more than he would be inclined to con- 
 tend; or both have determined, which utterly neu- 
 tralises the object which he has in view, namely, 
 proving the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath 
 from its early and divine commencement. 
 
 Two more efforts have been made to prove 
 that the Patriarchs knew of the Sabbath. They 
 are somewhat inconsistent with each other, but 
 they have something in common, and may 
 therefore be mentioned together as bearing upon 
 what will be said afterward. 
 
 The duty of observing the Sabbath must be a 
 moral one, for it is mentioned in the Tables of 
 the Ten Commandments, which are essentially 
 of a moral character. 
 
 The duty of observing the Sabbath must have 
 been known of old time, whether as a moral or 
 as a positive duty, and neglected, for the Israel- 
 ites are told in the Tables of the Ten Command- 
 ments to remember it. 
 
144. LECTURE IV. 
 
 In reference to the former of these assertions 
 the great authority of Hooker is generally 
 quoted. He makes a distinction, as you are 
 aware, in ili. 7. 5, 6, between the Ten Com- 
 mandments delivered by the Almighty, which 
 he calls moral and perpetual, and the ‘laws 
 and ordinances” delivered by Moses, which 
 he says were positive and for the most 
 part limited to the land of Canaan. Two or 
 three things, however, seem to have escaped 
 the notice even of this great master of moral 
 theology. First, That he himself distinguishes 
 in another place (v. 70. 5) between what nature 
 teaches and what God appointed to the Israel- 
 ites. Secondly, That he himself allows that 
 days, ὁ. 6. particular days, of solemnity are part 
 of the appointed or positive law. Thirdly, That 
 though the Sabbath be called moral by him, he 
 himself allows a positive element in the com- 
 mand to keep it, which he says may be altered 
 and has been altered by change of the day and 
 manner of keeping. And fourthly, that if, 
 according to his own admission, some portion 
 of the ‘“‘laws and ordinances” is not positive 
 but moral, it is possible that some portion of 
 the Ten Commandments may be not moral but 
 positive, and so—mutable (i. 15. 1). Hooker 
 seems, therefore, to have neutralised his own 
 distinction. A sounder view seems to be, (not to 
 press at this moment the opinion of Calvin, that 
 the Decalogue was intended to be a synopsis of 
 
LECTURE ΤΥ. 145 
 
 the whole law, moral, ceremonial, political) that 
 the moral element contained in the Fourth Com- 
 mandment, viz. the obligation to serve God at 
 some time, is quite enough to warrant its admis- 
 sion into a moral document. The Sabbath itself 
 might be positive, and ἃ fortiori the manner of 
 observing it positive, or adapted to the Jewish 
 Dispensation, and so, when that Dispensation 
 has ended, capable of being swept away. Selden, 
 in his Table Talk, puts in reference to the Fifth 
 Commandment, and very clearly and forcibly, 
 a question which may in principle be applied 
 to the Fourth, and which he intends to be so 
 applied. “Why should I think all the Fourth 
 Commandment belongs to me, when all the Fifth 
 does not? What land will the Lord give me 
 for honoring my father? It was spoken to the 
 Jews with reference to the land of Canaan; but 
 the meaning is, ‘If I honor my parents, God 
 will also bless me.’ We read the Command- 
 ments in the Church Service as we do David’s 
 Psalms; not that all there concerns us, but a 
 great deal of them does.” 
 
 As for the assertion that the duty of observing 
 the Sabbath must have been known of old time, 
 whether as a moral or as a positive duty, and 
 neglected, because the Israelites are told in the 
 Table of the Ten Commandments to remember 
 it, it might suffice to quote the words of Bishop 
 Beveridge. He differs, indeed, from the view 
 which I take of the time when the law of the 
 
 L 
 
140 LECTURE ΤΥ. 
 
 Sabbath was laid down; but this is another 
 matter. ‘This,’ he says, “the Fourth, is the 
 only Commandment that we are particularly 
 required to ‘remember.’ The reason is, be- 
 cause all the others were written at first on 
 the tables of our hearts, engraven in our very 
 nature, so that we may have a connatural 
 sense of them upon our minds; and, therefore, 
 cannot be said properly to remember them, 
 but rather to feel them, being sensible and 
 conscious to ourselves of the duty and _ obli- 
 gation to observe them. But this is a positive 
 precept, given to a man after he was made, 
 and therefore not imprinted in his heart, but 
 conveyed through his ears into it by the 
 external revelation or Word of God, who 
 therefore commands us to remember it, to 
 keep it in our hearts, so as to call it to mind 
 on all-occasions at the return of every Sabbath 
 day, that we must keep that holy. ‘ Re- 
 member,’ saith he, ‘that thou keep holy the 
 Sabbath day;’ or rather, as it is in the ori- 
 ginal, ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it 
 holy,’-—‘ Remember the day itself, and to keep 
 it holy when it comes.’ ἢ 
 
 Thus far Bishop Beveridge, whom I quote as 
 agreeing with me that the Sabbath was not part 
 of the Moral Law (though it is found in the 
 Decalogue), but of a positive character; a point 
 to which he believes that the word “‘ Remember”’ 
 refers. He holds indeed what I cannot hold to 
 
LECTURE IV. 147 
 
 be proved, that the Sabbath was commanded to 
 Adam, kept by the Patriarchs, and intermitted 
 in Egypt only through necessity. But he can- 
 didly confesses that we have no certain footsteps 
 of it until about a month after the children of 
 Israel came out of Egypt. This point of time, of 
 which I will quote the description from the Book 
 of Exodus, I hold, with many writers, ancient and 
 modern, to be the time when the Sabbath was 
 first communicated to man, in the form of a 
 positive ordinance given to the Israelites. It will 
 appear from the narrative that it was a new thing 
 to them ; that they could not or would not under- 
 stand it; and that some of them transgressed it, 
 though enforced in a miraculous manner. The 
 word “‘ Remember,” then, though it may have 
 reference to the Sabbath being positive and not 
 moral, I should suppose referred at the moment 
 when it was solemnly proclaimed from Sinai, to 
 this particular point of time. I should not 
 resort at all ἐο old time for its significancy. 
 In after days the word “ Remember”’ said much 
 more. ‘ Remember the Sabbath day, O Israel, 
 the sign of the Covenant between thee and thy 
 God. Remember it, for it is full of meanings, 
 historical, regulative, testamental, prophetic, 
 typical.” 
 
 Of this, however, more bye and bye. 
 
 We read thus in Exodus xvi. 4, ὕ :--ἰ Then 
 said the Lord unto Moses, Behold I will rain 
 bread from heaven for you; and the people 
 
 L 2 
 
148 LECTURE IV. 
 
 shall go: out and gather a certain rate every 
 day, that I may prove them whether they will 
 walk in My law or no. And it shall come to 
 pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare 
 that which they bring in; and it shall be twice 
 as much as they gather daily.” 
 
 And in verse 22, we read :—‘‘ And it came 
 to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered 
 twice as much bread, two omers for one man. 
 And all the rulers of the congregation came 
 and told Moses. And he said unto them, This 
 is that which the Lord hath said, , To-morrow 
 is the rest of (a) holy Sabbath unto the 
 Lord. Bake what ye will bake, and seethe 
 what ye will seethe; and that which remaineth 
 over, lay up for you to be kept until the 
 morning. And they laid it up until the morn- 
 ing, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, 
 neither was there any worm therein. And 
 Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a 
 Sabbath unto the Lord: to-day ye shall not 
 find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather 
 it; but on the seventh day, which is (a) 
 Sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it 
 came to pass, that there went out some of the 
 people on the seventh day for to gather, and 
 they found none. And the Lord said unto 
 Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my com- 
 mandments and my laws? See for that the 
 Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he 
 giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two 
 
LECTURE IV. 149 
 
 days; abide ye every man in his place, let no 
 man go out of his place on the seventh day. 
 So the people rested on the seventh day.” 
 
 Such was, I conceive, the first promulgation 
 of the Sabbath. It will be observed that there 
 is in it not the faintest allusion to the Creation 
 words respecting the seventh day. I cannot say, 
 respecting the “Sabbath day,” for that word 
 does not occur in Genesis. Hengstenberg, in 
 commenting on the passage, notices this critical 
 point, and also the fact that before this time 
 not the slightest reference to the Sabbath as a 
 practical institution is to be found in Scripture. 
 And then he makes the following remarks :— 
 
 “The context offers a triple proof that the 
 Sabbath was till then entirely unknown to the 
 Israelites. 
 
 ** When a double portion fell on the sixth day 
 (for which God had prepared Moses, though 
 the latter had certainly not mentioned it to 
 the people), the rulers came and told Moses. 
 They are astonished at the Providence of God, 
 that they -had found a double quantity of 
 manna, and ask what they are to do with it. 
 The reply which Moses makes them, shows us 
 the reason of their bringing him the informa- 
 tion. This to them inexplicable occurrence is 
 jirst explained in his reply. Then follow direc- 
 tions how to dispose of the surplus. Now 
 neither of these, the astonishment or the per- 
 plexity, could have arisen, if the Sabbath had 
 
150 LECTURE IV. 
 
 been already known and observed. We are led 
 to the same conclusion, when we find that, not- 
 withstanding the instructions of Moses, some 
 of the people went out on the Sabbath to 
 gather, shewing how new a thing it was to 
 the people, and how difficult it was at first to 
 conform. And we infer it also from the total 
 absence in the words of Moses of a reference 
 to an already existing Sabbath ordinance. Liebe- 
 trut indeed thinks that the words of Moses, 
 ‘This is that which the Lord said,’ show that 
 the Sabbath was already known, since no such 
 declaration is made in verses 4 and 5. But 
 Moses is not referring here to an earlier decla- 
 ration of the Lord, but to something actually 
 said by the Lord when pouring out the double 
 portion of manna on the sixth day: ‘This 
 is that which the Lord hath said (by this occur- 
 rence), to morrow is the rest of a holy Sabbath to 
 the Lord.’ ”’ 
 
 “No doubt remains then,’ says the same 
 writer, “that the Sabbath was first instituted 
 in connexion with the whole of the Mosaic 
 economy. ‘The Lord hath given you the Sab- 
 bath.’”’ : 
 
 But wherefore was the Sabbath instituted ὃ 
 It was a sign, full of meaning between God and 
 His people—a sign or memorial, that He and 
 none but He had given them rest from their toils 
 in Egypt; that to Him (and not to any false 
 God or symbol of a God) they owed their de- 
 
LECTURE ΤΥ. 151 
 
 liverance from the furnace of the oppressor—a 
 sign or promise, that He would extend and con- 
 solidate that rest by putting them in possession 
 of the land of Canaan—a sign (to the spiritually- 
 minded among them at least), exhibiting under 
 the form of rest from their own works, rest from 
 sin—a sign prophetic of a better rest, of repose 
 on the merits of the great Antitype of their 
 leader into the promised land—nay a sign reach- 
 ing into the very distant future, and emblematic 
 of rest in heaven. 
 
 Being a sign in these respects, it was intended 
 to be an encouragement. And I think I may 
 fairly say that it was an encouragement of the 
 very highest kind. God condescended to exhibit 
 Himself, the great Architect of the world, (though 
 “ He fainteth not, neither is weary”) as the 
 great Archetype both of labour and of rest. In 
 six days He made the world—on the seventh day 
 He rested from His work and “was refreshed.” 
 Let His people then not repine at their labours, 
 but look to the rest prepared as a certain sequel 
 tothem. And lest they imagine that this is a mere 
 after thought, let them know, by the account of 
 the Creation, that this labour and this rest were 
 foreseen from the foundation of the world. Let 
 them know that the state of God’s people gene- 
 rally, and the toils of each individual Israelite, 
 his wanderings, his afflictions, his sins, were 
 known long before—that if they labour awhile, 
 a rest 15 provided, as an earnest of the God-man, 
 
152 - LECTURE ΤΥ. 
 
 who, while He Himself enters not into His rest 
 without suffering, is the haven in which the 
 wicked cease from troubling and the weary are 
 at rest. 
 
 Besides, however, being a sign of these great 
 things, the Sabbath was to be a federal sign and 
 a present blessing. It was to be a federal sign : 
 so long as they observed it, they were to be 
 blessed, and the possession of their land was 
 ensured to them. And they could scarcely, 
 except through wilfulness, forget it. For the 
 seventh-day Sabbath did not stand alone—it 
 was not an isolated ordinance of their reli- 
 gion. There was also a seventh-week Sabbath, a 
 seventh-month Sabbath, a seventh-year Sabbath, 
 a seven-times-seven-year Sabbath, or year of 
 Jubilee. Hach of these looked forward to that 
 beyond it; and the last of them all looked for- 
 ward to the “acceptable year’ and to Him who 
 was to appear therein. There were also annual 
 Festivals, the Passover, Pentecost, the Feast of 
 Tabernacles, and an annual Fast, that of the 
 Great Day of Atonement, all of which were 
 sometimes called Sabbaths. The seventh new 
 moon (νουμηνία), or Feast of Trumpets, was a sort 
 of Sabbath. As a miracle introduced the observ- 
 ance of the first weekly Sabbath which has been 
 recorded, so the peculiarity of their climate was 
 such as to encourage their observance of the 
 Sabbaths, both in earing time and in harvest; 
 and the promise that no man should desire their 
 
LECTURE IV. 153 
 
 land in their absence (Exod. xxxiv. 24) was to 
 encourage them to appear before God on the oc- 
 casions of three of the great yearly Sabbatic Fes- 
 tivals, For subsistence in the seventh year they 
 were to have what the land should produce of 
 itself. And to induce them to celebrate the 
 Jubilee, ‘‘ God would command His blessing upon 
 them in the sixth year, and it should bring 
 forth fruits for three years.’’ The wilful breaker 
 of the Sabbath was to be put to death. And if 
 a national neglect of the ordinance took place, 
 “the land should be desolated and enjoy her 
 Sabbaths.” 
 
 It is, I think, of no small importance to re- 
 mark that the seventh-day Sabbath did not stand 
 alone, but was a part and a specimen of a system 
 intertwining itself with the whole Jewish polity. 
 Its character as a sign, and a sign to a particular 
 people, is thus made especially manifest, and one 
 cannot help seeing that the Fourth Command- 
 ment, under which, as a general head, all Sab- 
 batical ordinances must be ranged, is not purely 
 of a moral character, could not have suggested 
 itself to the human heart without a special reve- 
 lation, but was, in many respects, positive, tem- 
 porary, local, and national. Such Sabbatical 
 laws could not in the mass have been applied 
 to the world at large; therefore, when the world 
 at large had been admitted into the covenant, 
 they must necessarily have passed away together. 
 There is no possible expedient by which we can 
 
1064. LECTURE IV. 
 
 retain the seventh-day Sabbath, while we reject 
 the penalties attached to its violation—and the 
 obligation to observe the Sabbaths of longer 
 interval—or by which again we can retain the 
 seventh-day Sabbath, and alter the time of its 
 recurrence or the manner of its celebration. If 
 it is urged that in the version of the Fourth 
 Commandment given in Exodus, God refers to 
 an earlier Sabbath dating from the Creation, a 
 reply is ready, over and above that which has 
 been offered above. God has omitted this re- 
 ference in the version given in Deuteronomy, and 
 in lieu of it introduced a reference to labours 
 endured in Egypt, thus bringing out more clearly 
 the character of the Sabbath as a sign to a 
 particular people. Nay in Exodus itself, in the 
 preface to the Decalogue, He says, “I am the 
 Lord thy God that brought thee out of the 
 land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” 
 Bishop Warburton observes very justly, “ that 
 nothing but a rite by institution of positive law 
 could serve for a sign or token of a covenant 
 between God and a particular selected people; 
 for besides its use for a remembrance of the 
 covenant, it was to serve them as a partition wall 
 to separate them from other nations; and this 
 a rite by positive institution might well do 
 [though used before by some other people, or 
 even borrowed from them]. But a natural duty 
 has no capacity of being thus employed; because 
 a practice observed by ali nations would obli- 
 
LECTURE Iv. 155 
 
 terate every trace of a sign or token of a cove- 
 nant made with one.” 
 
 Well, but if the Sabbath, strictly so called, 
 was a positive institution of the Jewish nation— 
 a sign of the many things which have been 
 mentioned—and a federal sign, embracing many 
 under it, have we given a full account of it? By 
 no means; we have to show that it was to be so 
 observed as to be a present blessing. est was 
 to be its primary characteristic. Its very name, 
 and its appearance as the antithesis of labour, 
 imply this. But what sort of rest? Surely not 
 total inactivity, ἀργία in the worst sense of the 
 word, intermission of all exercise of body, of 
 mind, of affections personal or social, moral or 
 spiritual. Surely it was not designed that on 
 this day the whole machine, so to speak, of 
 Jewish humanity should be stopped, and the 
 pulsations of a mighty nation chilled, even 
 deadened into silence. Such a view has, I firmly 
 believe, no foundation in Scripture. The Israel- 
 ites were indeed to rest from all labour for 
 subsistence, they were to do no servile work, 
 no fire was to be kindled in their habitations, 
 on the Sabbath day (though this prohibition did 
 not forbid the preparation of what every man 
 must eat, for that might be done by them), they 
 were to carry no burdens, they were to restrain 
 their feet from unnecessary journeys, and to 
 break off their ordinary ways and professions ; 
 these points we gather most certainly from Scrip- 
 
150 LECTURE IV. 
 
 ture. But the Rest was (except on the Great 
 Day of Atonement, which alone was a Fast) of 
 the nature of a Festival. Men might eat bread 
 with their friends on that day, as our Saviour’s 
 example shows. Men might do works of charity 
 or kindness on that day; His example shows 
 this again. And it was a Festival to God as well 
 as to themselves—‘‘ Non sibi solum, sed Deo 
 vacabant.’’ It was marked publicly by double 
 sacrifices, and by change of the shew-bread, by 
 the receiving of instruction (this 15 evidenced by 
 the provision that the whole law should be read 
 in the Sabbatical year) from the Priests and 
 Levites who were scattered up and down the 
 country, and from the Prophets, as appears from 
 the question, “‘ Why resortest thou to the Pro- 
 phet to-day, it is neither New Moon nor Sab- 
 bath?” It was further marked by the institution 
 of convocations, which would not have been holy 
 meetings, but mere crowds, except they were 
 employed in prayer and instruction. Singing 
 praises to God must also be considered to have 
 formed a part of Sabbath worship, if we may 
 trust that heading of one of the Psalms, “‘ For the 
 Sabbath Day.” (These convocations would seem 
 to have been the germ of the synagogues in 
 which Moses and the Prophets were read on the. 
 Sabbath.) In families, the day was marked by 
 release of servants and of cattle from their 
 ordinary work, and in the case of individual 
 Israelites, no doubt contemplation of God’s works 
 
LECTURE ΤΥ. 157 
 
 and meditation in God’s law, found a place in the 
 Rest provided for them. 
 
 It will be said, perhaps, that this is gathered 
 not from the Fourth Commandment merely, but 
 from the Pentateuch generally; and not even 
 from the Pentateuch merely, but from the Pro- 
 phets, and from our Lord’s practice and language 
 recorded in the New Testament. It is so; but 
 no Israelite could observe the Fourth Command- 
 ment independently of its development in the 
 remainder of the books of Moses; the Prophets 
 cannot be understood to enforce anything new 
 in reference to the Sabbath; and our Lord 
 explained the meaning of both the Law and the 
 Prophets. Perhaps Josephus may be cited in 
 point (Antiq. xvi. 2, 3): “The seventh day 
 we set apart from labour; it is dedicated 
 to the learning of our customs and laws, we 
 thinking it proper to reflect on them, as well 
 as on any good thing else, in order to our 
 avoiding of sin.” If it be said that these are 
 not Josephus’ own sentiments, but expressions 
 put by him into the mouth of an orator, here is 
 a passage in which he speaks in his own person 
 (c. Ap. 1. 18): ‘ Moses permitted the people to 
 leave off their other employments, and to 
 assemble together for the hearing of the law 
 and learning it exactly, and this, not once or 
 twice or oftener, but every week.” What Philo 
 says is to the same effect. I conceive, then, that 
 IT am not wrong in believing that the Rest of 
 
158 LECTURE IV. 
 
 the Jews was by no means that utter indolence 
 which a fatigued animal nature enjoys and is 
 contented with ; 
 “ For what are men better than sheep or goats 
 That nourish a blind life within the brain, 
 
 If, knowing God, they lift not hands of prayer 
 Both for themselves and those who call them friend ?” 
 
 It was a rest, strict indeed, but social—a social 
 rest, far removed from the licentiousness with 
 which the Prophets reproached their country- 
 men—and a strict rest, but far removed from 
 the narrow-minded and foolish refinements with 
 which the Pharisees had overlaid the original 
 institution by the time of our Saviour, and 
 which have been increased tenfold by Talmudical 
 writers. 
 
 That it was not uniformly observed as it should 
 have been observed, that it was sometimes mis- 
 used, sometimes almost disused, and almost for- 
 gotten as God’s federal sign, the Prophets tell 
 us. Nehemiah gives us to understand this both 
 by words and by the regulations by which he 
 was obliged to reinforce it. The seventy years’ 
 captivity, which was expressly a punishment for 
 neglect of the Sabbatical year, is an indication 
 of a want of faith, which, it may be, had had its 
 commencement in neglect of the seventh-day 
 Sabbath. After the captivity it was observed 
 indeed, but its observance (the symbolical mean- 
 ing of it having been, in a great measure, over- 
 looked) degenerated into superstition. By a 
 
LECTURE Iv. 159 
 
 reaction, similar to that which we shall see bye 
 and bye befel another institution, the Lord’s 
 Day, and which is characteristic more or less of 
 all religious revivals, what was neglected before, 
 or used before with too much laxity in one 
 direction, that of festivity, was made a matter 
 of punctilious conscientiousness, and observed 
 over scrupulously in another direction, that of 
 rest. 
 
 I may mention in illustration of this assertion 
 the striking fact, which appears both in Jose- 
 phus and in the Apocrypha, that at the com- 
 mencement of the Maccabean struggle, a thou- 
 sand Jews suffered themselves to be slain without 
 resistance, rather than violate the Sabbath by 
 attempting a defence. A disaster so signal and 
 so monstrous opened the eyes of the nation to 
 the unreasonableness of the principle which had 
 subjected them to it. They modified it, therefore, 
 to a certain extent, and it was declared to be 
 lawful to defend themselves, if attacked, on the 
 Sabbath day, but not to make an attack. Even 
 this modified form of scrupulousness became an 
 ‘injury to them. Pompey, while besieging Jeru- 
 salem, discovered the nature of their feelings on 
 the subject. He argued, and very naturally, that 
 if he employed his army on the Sabbath, not 
 in direct assaults, but’in such warlike prepara- 
 tions as should better enable him to attack on + 
 the morrow, he should do so without molesta- 
 tion. This method he accordingly adopted, and, 
 
100 LECTURE ΤΥ. 
 
 by the advantage thus obtained, eventually took 
 the city. 
 
 The Pharisees of our Lord’s time were strict 
 observers of the Sabbath (though we do not find 
 even them objecting to social entertainments on 
 that day). Some notable instances of their super- 
 stitiousness are recorded. It was wrong to heal 
 a sick person on the Sabbath day. It was wrong 
 for that person, after he had been healed, to 
 take up his bed and carry it to his house. It 
 was wrong for the disciples, as they walked 
 through the corn-fields on the Sabbath day, to 
 gather corn and rub it from the ears with their 
 hands. A perversion of a text in Exodus was 
 the foundation of the limitation of bodily exer- 
 cise to what was called a Sabbath-day’s journey. 
 The rabbinical doctors proceeded even further.. 
 They invented thirty-nine negative precepts 
 concerning things not to be done on that day, 
 besides many others which were appendages to 
 them. Two of them may serve as specimens of 
 the whole :—‘ Grass may not be walked upon, 
 lest it should be bruised, which would be a sort 
 of threshing ’—‘ Nailed shoes may not be worn’ 
 on that day, for this would be to bear a burden’ 
 —instances these of almost grotesque misinter- 
 pretation of Scripture. 
 
 The heathen fancied, some of them, that the 
 Sabbath was a day of mere superstitious idleness ; 
 others, that it was a fast. The latter fancy may 
 in part be accounted for by the fact that “ the 
 
LECTURE ΤΥ. 1601 
 
 Great Day of Atonement,” the Fast of the Jews, 
 is called in Scripture a Sabbath. But both this 
 and the other resulted in a great measure from 
 the extreme rigor with which the Pharisees were 
 found observing it, at the time when the Romans 
 first came in contact with the Jews. Hence 
 Tacitus, in his confused notice of Jewish history 
 and customs, (which, by the way, even in its 
 mistakes, seems to show that the Sabbath was a 
 national, not a world-wide institution,) has these 
 words: ““ Continuum sex dierum iter emensi, 
 Ebreei septimo, pulsis cultoribus, obtinuere terras 
 in quibus urbs et templum dicata sunt ..... 
 Septimo die otium placuisse ferunt, quia is finem 
 laborum tulerat:..... Dein, blandiente inertia, 
 septimum quoque annum ignavie datum.” 
 Hence Suetonius cites Octavius as saying, “ Ne 
 Judeeus quidem, mi Tiberi, tam diligenter Sab- 
 batis jejunium servat, quam ego hodie servavi.”’ 
 Hence Justin says of Moses, “ Quo, (scilicet ad 
 montem Synze) septem dierum jejunio per deserta 
 Arabiz cum populo suo fatigatus cum tandem 
 venisset, septimum diem, more gentis, Sabbatum 
 appellatum.” ‘The passage in Juvenal, 
 
 “ Sed pater in causa est, cui septima queeque fuit lux 
 Ignava, et partem vite non attigit ullam.” 
 
 and those in Martial, Persius, Ovid, and Petro- 
 nius, will occur to us all. 
 
 To Pharisaic notions of the Sabbath our 
 Saviour uniformly opposed Himself. ‘The Sab- 
 bath was made for man,’’ was His authoritative 
 
 M 
 
162 LECTURE IV. 
 
 declaration, and “not man for the Sabbath.” 
 The rest implied in it was intended for the good 
 of God’s people, and was a means to an end. 
 It was not, and it could not have been intended 
 to be, an end in itself, for which man should be 
 distressed and constrained by unreasonable an- 
 noyances. It was a day, therefore, in which 
 man’s welfare was to be wrought out, in a dif- 
 ferent way indeed from that appropriated to 
 other days, but still wrought out. “ My Father 
 worketh on it, and hath been working hitherto ; 
 I Myself work on it,” is His language in His 
 reply to those who cavilled at His doing good on 
 the Sabbath. “In that reply,’ says Dean Trench, 
 * He seeks to lift up the cavillers to the true 
 standing point from which to contemplate the 
 Sabbath, and His own relation to it as the only- 
 begotten of the Father. He is no more a breaker 
 of the Sabbath than God is, when He upholds 
 with an energy that knows no pause the work 
 of His creation from hour to hour and ‘from 
 moment tomoment. ‘My Father worketh hitherto 
 and I work;’ My work is but a reflex of His 
 work. Abstinence from outward work belongs 
 not to the idea of the Sabbath, it is only more 
 or less the necessary condition of it for beings 
 so framed as ever to be in danger of losing the 
 true collection and rest of the spirit in the mul- 
 tiplicity of earthly toil and business. Man indeed 
 must rest from his work if a higher work is to 
 find place in him. He scatters himself in his 
 
LECTURE ΤΥ. 1089 
 
 work, and therefore he must collect himself anew, 
 and have seasons for so doing. But with Him 
 who is one with the Father it is otherwise. In 
 Him, the deepest rest is not excluded by the 
 highest activity; nay, rather in God they are one 
 and the same.” ‘The rest of God (says Stier, 
 writing in the same tone) is no mere inac- 
 tivity; but to speak after the manner of the 
 Jews, (and thus to demonstrate their error by 
 their own words,) He Himself dreaks continually 
 His great Sabbath.” Bengel says, ‘‘ Si non ope- 
 raretur, ubi esset ipsum Sabbatum?” Braune 
 says, “If God had rested as the Jews rested on 
 the Sabbath, no sun would have shone, no 
 flowers would have bloomed, all creation would 
 ’ have languished, all the universe been dissolved. 
 ‘He imparts to nature her invigorating forces,’ 
 as Herder expresses it, ‘causes the rain to fall 
 and the fruits to grow, yea, even the waters 
 of Bethesda to bubble forth on the Sabbath, so 
 that no Jew might have been held unrighteous 
 in descending for cure, yea, even would have 
 waited for it on the Sabbath day.’” And— 
 * He doeth good on the Sabbath day, else must 
 the sick man whom God’s help, sought or experi- 
 enced on the Sabbath day, has healed, tarry upon 
 his sick couch still.” So men, albeit they rest 
 from their ordinary work-day labours, may on the 
 Sabbath be working their own good and the good 
 of their fellow men,—doing well on the Sabbath, 
 —healing on the Sabbath,—teaching or learning 
 M 2 
 
104 LECTURE ΤΥ. 
 
 on the Sabbath,—initiating into the covenant on 
 the Sabbath,—performing works necessary for 
 life, or for the preserving of life, whether of man 
 or beast, on the Sabbath,—enjoying the contem- 
 plation of God’s works on the Sabbath,—nay, 
 even joining with their brethren in social inter- 
 course on the Sabbath. In all these things, 
 man, as represented by the Son of Man, is lord 
 of the Sabbath. Declare them to be unlawful,— 
 you reverse God’s order, the Sabbath becomes 
 lord of man. 
 
 Such, if indeed I have read it aright, was our 
 Lord’s language touching the Sabbath; and I 
 think in particular that I am justified in attach- 
 ing to the words “the Sabbath was made for man, 
 and not man for the Sabbath,” the interpreta- 
 tion here put upon them, and no other. It is, I 
 know, very common to dissociate the two pro- 
 positions, and to argue from the former of them, 
 taken by itself, that the Sabbath is of perpetual 
 obligation. The context shows this interpreta- 
 tion to be inadmissible. Had people been ques- 
 tioning the then obligation of it, or professing 
 that it was already repealed, then the words of 
 our Lord in the former proposition might have 
 asserted its present, and indeed its continuing 
 obligation. He might have said, ‘the Sabbath 
 was made for man,’ but He would surely have 
 either paused there as having said enough, or if 
 he subjoined anything, would have added, “and 
 therefore it can never be abrogated.’ But the 
 
LECTURE ΤΥ. 165 
 
 real question was, which is the more important, 
 the Sabbath or man? Which is the more 
 precious in God’s sight, the ordinance or the 
 moral being? which is the end? which is made 
 for the other? Our Lord replies, ‘‘The Sabbath 
 was made for man, and not man for the Sab- 
 bath.” Just asif a person were about to sacrifice 
 his life for the preservation of his gold,—one 
 would say to him, ‘‘ Gold was made for man, not 
 man for gold.” This would not of course imply 
 that gold and no other sort of money must 
 necessarily be for ever the medium of commerce. 
 Such might or might not be the case, but it 
 could not be gathered legitimately from the 
 mere terms of the expostulation. 
 
 But supposing this point to be settled, the 
 following remarks may be fairly made upon what 
 has been said :— 
 
 First, that the Sabbath, as represented above, 
 has a character more evangelical than one has 
 been accustomed to attribute to it; is scarcely 
 the exact Institution to the continuance of 
 which the Fathers objected, or which the Rom- 
 ish Doctors, and the Puritans, and of later years 
 the Scottish Presbyterians more or less chose as 
 their model. 
 
 Secondly, that our Lord Himself appears to 
 have observed the Sabbath in the way that He 
 recommended it to be observed, and does not 
 appear to have formally abrogated it. 
 
 Thirdly, that it is not quite evident why an 
 
100 LECTURE ΤΥ. 
 
 institution capable of this favourable construc- 
 tion should have been abrogated. 
 
 I have no difficulty in replying to these re- 
 marks. 
 
 As to the character of the Sabbath, the pas- 
 sages of Scripture to which allusion has been 
 made, the account of it given by Josephus, and 
 the teaching of Christ, seem to make it such as 
 I have described. The Pharisees and the Rab- 
 bins misunderstood its character; and we, I 
 think, should equally misunderstand it, if we 
 supposed that Christ recognised their doctrine 
 as that which Moses intended, and Scripture in 
 general warranted; or that He said of it, “This 
 may have done very well in past time, but I 
 will show you a more excellent way.” This 
 was not His language. When He touched upon 
 it, it was to explain not to supersede the law of 
 Moses respecting it. The time had not yet ar- 
 rived for that. He was bound to fulfil the whole 
 law—political, ceremonial, moral—and He did 
 so—the law of the Sabbath, the law of circum- 
 cision, the law of attendance at feasts, the law of 
 tribute to the Temple, as well as the weightier 
 matters which concern the inner man. But so 
 deeply ingrained had the traditional teaching 
 concerning the Sabbath become, that the gloss 
 was mistaken for the text, and the word of the 
 expositor, the inculcation of mere rest, the con- 
 densation of all religion into the ultra-ritual 
 observance of mere rest on one day, was taken 
 
LECTURE ΤΥ. 167 
 
 for the word of God. Hence, when He cleared 
 away these cobwebs, He was supposed to be, 
 not fulfilling the law in its true import, but 
 destroying it altogether. He made it appear 
 worthy of God, as a step in the economy of 
 grace, but He did not therefore make it an ordi- 
 nance to survive, or capable of surviving, the 
 other shadows of the law. For (it cannot be 
 repeated too often), the seventh-day Sabbath was 
 only a part of the Jewish Sabbatical system, and 
 that system, considered as a whole, was by no 
 means an evangelical one. It was a system de- 
 signed, among other things, to keep the Jews 
 separate from the rest of the world, as deposi- 
 taries of what amount of truth God had thought 
 fit to reveal to them, and to remind them at 
 every turn of the responsibilities of their condi- 
 tion. Accordingly, with every abatement that 
 can be made for the false elements with which 
 the Pharisees had overlaid it, it was essentially a 
 system of prohibitions and restrictions—‘ touch 
 not, taste not, handle not”’—it was a system of 
 which fear of transgression was the predominant 
 motive, not clear perception and love of the 
 right; it was a system by which truth was 
 rather shadowed than revealed—a system of 
 types and figures, the meaning of which was not 
 fully known to any, and was by very few appre- 
 ciated at all. And, however understood, it was, 
 as an unsubstantial and typical system, to be with 
 the law generally swept away when the reality 
 
108 LECTURE IV. 
 
 should come, when the antitype should be mani- 
 fested. This was not to be till the Resurrection. 
 Till that time our Lord observed the Law. Cir- 
 cumcision, Holy-days, and Sabbaths, were a part 
 of the ordinances to which He submitted Him- 
 self for a while, though, as is evident from His 
 practice and teaching, from His spiritualizing of 
 the Law, and from His proclaiming “the accept- 
 able year”? and announcing Himself as its intro- 
 ducer, He considered them to be things decaying 
 and waxing old, and ready to vanish away. The 
 Apostles, after the Resurrection, struck a diffe- 
 rent note, for the time for striking it had come. 
 All things are new, said they—new in Him and 
 because of Him—He is the true rest, the true or 
 Great Sabbath, of which all other Sabbaths were 
 but heralds. They waited to tell their message : 
 having told it, they have past away. Judaism, 
 whether in theory or in practice, it matters not 
 which, whether it develop itself in the obsery- 
 ance of the Law as it was intended, or in that 
 astute and subtle refinement of it introduced by 
 the Pharisees and Rabbins, has vanished away. 
 This was from the beginning impled in their 
 preaching, and it was not at first necessary to 
 be explicit. But, as time went on, Judaism 
 began to intrude itself into the Church. Hence 
 the Council of Jerusalem. Hence the text and 
 its assertion, that no man should condemn his 
 brother for neglecting Sabbaths and other ordi- 
 nances of the Law. Still, though the Council 
 
LECTURE Iv. 169 
 
 had spoken and Paul had written, Judaism 
 would thrust forward its pretensions, perhaps 
 with more vexatious accretions than _ before, 
 and blended with various heresies. Hence the 
 Fathers argued against it without pausing to dis- 
 criminate between the pure and the impure forms 
 of it. And Romanist, Puritan, and Presbyterian 
 alike, in so far as they adopted Sabbatarianism, 
 exhibited an exaggerated revival, not merely of 
 the Law of Moses (that had been unmeaning 
 enough, now that the reality had come), but of 
 the Pharisaic glosses, which even in our Lord’s 
 time had become grievous to be borne. Taken 
 at its very best, the earthly Sabbath was no true 
 rest, it was a shadow of the true rest, a shadow 
 not fully realized by deliverance from Egypt or 
 by entrance upon Canaan, but only by deliver- 
 ance from sin. This, the true Joshua, and He 
 alone, was by His death to accomplish, by His 
 Resurrection to prove, by His sending of the 
 Holy Ghost to communicate to His people here, 
 and by receiving them to Himself to impart to 
 them more perfectly hereafter. 
 
 Therefore, the Sabbath, the Sabbath of the 
 Fourth Commandment, with everything con- 
 tained under the word Sabbath, or akin to it, 
 days and times and years, the strongholds 
 and yet the weaknesses of the Law, is abolished. 
 It was a positive ordinance of Judaism, and 
 with Judaism has disappeared. But this is 
 without prejudice to the establishment of the 
 
170 LECTURE IV. 
 
 Lord’s Day, and without its being at all neces- 
 sary to seek for the Lord’s Day, either identity 
 in substance, or directly antitypical connexion, 
 with the Sabbath. How far the Lord’s Day, 
 besides being, as I showed in an earlier Lecture, 
 a positive ordinance of Scriptural and Apostolical 
 Christianity, is one of the forms in which the 
 σαββατισμὸς Which remaineth for the people of 
 God would naturally and of course find expres- 
 sion ; how far it is analogous to the Sabbath, and 
 whether it may not contain in it the same ele- 
 ments though in a different order, and arranged 
 in the spirit of love which casteth out fear, I 
 shall consider in the next Lecture. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 ----9«--΄- 
 
 HEBREWS IV. 8, 9. 
 
 FOR IF JESUS (JOSHUA) HAD GIVEN THEM REST, THEN WOULD HE NOT 
 AFTERWARDS HAVE SPOKEN OF ANOTHER DAY. 
 
 THERE REMAINETH THEREFORE A REST, (A KEEPING OF SABBATH, ) FOR THE 
 PEOPLE OF GOD. 
 
 Ei yap αὐτοὺς Ἰησοῦς κατέπαυσεν, οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα 
 ς , 
 ἡμέρας. 
 , a a a ~ 
 Apa ἀπολείπεται σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 I coNcLUDED my Fourth Lecture with three 
 remarks : 
 
 First, that the Sabbath properly so called, the 
 Sabbath of the Jews, with everything connected 
 with it as a positive ordinance, was swept away 
 by Christianity. 
 
 Secondly, that this is without prejudice to the 
 Lord’s Day; and 
 
 Thirdly, that it is not necessary to seek for 
 the Lord’s Day, either identity in substance, 
 or directly antitypical connexion, with the 
 Sabbath. 
 
 Certain passages however have been brought 
 forward, as tending to invalidate these pro- 
 positions. Three of them are of the nature of 
 prophecies, uttered respectively by Isaiah, by 
 Ezekiel, and by our Lord. From these it is 
 
172 LECTURE V. 
 
 argued that the Sabbath is still of obligation. 
 Three of them occur in the writings of St. Paul. 
 It is said of these, that if they are understood 
 as destructive of the Sabbath, they render all 
 Christian Holydays, the Lord’s Day amongst 
 them, indifferent, not to say unlawful. Another 
 passage is that contained in my text. This has 
 been understood in two very different ways, each 
 of them, I believe, containing an element of 
 - truth, but each of them blended with some error. 
 
 The course of my present Lecture will be—first 
 to discuss the three prophecies to which I allude: 
 then to inquire into the true meaning of the 
 passages adduced from St. Paul’s writings: and 
 lastly, so far as I may be able, to grasp the 
 argument in the Hebrews; 
 
 “ For if Jesus (Joshua) had given them rest, 
 then would he not afterwards have spoken of 
 another day. 
 
 “There remaineth therefore a rest for the 
 people of God.” 
 
 We shall, I think, as we proceed, find the 
 solution of various questions which have hitherto 
 been left open till the time for their discussion 
 should arrive. 
 
 And first of the three prophecies. 
 
 It is said in one of Isaiah’s visions, (c. xvi. 23,) 
 which is obviously not to be limited to the Jews 
 and their fortunes, that ‘from one new moon to 
 another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all 
 flesh come to worship before God.” Now from this 
 
LECTURE V. 173 
 
 it has been urged that the Sabbath cannot be 
 of a transitory nature, or it would not have been 
 mentioned thus. It has, however, escaped the 
 notice of those who hold this argument, that if 
 the continuance of the Sabbath Festival is proved 
 by this passage, so is the continuance of the 
 New-moon Festival. This they would hardly be 
 inclined to allow. And yet by their own showing 
 they must allow it. No less is said of the one 
 than of the other, and, we may add, no more. 
 I see not then what can be gathered from it, 
 except an assurance, expressed in the language 
 of the Jews, on God’s part, that in the glorious 
 dispensation which He will manifest, whether on 
 earth or in heaven, His worship will never be 
 intermitted, will never be broken off by fits of 
 neglect or rebellion, as was too frequently the 
 case with the Jewish nation. 
 
 The passage alleged from LHzekiel (c. xlvi. 
 3, 4) is very similar to that from Isaiah, and 
 may be disposed of in the same way. 
 
 But granting that no real difficulty is caused 
 by these prophecies, what, it is said, can be made 
 of our Lord’s own words, “ Pray that your flight 
 be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath 
 day >” He is speaking, be it observed, of the 
 difficulties which would meet the disciples in - 
 their flight, just before the siege of Jerusalem. 
 Now that siege was to occur many years after 
 His words were uttered. Do they not then 
 imply, that at that time, (and if then, why not 
 
174. ᾿ LECTURE Υ. 
 
 for ever ?) the Sabbath day would exist with all 
 its religious obligations? that it would be as 
 grievous to the religious man to employ it in 
 flight, as it could be to the man of flesh and 
 blood to encounter the horrors of winter, with- 
 out having where to lay his head ἢ 
 
 A very few moments’ thought will show the 
 untenableness of this argument. In a nation 
 like that of the Jews, in which the fiction of the 
 “‘ Sabbath-day’s journey”’ prevailed extensively, 
 it was no doubt considered wrong to assist the 
 traveller, however urgent his errand, in his 
 movements on the Sabbath day. All possible 
 impediments, therefore, would be thrown in the 
 way of the fugitives, by those who were still 
 zealous for the supposed requirements of the 
 law. ‘They would render them no aid, they 
 would assail with obloquy, if with nothing 
 worse, the violators of the sanctity of the 
 Sabbath. A Roman Satirist asserted of the 
 Jews that they considered it to be their duty 
 
 ‘“‘ Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti, 
 Quesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos ;” 
 
 if this were so, they would certainly be yet more 
 uncharitable to those who were in their eyes not 
 merely aliens, but apostates ; not merely ignorant 
 of their law, but despisers of it and contributors 
 to its overthrow. What wonder then, that our 
 Blessed Lord, foreseeing that the Sabbath would 
 still exist as a fact though no longer obligatory 
 as an institution, and would still be cherished by 
 
LECTURE V. 175 
 
 the Jews, should have bid His disciples pray, that 
 their flight be not cast, not merely in the time of 
 winter, but on a day which would expose them to 
 the yet keener blasts of those who would resent 
 a violation of their ancient day of rest. It may 
 be that our Lord foresaw a lingering regard on 
 the part of His disciples for this remnant of the 
 Jewish law, such as we know the Nazarenes long 
 entertained, and that He hinted at what their 
 personal feelings would be. Of this, however, 
 we have no evidence. Perhaps then it is safer to 
 conclude that He spoke merely of a certain ex- 
 ternal circumstance, the averting of which, as its 
 presence would increase their trials, should be 
 made the subject of prayer. 
 
 I have only noticed these passages, because 
 they have been sometimes urged in support of the 
 Sabbatarian view of the Lord’s Day. It has 
 been imagined that whatever evidence can be 
 brought that the Sabbath exists still, will assist 
 in the transfer of the spirit of the Sabbath, or of 
 the Sabbath itself to the Lord’s Day. It would 
 do nothing of the sort. It would merely 
 strengthen that very extreme opinion that the 
 seventh day, or Saturday Sabbath, is binding 
 upon Christians. The difficulty of the transfer 
 would remain. Scripture does not sanction it. 
 The Fathers do not sanction it. Both Scripture 
 and the Fathers speak of the Lord’s Day as 
 distinct from the Sabbath. Both Scripture and 
 the Fathers speak of the Sabbath as done away. 
 
176 LECTURE V. 
 
 Yes, but, says an objector, maintaining what we 
 have called the purely Ecclesiastical theory, what 
 the Fathers say may be interpreted more loosely. 
 A practice may be Ecclesiastical, Apostolical if 
 you please, and yet have no ground in Scripture. 
 We find passages in the Galatians, Colossians, 
 and Romans, for instance, which seem to say 
 that all observance of days, especially of Sabbath 
 days, is but a remnant of Judaism. The Sabbath 
 was not directly a type of the Lord’s Day, and 
 is rarely, if ever, urged by the Fathers as a type 
 of it. So Scripture does not justify the Lord’s 
 Day, either literally or typically; quite the re- 
 verse. The Lord’s Day is therefore simply a 
 Church ordinance, (that we say not simply a 
 civil ordinance,) it is not a Scripture ordinance. 
 Christianity has indeed a Sabbath, but the 
 Christian’s whole life is a Sabbath. The Lord’s 
 Day need not be on the first day of the week; 
 it might be on any day if the Church so willed 
 it. It is only a condescension to human weak- 
 ness that it exists at all. It would be an 
 evidence of a higher state of Christianity in the 
 world, if we could dispense with it altogether. 
 There are, or may be supposed to be, many good 
 men who could do without it, or even exult in a 
 religious non-observance of it. 
 
 As to the interpretation of the Fathers. All 
 I adduce them for is this,—to be witnesses to the 
 facts, that the Sabbath was no longer of obliga- 
 tion; that it did not exist in the Lord’s Day, 
 
LECTURE V. 177 
 
 ἡ. 6. that it was not transferred to it: but that the 
 Lord’s Day did exist, immediately after the close 
 of the Canon, as an ordinance not formally made, 
 but recognised as being as thoroughly a divine 
 and Christian institution, as any of those men- 
 tioned in my Second Lecture; and that it has, 
 therefore, the same Scriptural foundation that 
 they have. They cannot, except by forcing them 
 to speak the language of later times, be made to 
 imply that the Lord’s Day was merely an Eccle- 
 siastical institution. So much for the first class 
 of objections. For the next, what are the pas- 
 sages in Scripture upon which the objector 
 depends? The first is Galatians iv. 9—11. 
 * But now after that ye have known God, or 
 rather are known of God, how turn ye again 
 to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto 
 ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe 
 days, and months, and times, and years. I am 
 afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you 
 labour in vain.” The second is Colossians ii. 
 16,17. “Let no man therefore judge you in 
 meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, 
 or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath Days, 
 which are a shadow of things to come, but 
 the body is of Christ.” The third is Romans 
 xiv. 6. “One man esteemeth one day above 
 another: another esteemeth every day alike. 
 Let every man be fully persuaded in his own 
 mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it 
 unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the 
 N 
 
178 LECTURE V. 
 
 day, unto the Lord he doth not regard it. He 
 that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth! 
 God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord 
 he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.” 
 
 Now it is said very confidently, could St. 
 Paul have written thus, if any day had been 
 esteemed by him as of obligation on the practice - 
 of Christians ? 
 
 I believe he could, for 
 
 First, in the Galatians and Colossians he is 
 treating entirely of the Jewish Law. Not days 
 simply are before his thoughts, but Sabbath 
 days, festal seasons or times, (as the Seven 
 Days of the Passover,) New Moons, Sabbatical 
 Months, Sabbatical Years, all of them distinc- 
 tive features of Judaism, are aimed at. He 
 is not thinking, so far as we can gather his 
 thoughts from the context, of anything Chris- 
 tian, but simply protesting against the retention 
 of anything Jewish. ‘The very terms which he 
 uses, will not include Christian days, they are 
 essentially Jewish. Nor have we any right 
 to say, that analogically days are forbidden under 
 Christianity. Analogy, if it proved or could 
 prove anything, would rather go to show that 
 these days of Judaism, which are confessedly 
 σκιαὶ, or rather parts of a σκιὰ, or dispensation 
 of shadows, must have their counterparts in 
 corresponding Christian institutions. It is, how- 
 ever, worth notice, that St. Paul according to 
 his own testimony (1 Cor. xvi. 2) had already 
 
LECTURE V. 179 
 
 urged on the very Galatians whom he desires 
 not to be bound by Jewish days, the performance 
 of the duty of alms-giving on a certain Christian 
 day, the first day of the week. He would there- 
 fore, so at least it seems to me, have been some- 
 what inconsistent with himself, had he intended 
 to state in the Epistle to the Galatians at any 
 rate that all days are alike under Christianity. 
 
 And a similar train of remark will apply 
 to the passage in the Romans. The Apostle 
 is there urging upon his disciples the duty 
 of mutual forbearance and tenderness for one 
 another’s scruples. There were many things con- 
 nected with Judaism and Heathenism in respect 
 . to which these virtues might find due exercise. 
 Meat was sold in the public markets, which 
 might or might not have been consecrated to 
 idols. An idol was indeed nothing in the world 
 (as he told the Corinthians), and such consecration 
 was a mere futile ceremony. The strong-minded 
 man would eat meat, asking no questions. The 
 weaker brother would decline to eat of it, and 
 content himself with herbs, lest he should give 
 the slightest countenance to idolatry. Let not 
 the former condemn the latter as superstitious— 
 let not the latter condemn the former as un- 
 scrupulous. 
 
 So again with respect to Judaism. Some 
 would observe Jewish days as a matter of con- 
 science, though they were converted to Christi- 
 anity, lest they should cast any slight upon things 
 
 N 2 
 
180 LECTURE V. 
 
 which were originally of God’s ordaining—others 
 thought of those same days as things no longer 
 of obligation, and rejoiced in the liberty where- 
 with Christ had made them free. Each after 
 his manner consulted his conscience and the 
 Lord of his conscience. Well, says the Apostle, 
 these things are perfectly matters of indifference. 
 Let neither accuse the other. Let the one give 
 his brother credit for delicacy of conscience— 
 the other suppose his brother to be capable of 
 throwing off restraint In some things, without 
 cherishing a dislike for all restraints. Occasions 
 may and do occur, when the strong-minded 
 especially should avoid giving offence to the 
 weak, and making a parade of his liberty. But 
 the general rule is, “‘ In non-necessariis libertas, 
 in omnibus caritas.” “He that regardeth the 
 day, regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that 
 regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not 
 regard it.” 
 
 In all this I can see no allusion, even of the 
 most distant character, to the question, “ Is there 
 any day of obligation under Christianity, de- 
 pending upon Apostolic usage?’ Besides, it is 
 the ordinary practice of the writers of Holy Scrip- 
 ture to look with a single eye to the point with 
 which they are engaged, and to put out of sight 
 for the moment all consideration whether their 
 argument may or may not possibly be perverted. 
 If holy days of all kinds were intended to be 
 made unlawful or unnecessary under Christianity, 
 
LECTURE V. 181 
 
 by these passages, such passages would certainly 
 prove strange exceptions to the general character 
 of the writings of inspired men. TI cannot, 
 therefore, agree with those, how respected soever 
 their names may be, who adduce them as sub- 
 versive of the doctrine that the Lord’s Day is a 
 positive institution of Christianity, and of an 
 origin Apostolic, and so Divine. But I think it 
 due to the maintainers of the opinion that the 
 Lord’s Day is a purely Ecclesiastical institution, 
 to make a few more remarks, first, upon what is 
 said in defence of it ; and secondly, on the results 
 to which it appears to lead. 
 
 It is said, then, that the observance of days is 
 essentially Jewish, and therefore cannot be part 
 of Christianity as it was intended to be. There- 
 fore the Lord’s Day must be an after-thought, 
 and a human after-thought. This is of course a 
 “ petitio principi,” but I think it worth while to 
 quote in reference to it, the words of an eloquent 
 writer, now alas! no longer a member of our 
 Church :—“If (he says) it is a good argu- 
 ment against our Church system, that St. Paul 
 denounces Judaism, surely it is not a worse 
 argument against the Jewish system, that Moses 
 denounces Paganism. If St. Paul says of 
 Judaism, ‘Let no man judge you in meat or 
 in drink ;’ or, ‘Ye observe days and months 
 and times and years,’ I suppose Moses says 
 still more sternly of Paganism, ‘ Ye shall over- 
 throw their altars, and break their pillars, and 
 
182 LECTURE V. 
 
 burn their groves with fire.—(Deut. xii. 3.) 
 And if Moses adds the reason, as regards 
 Paganism, viz. because they were dedicated to 
 false gods; so does St. Paul give the reason, as 
 regards Judaism, ‘which are a shadow of things 
 to come.’ And (he continues) as the ordinances 
 of the Jewish Church were not paid to false 
 gods, though they were ordinances like the 
 pagan; so those of the Christian are not a 
 shadow, though they are ordinances like the 
 Jewish.” (Newman, “Sermons on Subjects of 
 the Day,” p. 241-2.) 
 
 It is said again, that no day (besides the 
 Sabbath) was observed, so far as we can discover 
 from Scripture, by the Apostles. This is, I 
 think, contradicted by what has been urged in 
 Lecture 11. 
 
 It is said further, that, the Sabbath being 
 declared to be abolished, we cannot, without 
 recurrence to Judaism, acknowledge a continu- 
 ance of it. This of course falls to the ground, 
 if our position is correct, that the Lord’s Day 
 is not a continuance, in the strict sense of that 
 word, of the Sabbath, but rests upon a foundation 
 of its own. 
 
 It is said yet again, that, state the Lord’s Day 
 as you will, it must be as a particular day of 
 obligation, in some sort a successor to the 
 Sabbath, whereas the whole of the Christian’s 
 life here and hereafter is intended to be a 
 perpetual Sabbatismus. He who wrote to the 
 
LECTURE V. 183 
 
 Hebrews says this; and it is confirmed, on your 
 own showing, by abundant testimonies from the 
 Fathers. To this it may be replied, everything 
 that can possibly be urged as to the Sabbatic 
 character of the Christian’s life, may be ad- 
 mitted: yet such admission is perfectly com- 
 patible with the doctrine, that upon certain 
 parts or divisions of that life especial light may 
 be thrown. Palestine was the Holy Land, but 
 God chose an especial place, Mount Sion, which 
 He loved, and called His Holy Hill. The 
 Temple was all holy, yet was there a Holy of 
 Holies within its precincts. Or, to take an 
 analogy of a different character. It is true, for 
 Christ has said it, that God may now be wor- 
 shipped anywhere—that the place to which the 
 tribes used to go up for worship, has no especial 
 claims on the regards of the spiritual Israel. 
 -This does not, however, render it unlawful to 
 dedicate certain places to His especial service, or 
 to believe that His especial blessing is shed 
 upon prayers offered therein. 
 
 It is said further, that to have especial times 
 for religion, argues a low condition of religion ; 
 that it implies a state of things for which the 
 Apostles were scarcely prepared and which they 
 would be almost surprised to find still prevailing, 
 were they to visit this lower world; that it is 
 a declension from the first love of the Church, 
 when such aids were not required; that it is in 
 condescension to the weakness of human nature 
 
184. LECTURE V. 
 
 that the Lord’s Day exists at all; that it is a 
 hindrance to what is to be desired, namely that 
 religion should permeate the whole life, to con- 
 centrate it on certain days. To this it may be 
 replied (we put out of sight for the moment our 
 hypothesis that the Lord’s Day és an Apostolical 
 institution and was observed by the Church in 
 the period of her first love) that the Apostles 
 were practical men, well acquainted with human 
 nature, in their brethren and in themselves; and 
 that they may therefore well be supposed to have 
 provided not for a Church κατ᾽ εὐχὴν merely, but 
 for a Church κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν; that as to the 
 Lord’s Day being a condescension to the weak- 
 ness of human nature, the whole Gospel is such 
 a condescension ; that as to religion being liable 
 to be confined to one day, because one day is the 
 Lord’s Day, it would be as reasonable to urge 
 that the spirit of prayer is likely to be lost 
 throughout the remainder of the twenty-four 
 hours, because we dedicate at morning, at even- 
 ing, at noon-day, or perhaps oftener, certain 
 especial portions of time to conscious communion 
 with God. 
 
 It may be, besides, pertinently asked, if the 
 Lord’s Day be not Apostolic in such a sense as 
 to be Scriptural and Divine, and so of obligation 
 as part of the Christian’s duty, when did the reve- 
 rence for it spring up? ‘The origin of other holy 
 days we can trace in the Fathers, but we cannot 
 trace them in Scripture. They may, if you please, 
 
LECTURE V. 185 
 
 be considered of purely Ecclesiastical institution. 
 But as for the Lord’s Day, what formal document 
 exists to prove that it was an after-thought, or 
 established only because it was found after trial 
 that Christians could not do without it? The 
 Fathers do not speak thus concerning it. The 
 earliest patristical notices that we possess con- 
 cerning it, speak of it as an existing fact, as an 
 integral part of the Christian’s service. We 
 demand, most justly, of those who advocate the 
 Sabbatarian theory, their authority for asserting 
 that the Sabbath was transferred to the Lord’s 
 Day. We may demand, as justly, of the main- 
 tainers of the other opinion, something like a 
 shadow of evidence that it was discovered at 
 some time that the Gospel could not grow with- 
 out something subsidiary and adminicular to it— 
 something that was not originally of it. 
 
 Such are some of the most usual assertions 
 which are urged in support of the purely Eccle- 
 siastical theory, and such are at any rate intima- 
 tions of the way in which they may be met. 
 On this latter head I may be permitted to 
 say one word more. It is this: the theory is 
 comparatively a modern one. It was adopted by 
 the Romanists before the Reformation, from con- 
 siderations stated in my Third Lecture. It was 
 adopted by various Continental Reformers for 
 reasons which I shall state in my Sixth Lecture. 
 But, to come nearer home, it undoubtedly owed 
 its appearance in the pages of such writers as 
 
186 LECTURE V. 
 
 Bishop F. White and Dr. Heylin, and indeed 
 - of certain eminent writers of our own day, to 
 a sort of reaction from Sabbatarianism. Men 
 detected the fallacies of that theory, were im- 
 patient of the yoke which it imposed upon them, 
 and without considering that they were perpe- 
 trating a similar fallacy, adopted a doctrine 
 perilous in another way. 
 
 Logically stated, the doctrine which they had 
 to oppose was this: 
 
 If the Fourth Commandment is binding, the 
 Lord’s Day is a Scriptural doctrine. 
 
 The Fourth Commandment is binding. 
 
 The Lord’s Day is a Scriptural Doctrine. 
 
 Now they directed their whole strength to the 
 disproof of the antecedent, or minor, and they were 
 not unsuccessful. The conclusion therefore, so far 
 as that argument was concerned, was left unproved, 
 and practically fell to the ground. The effect on 
 their own minds was that it was disproved, and 
 that they were therefore bound to discover for 
 the Lord’s Day some other than a Scripture 
 foundation, viz. an Ecclesiastical one. They 
 might have directed their strength against the 
 consequentia, and shown that the antecedent and 
 consequent have no necessary connexion with 
 each other. And they might then have found 
 a new hypothesis which might have left the 
 doctrine Scriptural, and yet freed it from the 
 taint of Sabbatarianism. Their hypothesis might 
 have been something like this: 
 
LECTURE V. 187 
 
 If the Apostles’ words and practice in Holy 
 Scripture, and the evidence of the early Church, 
 are to go for anything, the Lord’s Day is a 
 Divine and Apostolical institution. 
 
 Such is the ground which I have taken up in 
 these Lectures; such, with some abatements, is 
 the ground taken up by Archbishop Bramhall, 
 and by the learned historian, Mosheim. 
 
 But I come next to examine certain results to 
 which the purely Ecclesiastical theory seems to 
 lead us. 
 
 And first, it can hardly fail to strike us that it 
 involves, from the necessity of the case, an asser- 
 tion not merely of the fallibility of the Apostles, 
 but of the incompleteness of Scripture. I state 
 this advisedly, having before me the language of 
 some of its most distinguished advocates. «St. 
 Paul” (says Dr. Arnold, Life, Vol. I. p. 320) 
 “would have been utterly shocked, could he 
 have foreseen that eighteen hundred years after 
 Christianity had been in the world such an 
 institution as the Sabbath would have been 
 still needed.”” And again (Serm. xxii. Vol. IIT. 
 p- 260): “It was intended that the Gospel 
 should put us in a very different state, so that 
 we should need the command no more. It was 
 intended so, and St. Paul fully hoped that it 
 would be so; and therefore he writes to the 
 Colossians, ‘ Let no man judge you in meat or in 
 drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new 
 moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow 
 
188 LECTURE V. 
 
 of things to come; but the body is of Christ.’ 
 Such were his hopes for his fellow Christians, 
 and to show that God designed them to be free 
 from this Law, the command, in its letter, was 
 kept no more; the seventh day, the Jews’ Sab- 
 bath, was no longer observed by Christians. But 
 St. Paul’s hopes were disappointed, and the gra- 
 cious designs of God were thwarted. The state 
 of Christians was not changed; the old sickness 
 was not thrown off: and therefore the old 
 remedy was needed.” The Lord’s Day, then, if 
 not contemplated by St. Paul, shows that his 
 judgment was not infallible; that the Gospel, 
 as he left it, was not sufficient; that an addi- 
 tion to Scripture was absolutely necessary. If 
 so, not being supported by Scripture, it has no 
 secure hold upon the conscience of a Christian 
 man—it is not requisite or necessary to salva- 
 tion. It must be supported, if at all, by other 
 arguments, powerful indeed and persuasive (and 
 no man knew better than Dr. Arnold how to 
 state them, and most reverently he does state 
 them), in combination with Scripture; but, 
 apart from Scripture, likely to be of little 
 weight against the voice which pleads inces- 
 santly in the corrupt heart, “ Devote thyself 
 entirely to the world.” 
 
 Of course there is an escape from this argu- 
 ment. A person may say, “I do not add to 
 Scripture by this theory, because I do not hold 
 that the Lord’s Day is binding on the conscience 
 
LECTURE V. 189 
 
 of a Christian man. I consider it to be a matter 
 of expediency, having been established originally 
 by the judgment of the Ecclesiastical rulers of 
 the Church, and of the Civil rulers of the world, 
 and confirmed by the experience of eighteen 
 centuries.’ How far this answer would have 
 availed, let us say, before Constantine’s edict 
 was issued—.e. before the rulers of the world 
 took any notice of the Lord’s Day—and whether 
 it could have existed at all in the ages earlier 
 still, when the eighteen centuries had just com- 
 menced, I leave you to determine. The escape, 
 such as it is, only adds to the catalogue of what 
 I cannot help terming the dangerous results of 
 the purely Ecclesiastical theory. 
 
 But this same theory involves, again, a possi- 
 bility of change of the day. (Indeed, as we are 
 informed by Barclay, such a measure was at one 
 time seriously contemplated by Calvin, and pro- 
 posed by him to the magistrates of Geneva.) Dr. 
 Heylin saw this, but endeavoured to obviate it 
 by a distinction drawn from Suarez and others: 
 “ Absoluté quidem est mutabilis, practice vero 
 non est.” Bishop Sanderson saw this, as is 
 - evident from his cautious expression, ‘* the 
 Church, (not to dispute what she may or may 
 not do m plenitudine potestatis) ought not to 
 attempt the altering of it to any other day of 
 the week.”” Archbishop Whately saw this. It 
 was a necessary result from his position that the 
 Apostles possessed only the same power that 
 
190 LECTURE V. 
 
 the later Church possesses, of ordaining rites and 
 ceremonies and instituting religious festivals 
 generally, and that they did not ordain the 
 Lord’s Day, in right of a higher power then pos- 
 sessed. Accordingly he can but deprecate any 
 change, urge that “the reasons for the observ- 
 ance are the same, now, as in the times of the 
 Apostles,” and observe that ‘a man may have a 
 right to do many things which he would xot be 
 right in doing.’ Now I fear that no methods 
 of this kind would avail to prevent men from 
 saying, “ Qui habet institutionem, habet destitu- 
 tionem ;”’ or in other words, “ If the Church made 
 the first day holy, she may make any other day 
 holy instead—she may change the cycle, she may 
 enlarge it indefinitely, she may get rid of holy- 
 days altogether.’ Our theory precludes any 
 such result. The Sabbath, a positive Jewish 
 institution, ordained of God through Moses, as 
 shown in Scripture, remained in right of its 
 Divine authorship till the dispensation passed 
 away to which it belonged; then, prophecy being 
 fulfilled, and express inspired declarations on the 
 subject having been uttered, it passed away. 
 The Lord’s Day, a positive Christian institution, 
 ordained of God through the Apostles, as indi- 
 cated in Holy Scripture, remains in right of its 
 Divine authorship until the dispensation to 
 which it belongs shall pass away. Therefore it 
 is immutable. The reasons for the observance 
 which existed in the time of the Apostles, I do 
 
LECIURE V. 191 
 
 not, with the Archbishop, consider to be a power, 
 shared by their successors, “to enact-regula- 
 tions with a view to Christian edification, and 
 amongst the rest, to set apart festival days, 
 such as the Lord’s Day, Christmas Day, Good 
 Friday, Holy Thursday, etc.,” but an inspi- 
 ration peculiar to themselves,in virtue of which 
 they established the Lord’s Day as a posi- 
 tive and enduring Christian Festival, which 
 only a similar inspiration, or a corresponding 
 close of the dispensation to which it belongs, 
 ean abolish. 
 
 But this introduces another perilous result of 
 the purely Ecclesiastical theory. As the Lord’s 
 Day was only an after-thought, and adopted as 
 a remedial measure, it may, as the Church grows 
 better, be dispensed with altogether. Even now 
 we can imagine persons (identifying the Lord’s 
 Day with the Sabbath, and so classing it under 
 things indifferent, and) saying, ‘There is such 
 a thing as not regarding the day, and yet not 
 regarding it to the Lord;” in a word, there is 
 such a thing as ‘religious non-observance of 
 the Sabbath; it is possible to attain such an 
 elevation of spirituality as to be independent of 
 stated days for religion altogether.”” Dr. Arnold 
 saw that this was one of the natural results of 
 the theory, and lifted up his voice earnestly 
 against it, though he does not appear to have 
 suspected the theory itself. But the late Mr. 
 F. W. Robertson enunciated it and advocated it, 
 
192 LECTURE V. 
 
 and repeated much that Dr. Arnold had advanced 
 in favour of the theory. He pressed indeed the 
 word religious very strongly, and showed the 
 dangers of the corollary so clearly that one 
 wonders he felt no misgiving. It is difficult to 
 discover in what way the Christian who has 
 thus embraced a religious non-observance of the 
 Lord’s Day, is to preserve any reverence for 
 revealed religion at all—the Word and Sacra- 
 ments, for instance—or how he is to stop short 
 of the baldest natural religion. 
 
 Another result may be stated thus, “ As it 
 is obvious that on the Ecclesiastical theory, the 
 existence of the Lord’s Day implies a low state 
 of religion, it is to be feared that its continuance 
 will tend to perpetuate that low state, and that it 
 is in fact actually injurious to it. It is to be 
 hoped, therefore, that Sabbaths of every kind will 
 soon pass away, or if the word be insisted upon, 
 that Christians will arrive at the condition in- 
 tended for them, one of continued Sabbatismus. 
 Spiritual men do not want a Lord’s Day; those 
 who are not spiritual will not be improved by any- 
 thing so poor and legal.” It will scarcely have 
 escaped your notice how singularly extremes 
 have met. This is the very view, nay almost 
 the very language, held by Antinomians and 
 Anabaptists after the Reformation, and in one 
 or two cases before it. Hengstenberg speaks 
 strongly, but I do not think too strongly, on 
 this point. ‘The notion that this want (i. 6. 
 
LECTURE V. 193 
 
 the want of fixed and periodical occasions on 
 which all outward hindrances to the service of 
 God are removed) only existed under the Old 
 Testament, that because (in one sense) every day 
 is a Sabbath to the Christian, the setting apart 
 of certain days is only desirable for those who 
 are merely outwardly members of the New 
 Testament, but inwardly belong to the Old, will 
 certainly find no advocate in the truly advanced 
 Christian, but only in those who have been so 
 absorbed in their tmaginary self, as to lose sight | 
 of what they really are. The false spiritualism 
 from which such assertions spring, is a worm 
 which gnaws more destructively at our spiritual 
 life than legality ever can. That which is true 
 in theory is not always true without restrictions 
 when put into practice by individuals; and this 
 is more than ever the case in our day, whose 
 impurities are so great, whose faith is so feeble, 
 and whose seeking for holiness is so destitute 
 of earnestness. If we were members of Christ, 
 and nothing else, we should no longer require 
 to set apart certain times; for our whole life 
 would be an uninterrupted worship. But the 
 flesh still exists in us as well as the spirit, and 
 its strength is always so much the greater in 
 proportion to our unconsciousness of its exist- 
 ence; and therefore, the louder and more con- 
 fident a man’s assertions that fixed times for 
 assembling are superfluous, and the more he 
 despises those who think them necessary, as 
 Oo 
 
194 LECTURE V. 
 
 though they could not tell the signs of the times, 
 the stronger the proof that he needs them still. 
 For flying, something more is required than 
 simply to fancy we have wings. He who is 
 conscious that he has none, and pursues his 
 pilgrimage humbly leaning upon his staff, will 
 have made the greatest progress in the end. 
 The continuance of sin in us brings with it 
 always susceptibility to external impressions and 
 to the influence of evil around us, together with 
 wanderings of mind. The spark may fall on 
 iron without danger, but not upon the tinder. 
 For this reason, in order that we may pray with- 
 out ceasing in a manner befitting our station, 
 ‘we must sometimes enter into our chamber, and 
 shut the door behind us;’ and in order to keep 
 every day as a day to the Lord, we must keep 
 one day free from everything that can disturb 
 our devotion. Such disturbance arises most from 
 our earthly employments.” 
 
 Thus far this able and thoughtful writer. I 
 have used his words in preference to any that I 
 could myself furnish, because he probably wrote 
 in ignorance of those to whose positions they 
 might apply in England. It is scarcely neces- 
 sary for me to say that I adopt them merely as 
 descriptive of the tendency of the Ecclesiastical 
 theory, and of the class of minds in which it is 
 likely to find supporters, not at all of any indi- 
 vidual theorist. 
 
 But I must now quit this branch of my sub- 
 
LECTURE V. 195 
 
 ject, to consider the passage to which we have 
 been tending all along. I mean that passage 
 in the Hebrews which I selected as the text of 
 the present Lecture: 
 
 “For if Jesus (Joshua) had given them rest, 
 then would he not afterwards have spoken of 
 another day. 
 
 “There remaineth therefore a rest (keeping of 
 Sabbath) for the people of God.” 
 
 Two very opposite conclusions have been drawn 
 from these verses and their context : 
 
 First, There is evidently a Sabbath under 
 Christianity, for it is said that there is “a 
 keeping of it.” A day is especially mentioned. 
 This can only be the Lord’s Day. 
 
 Second, There is evidently no Sabbath, z.e. no 
 specially religious day under Christianity. The 
 “day? mentioned is the Christian dispensation 
 generally, not “the lLord’s Day.” Had the’ 
 writer held such an institution to be a positive 
 ordinance of Christianity, this would have been 
 the place to say so. 
 
 I cannot quite agree with either of these con- 
 clusions, or with the reasonings by which they 
 are brought out. 
 
 The argument of the passage taken as a whole 
 seems to be this: 
 
 A rest or κατάπαυσις in Canaan, of which the 
 Sabbath was a type, was promised to the Israel- 
 ites. Many of the Israelites failed to enter into 
 this rest, and though some, the children of those 
 
 02 
 
196 LECTURE V. 
 
 who perished in the wilderness, did enter into it, 
 the Sabbath did not thus receive its full antitype. 
 There is yet a rest to be entered, the rest of God, 
 who represents Himself as having entered into it, 
 and as desirous of receiving into it all His faith- 
 ful people. It exists, for the works on which it 
 ensued were finished from the foundation of the 
 world. [It exists; and observe that here is just 
 the inverse of that argument of Christ in the 
 Gospel. There, though God is at rest from the 
 work of Creation, He is, so to speak, ever break- 
 ing His Great Sabbath, by the work of sus- 
 taining and regulating for good the course of 
 what He has made. So it is with Christ, and so 
 it may be with Christ’s brethren. Here, though 
 the Creator seems to be always working in the 
 regulation of His Creation, He has entered into 
 a rest from Creation itself, a Sabbatismus in- 
 effable, unseen, eternal: Christ has entered into 
 it likewise; and His people, though in the midst 
 of this world’s affairs, enjoy it after His pattern in 
 some sort already, and shall enjoy it more per- 
 fectly hereafter. Of this, however, by the way.]| It 
 exists; but it was not manifested even in David’s 
 time. That ancient patriarch declared his belief 
 in it, and at the same time, by looking forward 
 to it, pronounced it to be a rest distinct from 
 that of the land of Canaan, which he was per- 
 sonally enjoying, and which his ancestors had 
 enjoyed since Joshua completed his conquests. 
 Had the Sabbath received its full antitype in 
 
LECTURE V. 197 
 
 Canaan, David would not have spoken of another 
 “day,” i.e. of a Dispensation distinct from the 
 Mosaical, and on the promulgation of which the 
 shadows of the Mosaical were necessarily to yield 
 to realities. If the Sabbath, therefore, into which 
 God entered after the Creation, is to receive 
 its full development,—if that sign, the Jewish 
 Sabbath, had a pregnant meaning,—if David’s 
 earnest expectation is to be realized,—-if the true 
 Joshua, having completed His works, has, as 
 man’s forerunner, entered into His rest, there 
 remaineth a rest for the people of God. There 
 remaineth a rest, as superior to that of Canaan 
 as the spirit is to the letter, as the Gospel is to ° 
 the Law, as the substance is to the shadow, as 
 heaven is to earth. There remaineth (ἀπολείπεται) 
 after every abatement for partial fulfilment of 
 the Sabbath, a rest from sin, and from their own 
 works which are sinful, to the people of God,— 
 a rest, no longer to be called κατάπαυσις, which 
 savours of time, but by a nobler title, σὰβ βατισμὸς, 
 which savours of eternity, and of Him who in- 
 habiteth it. In it, what was dimly figured by 
 the Sabbath is to receive its accomplishment. It 
 is a rest, realized here inchoately by ceasing 
 from evil works; hereafter absolutely, by ceasing 
 from the works of this toilsome life, and seeing 
 God as He is. This Gospel was in effect preached 
 to the Jews. They understood it not through 
 want of faith. This was shown by the failure 
 of so many of them to realize the intermediate 
 
198 LECTURE V. 
 
 fulfilment of the Sabbath by entering upon 
 Canaan. Let us not fail, is the writer’s practical 
 conclusion, of entering into our better rest,—of 
 enjoying heaven on earth, and of ascending from 
 earth to heaven, through lack of earnest faith 
 (σπουδάσωμεν). 
 
 Now if this be a correct statement of the argu- 
 ment, it will, I think, do very little in the way 
 of proving either of the opinions given above. 
 
 For, if we directly connect the Sabbath with 
 the Lord’s Day (as some moderns have done, 
 but no ancients that I can discover up to 
 A.D. 500), we must make it either identical with 
 it, or typical of it. τ 
 
 If we make it identical with the Lord’s Day 
 (though we can only do so by getting over the 
 change from the Seventh Day to the First Day), 
 then the Law had a positive institution belonging 
 to it, which was αὐτὴ ἡ εἰκὼν τῶν μελλόντων, and 
 not merely a σκιὰ, which seems to contradict 
 a statement in Hebrews x. 1. 
 
 If we make it typical of the Lord’s Day, then 
 we contradict the passage now before us, in 
 which the writer considers it (through the 
 κατάπαυσις Of Canaan), and he is followed in 
 this view by the general consent of the ancients, 
 to be a type of the σαββατισμός which remaineth 
 for the people of God. He does indeed mention 
 a day, but this does not surely refer to the 
 Lord’s Day, a periodically recurring festival, (this 
 would make the antitype an unusually close 
 
LECTURE V. 199 
 
 resemblance of the type), but to the dispensation 
 introduced by Christ: ‘‘ Your father Abraham 
 rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was 
 glad.” (John viii. 56.) 
 
 But while the passage is of no avail towards 
 proving that the Sabbath, or anything homo- 
 geneous to it, exists under Christianity, it is as 
 little capable of being fairly adduced to prove 
 that there is no such positive Christian insti- 
 tution as the Lord’s Day. It does not at all 
 follow that because the writer has not mentioned 
 the Lord’s Day here, there was, and is to be, no 
 institution of the kind. For he is speaking, be 
 it observed, of the Sabbath, not as a religious, 
 but as a typical ordinance; not as a continually 
 recurring portion of man’s earthly life, as com- 
 pared with a continually recurring remainder, but 
 as a standing admonition to the Jews—Firstly, 
 that their dispensation was preparatory to a 
 better; secondly, that man’s visible and sensible 
 life is not the whole or the better part of his ex- 
 istence. It would, therefore, have been out of 
 place to mention the Lord’s Day. One would, I 
 think, have been surprised to find it mentioned 
 here. Elsewhere it may be mentioned, and else- 
 where, as I believe I have shown, it is mentioned. 
 Because the Sabbath was a shadow, not of the 
 Lord’s Day, but of something else, it by no 
 means follows that the Lord’s Day fails of an 
 Apostolic and Divine original. 
 
 But here, perhaps, I may be reminded that in 
 
200 LECTURE V. 
 
 determining on what grounds the Lord’s Day 
 is binding upon us, we are to a certain extent 
 limited by what the Church of England has laid 
 down. Now that Church has said that “no 
 Christian man is free from the obedience of the 
 Commandments which are called moral.” The 
 Catechism, which is intended to instruct us in 
 faith and practice, deliberately refers us to the 
 Ten Commandments, as spoken of God in the 
 Twentieth Chapter of Exodus, as what we are to 
 keep, in order to the fulfilment of our Baptismal 
 obligation; and they are read in the Liturgy, 
 whenever it is used, the congregation being 
 bidden to say after each one of the first nine, 
 “‘ Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts 
 to keep ¢his law;”’ and at the conclusion of the 
 whole, ‘“‘ Lord, have mercy upon us, and write all 
 these Thy laws in our hearts, we beseech Thee.” 
 Well, I think we may grant all this, we may 
 acknowledge our obligation (as expressed in the 
 Article) to keep ‘‘the Commandments which 
 are called moral;’’ but what does this bind us 
 to? Simply to keep them so far forth as they 
 are moral: so far forth as they are positive, 7. 6. 
 concern the Jewish polity as a temporary dis- 
 pensation, they are not binding upon us. For 
 what says the Article again? “The Law given 
 from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and 
 rites, does not bind Christian men, nor ought 
 the civil precepts thereof of necessity to be 
 received into any commonwealth.” The Fourth 
 
LECTURE V. 201 
 
 Commandment, therefore, is to be kept so far forth 
 as it is moral, not so far forth as it is positive. 
 It is moral, in enjoining upon us the duty of 
 some periodic devotion of ourselves to God’s 
 service. It is positive, in enjoining upon those 
 who were subject to it aforetime, the seventh 
 day, and a particular manner of observing that 
 seventh day. And the positive part of it, as it 
 is not binding upon us from the nature of the 
 case, so it is not interpreted to be binding upon 
 us by the authorized summary of our duty to 
 God in the Catechism. For there we find not 
 one word about the Seventh day, or the Sabbath 
 day, but that we are to “serve God truly,” 
 (rods προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ 
 δεῖ προσκυνεῖν, John iv. 24.) And in reference to 
 this expression, it is worth while to record 
 what took place at the Savoy Conference. The 
 Presbyterians urged on that occasion, “ We 
 desire it may be advised upon, whether to the 
 last word of this answer may not be added, ‘ par- 
 ticularly on the Lord’s Day,’ otherwise, there 
 being nothing in all the answer that refers to the 
 Fourth Commandment.” This was not acceded 
 to by the Episcopalians—“ It is not true (they 
 said in reply) that there is nothing in that 
 answer which refers to the Fourth Command- 
 ment, for the last words of the answer do orderly 
 relate to the last Commandment of the first 
 Table, which is the Fourth.” <A. sarcastic re- 
 joinder was made to this, but the Episcopalians 
 
202 LECTURE V. 
 
 were not moved by it. The Catechism remained 
 as it was, not specifying the Lord’s Day, which 
 at that season of strife might have provoked 
 contention from persons not disposed to be so 
 moderate as the Presbyterian Commissioners, 
 but what is more to our purpose, not inserting 
 anything by which the Sabbath might be de- 
 clared to be still binding. To “serve God truly,” 
 comprehended a religious worship analogous to 
 that mentioned in the letter of the Command- 
 ment. And I do not think that we need hold 
 that by the phrase ‘all the days of my life” was 
 intended, by the Framers of the Catechism, such 
 perpetual Sabbatismus as may dispense with any 
 particular day‘as binding on the conscience. That 
 phrase referred rather to the whole of our duty 
 to God. We owe Him a life-long obedience in 
 all the particulars mentioned. This seems to be 
 - the correct interpretation. First, because earlier 
 in the Catechism we have similar phrases in 
 reference to the whole of the Decalogue; ‘ That 
 I should keep God’s holy will and command- 
 ments and walk in the same all the days of my 
 life’’>—** That I may continue in the same to my 
 life’s end.’’ Secondly, because at the end of the 
 Duty to ones Neighbour there is a similar sum- 
 ming up, ‘And to do my duty in that state of 
 life unto which it shall please God to call me.” 
 Thirdly, because on no other supposition can we 
 account for the silence of the Episcopalians when 
 the Presbyterians urged, “And think you indeed 
 
LECTURE V. 203 
 
 that the Fourth Commandment obligeth you no 
 more to one day in seven, than equally ¢o all the 
 days of your life? This exposition may make us 
 think that some are more serious than else we 
 should have imagined, in praying after that Com- 
 mandment, ‘ Lord have mercy upon us and incline 
 our hearts to keep this law.’”? They felt the 
 unreasonableness and absurdity of the objection, 
 and would not vouchsafe a reply. It was founded 
 on a perverse appropriation to “‘ serve Him truly,”’ 
 of a phrase which obviously belonged to the whole 
 answer. 
 
 Our Church, therefore, would seem, while she 
 directs us to regard whatever is moral in the 
 Fourth Commandment, to permit us and even 
 to direct us so far to spiritualize whatever is 
 positive in it, as to substitute for the Sabbath, 
 and the description of it and of the way in 
 which it is to be observed, the Lord’s Day and 
 a description of it, and of the way in which it 
 is to be observed, according to the- genius of 
 Christianity. We are nowhere told that we are 
 to obey the Commandments called moral, because 
 they are contained in the Decalogue. They are 
 binding upon us Jecause they are elements of the 
 great natural law, written in our hearts at first, 
 and authoritatively republished by Christ. We 
 are nowhere told that the Decalogue is absolutely 
 and in every respect moral; indeed, that opinion 
 of Calvin seems to be a probable one, that it 
 was intended to be a synopsis of the whole 
 
204. LECTURE V. 
 
 Jewish Law of every kind, moral, ceremonial, 
 political. Our Church seems to have considered 
 it in like manner to be a synopsis, spiritually 
 regarded, of the whole Law by which Chris- 
 tians are bound, both moral and positive, and 
 without requiring us to accept it in its exact 
 terms, to have placed it before us as a suffi- 
 ciently convenient summary of all Christian 
 duty. (Most of the expositors include every 
 Christian duty, moral and positive, under its 
 provisions, either in the spirit or.in the letter.) 
 Do what we will, place the Lord’s Day on what- 
 ever grounds we please, (unless we adopt the 
 fiction that the first day of the week was the 
 actual seventh from the Creation,) we must 
 spiritualize it in some way or other as we utter 
 the prayer about keeping it. The Sabbatarian 
 spiritualizes it in his peculiar way, ὁ.6. by saying 
 actually of the First Day, what was originally 
 said of the Seventh Day. The man who holds 
 the purely Ecclesiastical theory spiritualizes it in 
 his way, or rather in a variety of ways which 
 will be mentioned presently. He then does no 
 strange thing, but Christianises the oldness of 
 the letter, who, when he hears the Fourth Com- 
 mandment rehearsed in his ears, thinks of the day 
 hallowed by Christ’s Resurrection, the birthday 
 of the world to life and immortality, and desiring 
 grace to observe it worthily, says, ‘‘ Lord, have 
 mercy upon me, and incline my heart to use 
 rightly thine own day, the Lord’s Day.” 
 
LECTURE V. 205 
 
 T shall not pause to consider the other reasons 
 which may have influenced our Reformers in 
 their insertion of the Decalogue into the Com- 
 munion Service in 1552. They may have con- 
 sidered it to be desirable, now that confession 
 to the priest was no longer made a mattey of 
 obligation, to preface the reception of the Holy 
 Eucharist by a recital of the rule of God’s 
 Commandments, according to which men were 
 to examine themselves. This would in itself be 
 a deep and sufficient religious reason. It would 
 recognise the truth that even at the moment 
 when a man is about to enter upon the highest 
 offices, and enjoy the highest spiritual blessing 
 that he can enter upon or enjoy on earth, he 
 may, for lack of self-examination, have the seeds 
 of adultery, of murder, of blasphemy, in his 
 heart, of which except he cast himself free by 
 God’s aid, he does nothing else but increase his 
 condemnation by presenting himself at the Holy 
 Table. It may be again, though this were a 
 poor and transient reason, that they desired to 
 bring the Second Commandment into notice as 
 a protest against the remnants of idolatry. And 
 it may be that they considered the insertion of 
 the Decalogue to be necessary as a safeguard 
 and silent protest against the purely LEccle- 
 siastical theory of the Lord’s Day, which we 
 shall see was embraced by most of the Conti- 
 nental Reformers. Still less shall I apologise 
 for the insertion, by attributing it to the influ- 
 
-- 
 
 206 LECTURE V. 
 
 ence of Valerandus Pollanus, or John a Lasco; 
 or depreciate it by observing, that ours is the 
 only national Liturgy in the world which has it 
 (of course the Scotch and the American Liturgies 
 are considered to be the same, though with slight 
 variations) ; or defend it, by considering it, with 
 Mr. Palmer, to be a lesson from the Old Testament, 
 only invariable instead of variable, and broken 
 by short prayers, an arrangement of which ancient 
 examples are to be found. I am quite content 
 to receive it, and to believe that he who uses 
 the response in the sense that I have attached 
 to it is in earnest before God and man. 
 
 And now I beg you to observe the striking 
 features of this view. It no more binds us to 
 the very words of this Commandment than the 
 repetition of the same words after the Second 
 bids us consider it a sin to cultivate statuary or 
 painting, or after the Fifth to look forward to 
 our days being long either on earth generally or 
 in a literal Canaan. 
 
 It does not, by including all Church Holydays 
 under the Commandment, diminish the singular 
 honor due to the Lord’s Day. 
 
 It does not so volatilize the Commandment 
 as to consider it to be merely a general exhorta- 
 tion to a holy and contemplative spirit, which 
 may end, such is the tendency of human nature, 
 in neglect of a particular duty. 
 
 And lastly, it does not adopt the principle 
 ably enunciated by Mr. Newman, but conceived 
 
LECTURE V. 207 
 
 in the spirit of the ante-Reformation Schools, 
 that the Lord’s Day is the ceremonial Sabbath 
 spiritualized; or in fact is ¢he good thing of 
 which the Sabbath was the σκιά. 
 
 But here, perhaps, it may be inquired, ‘‘ Do 
 you reject all Festivals and days of observance 
 except the Lord’s Day ?”’ Indeed, I do nothing 
 of the sort. This would be Puritanism itself. 
 I only refuse to allow that they possess the same 
 obligation that it possesses. The Lord’s Day is 
 of-Scriptural indication and of Apostolical pre- 
 cedent. They are of ecclesiastical custom. It 
 is Divine; they are human in their origin. It 
 comes under the moral element of the Fourth 
 Commandment, interpreted or supplemented 
 evangelically ; they come under the Fifth Com- 
 mandment, which enjoins obedience to the law- 
 ful ordinances of Home, or State, or Church, or 
 whatever has parental authority over us. It is 
 invariable; they, being but ordinances of the 
 Church, may be changed or abolished. And yet, 
 so long as they remain (being not repugnant to 
 the Word of God), they are to be observed. So 
 the Queen is to be honored by her subjects. 
 So the godly admonitions of his Ordinary are to 
 be followed with a glad mind and will by a 
 Clergyman. So parents are to be obeyed by 
 their children. No, we may not reject these 
 other days, of the use of which Hooker speaks 
 so enthusiastically, but withal so really, in the 
 Fifth Book of his immortal Polity; but we may 
 
208 LECTURE V. 
 
 not argue with the Tridentine Catechism that, 
 as other Jewish Festivals besides the Sabbath 
 were covered by the Fourth Commandment, so 
 other Christian Festivals besides Sunday may be 
 covered by it, understood spiritually. Those 
 other Jewish Festivals (I mean, of course, such 
 as appear in the Pentateuch) were all of them 
 of Divine institution, and thus were covered by 
 the Sabbatical Commandment. But these other 
 Christian days are confessedly of Ecclesiastical 
 institution. An analogy for them must be 
 sought in the Feast of Dedication, which de- 
 pended for its origin and obligation on rever- 
 ence to the Jewish Church, and on obedience 
 to them who from time to time “sat in Moses’ 
 seat.” So is it with all our Christian days 
 except the Lord’s Day. The Jews were to 
 observe the Feast of Dedication. Christians 
 are to observe these, lest they ‘“ offend against 
 the common order of the Church, and hurt 
 the authority of the Magistrate, and wound 
 the consciences of the weak brethren.” 
 
 To return, however, for a few minutes longer 
 to our immediate point. 
 
 You will remember that even in the ante- 
 Nicene period the Lord’s Day was brought to 
 the mind of men by various suggestions. One 
 writer adopted one, and another writer another 
 parabolic method of directing attention to it. 
 They were not altogether uniform. So, in her 
 form, perhaps, of reminding her children to keep 
 
LECTURE V. 209: 
 
 the Lord’s Day by the parable of the Sabbath, the 
 English Church may be peculiar. This may be 
 readily allowed. But another circumstance must 
 be noted at the same time. God speaks the para- 
 bolic word ; the people accept the lesson contained 
 under it; but not the exact terms of the parable 
 itself. Except in the Decalogue, the word Sab- 
 bath does not oecur in the Prayer Book; and 
 the exposition of the Fourth Commandment has | 
 nothing Sabbatarian in it. Take these facts to- 
 gether, and what do they amount to? Not surely 
 to anything like an admission that the Lord’s 
 Day is the Sabbath under another name, or that 
 it is to be observed on the same grounds, or with 
 the same commemorative recollections, or with 
 the same earthly anticipations, or in the same 
 punctilious manner, as was the last ‘Sabbath 
 day of the law kept according to the Command- 
 ment ”’ while Jesus lay in the grave; much less 
 as was kept the Sabbath of tradition. It only 
 implies that the following points, every one of 
 them of some importance, were probably before 
 the compilers of our Liturgy. 
 
 That the Apostles, directed as they no doubt 
 were by the Spirit of God in their framing of 
 ordinances for the Christian Church, carried out 
 the moral part of the Fourth Commandment, 
 . which demands a periodic devotion of time to 
 God’s service, and inculcates, by the mysterious 
 example of the Almighty Himself, the alternation 
 of rest with labour. 
 
 P 
 
210 LECTURE V. 
 
 That the same Apostles were directed in their 
 choice of a cycle by the precedent of an analogous 
 Jewish ordinance, now indeed abolished, but in- 
 stituted originally by Him, who in the fulness of 
 time brought about its abolition. 
 
 That it being admitted that the Resurrection 
 day completed the work of our Redemption, 
 grateful commemoration of that day, under 
 Apostolic example, as immediately becomes due 
 to Christ, from His being the agent in it, as 
 the grateful observance of the Sabbath was 
 due to God the Father, from His making that 
 day the sign and earnest of entrance into the 
 rest of Canaan. 
 
 That if the Jews were bound to commemo- 
 rate their temporal mercies, ἃ fortiori Chris- 
 tians are bound to commemorate their spiritual 
 mercies. 
 
 That if a day of rest was useful and even 
 necessary to the Jews, it was likely to be useful 
 and even necessary to Christians. 
 
 The Reformers of the English Church even 
 ventured in the Book of Homilies to call the 
 Lord’s Day the Christian Sabbath. This title 
 of the day was unknown to early antiquity, 
 and does not appear until we reach the twelfth 
 century. But I do not think we need object 
 to it, if we are careful to observe that the . 
 qualification of the word Sabbath points not 
 to Moses but to Christ. It®is a Christian 
 Sabbath. We are not indeed bound to every 
 
LECTURE V. 211 
 
 expression or sentence in the Homilies, but we 
 approve of their doctrine generally as “ whole- 
 some”? or sound. The following passage will 
 show that they called the Lord’s Day, a Sabbath, 
 only by analogy or accommodation. “ Albeit 
 this (Fourth) Commandment of God doth not 
 bind Christian people so straitly to observe the 
 utter (external) ceremonies of the Sabbath day, 
 as it was given to the Jews; as touching the 
 forbearing of work and labour in time of great 
 necessity, and as touching the precise keeping 
 of the seventh day after the manner of the Jews ; 
 for we now keep the first day, which is the 
 Sunday, and make that our Sabbath, that is, 
 our day of rest, in honor of our Saviour Christ, 
 who as upon that day rose from death, con- 
 quering the same most triumphantly ; yet not- 
 withstanding whatever is found in the com- 
 mandment appertaining to the law of nature, 
 as a thing most godly, most just, and most 
 needful for the setting forth of God’s glory, it 
 ought to be retained and kept of all good Chris- 
 tian people.” ‘ Here needeth no gloss, observes 
 Archbishop Bramhall, nothing can be more 
 express than the Homily itself. 1. That the 
 Fourth Commandment ‘doth not bind Chris- 
 tians over strictly. 2. Not ‘to the external 
 observances of the Sabbath.’ 3. Not as it was 
 given to the Jews. 4. Not as to the rigorous 
 part of it to forbear all work. 5. Not as to 
 the time, the first day of the week having 
 BZ 
 
919 LECTURE V. 
 
 been justly substituted by Christians for the 
 seventh. 6. Not as to the end; our end is, 
 to honor the resurrection of Christ. 7. And 
 lastly, to speak once for all, the Fourth Com- 
 mandment obligeth Christians no further than 
 that part of it which appertaineth to the Law 
 of Nature.” He adds soon afterwards, in the 
 same treatise, ‘‘ This law of nature doth not ex- 
 tend itself expressly to any day, either natural 
 or artificial, but only to a sufficient time. What- 
 soever is more than this, proceedeth either from 
 evangelical law or from human law.” Human 
 law he had already repudiated as the basis of 
 the Lord’s Day. It is based by him on evan- 
 gelical law. 
 
 The Homily has not been quoted, as con- 
 sistent with itself—for indeed it 15 not so—but 
 only as a witness to the points which are in- 
 sisted upon by Archbishop Bramhall. Perhaps, 
 as there’ are various-other points in the Homilies 
 to which, no one would now agree, as the asser- 
 tion that there was a Pope Joan, or that the 
 Holy Ghost spoke by the mouth of Tobit, there 
 may be some facts misstated in this Homily, and 
 in the warmth of its exhortations some language 
 held which is not in accordance with that of 
 the early Church. We are, however, concerned 
 with what the English Church has deliberately 
 said and done in her public offices, and fully 
 authorized documents. She has said as little 
 as possible,—and thus left us every liberty of 
 
LECTURE V. 218 
 
 construing what she does say in accordance with 
 Christian antiquity. Some may consider it to 
 be an evil, but I rather consider it a blessing, 
 that on a subject so important so little should 
 have been said definitely. Some may desire the 
 precision of the Jewish religion. I rather hold 
 with Dr. Stanley, that the omission. of particu- 
 larity is one of the characteristics of the New 
 Testament, and one of the strongest guarantees 
 that the religion which it inculcates may be 
 spread everywhere. The Lord’s Day at the 
 death of St. John ‘presented the features of 
 periodical assembling for prayer, thanksgiving, 
 partaking in the Christian mysteries, and reli- 
 gious instruction. Charity to the brethren, and 
 thoughts upon Divine things, were other em- 
 ployments of it. Nothing was said of rest; 
 but rest, so far as those times admitted, from 
 ‘worldly employments was no doubt a feature 
 of it, from the nature of Him whom they wor- 
 shipped, from the necessity of the case, from 
 the physical demands of the body, from the 
 analogy of the Jewish law, from the example 
 of the Creator,—considerations which the Apo- 
 stles must have had before them when under 
 Divine direction they observed a Lord’s Day. 
 Such a Lord’s Day as this, was, I think, 
 contemplated by the Apostles, and observed by 
 them and by the early Church, and intended to 
 be adopted by the Church of England. At any 
 rate, for reasons which I have given, I believe 
 
214 LECTURE V. 
 
 the theory now set forth to be less exposed 
 to objections than any other theory. -My two 
 next Lectures will enter upon the controversies 
 which have beset the subject on the Continent 
 and in England from the Reformation until 
 now. And the last Lecture will be occupied 
 with the Question, How shall the Lord’s Day 
 be so observed as to benefit man both in body 
 and soul, until he pass 
 
 “ To where beyond these voices there is peace.” 
 
ΠῚ Ἐπ a ὙἹ 
 
 ----φ--- = 
 
 JEREMIAH YV, 10. 
 GO YE UP UPON HER WALLS, AND DESTROY; BUT MAKE NOT A FULL END; 
 TAKE AWAY HER BATTLEMENTS; FOR THEY ARE NOT THE LORD’S. 
 
 "Ay 18 > \ Ἀ “ TA \ , aN δὲ > 
 
 ἄβητε ἐπὶ τοὺς προμαχῶνας αὐτῆς, καὶ κατασκάψατε, συντέλειαν δὲ od 
 μὴ ποιήσετε. ὑπολίπεσθε τα ὑποστηρίγματα αὐτῆς, ὅτι τοῦ Κυρίου 
 cioiv.—Jer. v. 10: ex Vers, LXX. 
 
 GO YE UP UPON HER BATTLEMENTS, AND DESTROY ; BUT MAKE NOT A FULL 
 END; LEAVE HER UNDERWORKS ; FOR THEY ARE THE LORD'S. 
 
 You will remember that at the conclusion of 
 my Third Lecture I made this statement: “ That 
 the Reformation found the Lord’s Day obscured 
 by a sort of Sabbatarianism established on an 
 Ecclesiastical foundation.’ I explained this to 
 mean, that by the time that movement com- 
 menced, the Church of Rome, having forgotten 
 the Apostolical and Divine origin of the Lord’s 
 Day and its singular claim to the regard of 
 Christians, had surrounded it with a crowd of 
 other days obviously of inferior claims to regard, 
 and loaded both it and them with most vexa- 
 tious restrictions. Having done this, she had 
 found herself obliged to discover some sanction 
 for them which should bind men’s consciences. 
 The attribute of infallibility indeed, which, in 
 her view, invests with Divine authority what 
 
216 LECTURE VI. 
 
 we should call Ecclesiastical in the lower sense 
 of the word, might have answered her purpose. 
 She might, consistently enough, have rested on 
 this only. But man’s reasoning powers could 
 not be entirely ignored, or his desire for some- 
 thing like Scripture precedent entirely repressed. 
 Besides, it seemed a safer course not to exercise 
 directly her assumed right of adding to the 
 Word of God. The same object might be at- 
 tained by accommodation of the enactments of 
 the older dispensation to that of Christianity. 
 The number of special days, and the observances 
 provided for them, were such as already to ex- 
 hibit a likeness to Judaism, and in fact were a 
 conscious or unconscious imitation of Judaism. 
 It was but one step further to lay down, for- 
 mally, that Christian institutions were the 
 legitimate and antitypical successors of those of 
 the Jews, and, mutatis mutandis, to inculcate 
 as far as possible, not merely the scriptural, but 
 the traditional manner of observing Jewish insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 So far as the elaboration of a system went, 
 the Church of Rome was perfectly successful. 
 Christian men were thoroughly entangled in it, 
 and if they tried to carry it out, to live it (so to 
 speak), they were hampered at every turn. So far, 
 however, as practice went, the strictness of the 
 provisions supplied produced an effect the reverse 
 of what was intended. Human nature rebelled 
 against it. The days now made co-ordinate, or 
 
LECTURE VI. 917 
 
 nearly so, both as to origin and as to observance, 
 with the Lord’s Day, were either not kept at all 
 as holy days (they were too numerous for that, 
 compatibly with the business of life), or they 
 became holidays of the worst kind, mere excuses 
 for licentiousness. And the desecration of these 
 involved with it the desecration of the Lord’s 
 Day. The multitude did not pause to make 
 subtle distinctions. Perhaps the Lord’s Day was 
 even worse observed than the other days, for, in 
 spite of the Church, men had a vague impression 
 that it was one of specially allowed intermission 
 of ordinary employments. This they interpreted 
 to mean of more special permission of dissipation 
 than the other days noted in the kalendar. 
 
 Irregular and partial protests about this state 
 of things (which was the growth of centuries) 
 had from time, as we have seen, been uttered. 
 But it was reserved for the sixteenth century to 
 witness a more general protest against the Church 
 of Rome, both in this matter, and in other matters 
 which need not be entered upon here. How that 
 general protest affected the Lord’s Day upon the 
 Continent, what it did and what it omitted to do, 
 to what causes such omission is to be traced, and 
 with what lasting results it has been attended, 
 and finally, what has been the state of feeling 
 and practice on the subject from that time to the 
 present, I propose to consider to-day. The con- 
 temporary history of England must be reserved 
 for my next Lecture. 
 
218 LECTURE VI. 
 
 The text, which of course you will have sur- 
 mised, is intended rather as a motto than as a 
 text strictly so called, expresses negatively, at 
 least, the manner in which the Continental 
 Reformers dealt with the Lord’s Day, espe- 
 cially if it is explained by the Version of the 
 Seventy. 
 
 When viewed in combination with each other, 
 the two Versions present the following ideas: 
 Punishment and partial overthrow are pro- 
 nounced by the Almighty against Jerusalem. 
 The executioners of His wrath are desired to “ go 
 up upon the walls of that city and destroy.” 
 But their commission to destroy is limited by an 
 accompanying caution; they are “not to make 
 a full end.” ‘Its battlements, indeed, are to be 
 taken away, for they are not the Lord’s,” they 
 have been added without His sanction—they are 
 evidences that Judah has trusted rather to his 
 own devices than to Him without whom “they 
 who build the house do but lose their labour.” 
 But “its underworks (ὑποστηρίγματα) are to be 
 left; these are the Lord’s’”—they were con- 
 structed with His sanction, and they are there- 
 fore intended to remain, both as a memorial of 
 Him and as a basis for future defences. The 
 meaning of course is, that while God would 
 destroy whatever was sinful in Jewish practice, 
 He would not at that time do away with the 
 Jews as a nation. 
 
 The application of this to our purpose is 
 
LECTURE VI. 219 
 
 obvious. The Continental Reformers, generally, 
 were persuaded, and we find no fault with them 
 for this, that the time was come for purifying 
 the Church of God, that great Christian Insti- 
 tution of which Jerusalem was a type, both in 
 its calling and in its backsliding; both in its 
 original construction by the guidance or per- 
 mission of a Divine Artificer, and in its having 
 had unauthorised and sinful additions made to 
 it according to the devices of man. But they 
 forgot, the majority of them at least, the limi- 
 tations under which (and a canon for which is 
 supplied in the text) all such reforms should be 
 conducted. Hence, while sweeping away what 
 was human in doctrine and practice, they 
 trenched in various particulars upon what was 
 Apostolical and Divine. 
 
 A multitude of instances crowd upon me, but 
 I will only mention a few. The low views enter- 
 tained by several foreign Protestant communions 
 of the grace of Baptism and of the Holy Eu- 
 charist are cases painfully in point. If the 
 Church of Rome had made the former of these 
 a charm and condensed the latter into an idol, 
 there were those who in their reforming zeal, 
 and in the not unnatural reaction produced by 
 a sense of liberty, reduced the one to a rite of 
 initiation, the other to a mere metaphor. And 
 so of other things. If Orders had been un- 
 scripturally multiplied, and Ordination and Con- 
 firmation raised to a dignity co-ordinate with 
 
290 LECTURE VI. 
 
 that of the ‘two Sacraments ordained of Christ 
 our Lord in the Gospel;”’ if the doctrine of 
 Penances and Indulgences had caricatured (I 
 can use no weaker term) “the Power of the 
 Keys,” the commission “to bind and loose; ”’ 
 and if confession to the priest had been made 
 of obligation ; there were those who forgot what 
 our own Church has righteously maintained and 
 acted upon. I allude, of course, to such positions 
 as that “from the Apostles’ time there have been 
 these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church; 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; ᾿᾿ that “God hath 
 given power and commandment to His mini- 
 sters to declare and pronounce to His people, 
 being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of 
 their sins ’’—and that it is ““ after the example 
 of Christ’s own Apostles that the bishops lay 
 their hands upon those come to years of discre- 
 tion, to certify them by that sign of His favor 
 and gracious goodness towards them.” 
 
 And so it was in reference to the Lord’s Day. 
 With one blow as it were, and with one consent, 
 the Continental Reformers rejected the Legal or 
 Jewish title which had been set up for it; the 
 more than Jewish ceremonies and restrictions by 
 which, in theory at least, it had been encum- 
 bered; the army of Holydays of obligation by 
 which it had been surrounded. But they did 
 more. They left standing no sanction for the 
 Day itself which could commend itself power- 
 fully to men’s consciences. They did not per- 
 
LECTURE VI. 221 
 
 ceive that, through the Apostles, it was of the 
 Lord’s founding. They swept away together 
 with the wpper-works which were not the Lord’s, 
 the wunder-works which were the Lord’s. And 
 when they discovered that men, that human 
 nature in fact, could not do without it, they 
 adopted the Day, indeed, but with this reserva- 
 tion expressed or implied: “‘ The Lord’s Day is 
 to be placed in the category of ordinances which, 
 being matters of indifference, any ‘ particular or 
 national Church hath authority to ordain, change 
 or abolish’ ”’—or, which was worse still, they 
 made it a purely civil institution, dependent if 
 not for its origin, at least for its continuance, 
 on the secular power. ‘This was Brentzer’s 
 view. 
 
 Other causes have been suggested as having 
 actuated the Continental Reformers in their 
 adoption of low grounds for the observance 
 of the Lord’s Day. It has been said that 
 “strongly as they believed and asserted that 
 Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross was made once 
 for all, and that no human sacrifice could render 
 it more complete, they did not hold, practically 
 at least, that it was a sacrifice for mankind, that 
 the world was reconciled to God.” In other 
 words, that in consequence of denying the uni- 
 versality of the Atonement, they could not admit 
 the divine claims of a Day on which “ Christ 
 risen’’ was proclaimed as the fountain of risen 
 life for all. Ido not indeed contend that this 
 
222 LECTURE VI. 
 
 feeling may not have had, though unconsciously 
 to the holders, an operation upon some leading 
 minds. It should, however, be remembered that 
 the tenet of particular Redemption was far from 
 being adopted everywhere, and that therefore it 
 can scarcely be to this that a view held by the 
 Continental Reformers generally 15 traceable. 
 Again, decidedly as they were opposed to her 
 theory, I could imagine the practice of the 
 Church of Rome to have exercised a partial 
 influence on them,—but I believe the real reason 
 to be that of which I have spoken already. 
 
 Nor is this my own opinion merely. The 
 well-known sentence in Luther’s “Table Talk” 
 exhibits both what the Continental Reformers 
 feared, and the exaggerated tone in which they 
 desired their followers to shun the apprehended 
 danger. ‘If anywhere,’’ he says, “the day is 
 made holy for the mere day’s sake,—if anywhere 
 any one sets up its observance on a Jewish foun- 
 dation, then I order you to work on it, to ride on 
 it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do anything 
 that shall remove this encroachment on Christian 
 liberty.”” And Richard Baxter says, apolo- 
 getically, “For Calvin, and Beza, and most of 
 the great divines of the foreign Churches,—you 
 must remember that they came newly out of 
 Popery, and had seen the Lord’s Day and a 
 superabundance of other human holy-days im- 
 posed on the Churches to be ceremoniously 
 observed, and they did not all of them so clearly 
 
LECTURE VI. 223 
 
 as they ought discern the difference between the 
 Lord’s Day and those Holy-days, or Church 
 Festivals, and so did too promiscuously conjoin 
 them in their reproofs of the burdens imposed 
 on the Church. And it being the Papists’ cere- 
 moniousness, and their multitude of Festivals 
 that stood altogether in their eye, it tempted 
 them to too undistinguishing and unaccurate a 
 reformation.” 
 
 But let me now turn to my authorities. 
 
 The first that I shall quote is the “ Larger 
 Catechism’”’ of Luther. 
 
 The comment which it offers on the Fourth 
 Commandment begins by explaining the word 
 Sabbath, with reference to its Hebrew meaning, 
 to be a “ Feiertag,” “dies feriandi seu vacandi 
 a labore.” Tt then goes on to speak thus :—‘ This 
 precept, so far as its outward and carnal meaning 
 is concerned, does not apply to us Christians. 
 The Sabbath is an outward thing, like the other 
 ordinances of the Old Testament, which were 
 bound to certain modes, and persons, and times, 
 and places, but are now all of them made free 
 by Christ. But still, in order that we may 
 gather for simple people some Christian meaning 
 from this precept, understand what God requires 
 of us therein in the following manner. We cele- 
 brate festivals, not for the sake of intelligent and 
 instructed Christians, (for these have no need of 
 them,) but first, even for the sake of the body. 
 Nature herself teaches the lesson that the 
 
224, LECTURE VI. 
 
 working classes, servants, and maids are to be 
 considered; they have spent the whole week in 
 laborious employment, and require a day on 
 which they may take breath from their work, 
 and refresh themselves and restore their ex- 
 hausted frames by repose. ‘The second reason, 
 and indeed the chief one, is this:—that on such 
 day of rest (an dem solchem Ruhetage—die Sab- 
 batt), leisure and time may be obtained for divine 
 worship, (a duty for which, otherwise, no op- 
 portunity could be found,) so that we may 
 come together to hear and handle the Word 
 of God, and further, that we may glorify 
 God with hymns and psalms, with songs and 
 prayers. 
 
 «Tt is, however, to be observed, that with us, 
 this is not so tied to certain times in the way 
 it was with the Jews, as that this or that day 
 in particular should be ordered or enjoined for 
 it. No day is better or more excellent than 
 another. These duties ought to be performed 
 every day. But the majority of mankind are 
 so cumbered with business, that they could not 
 be present at such assemblies. Some one day, 
 therefore, at least, must be selected in each week 
 for attention to these matters. And seeing that 
 those who preceded us (majores nostri) chose the 
 Lord’s Day (Sonntag—Dies Dominica) for them, 
 this harmless and admitted custom must not be 
 readily changed; our objects in retaining it are, 
 the securing of unanimity and consent of arrange- 
 
LECTURE VI. 225 
 
 ment, and the avoidance of the general confusion 
 which would result from individual and un- 
 necessary innovation.” 
 
 The celebrated Confession read and signed at 
 Augsburg, A.D. 1531, which was adopted by the 
 whole body of “ the Protestants”’ as their rule of 
 faith, is my next authority. (This document owes 
 its form to Melanchthon, though the matter of it 
 was supplied by Luther, who during the diet was 
 residing at Coburg, a town in the neighbour- 
 hood.) Its language is to the following effect : 
 «Those who judge that in the place of the 
 Sabbath the Lord’s Day was instituted as a 
 day to be necessarily observed, are greatly mis- 
 taken. Scripture abrogated the Sabbath, and 
 teaches that all the Mosaic ceremonies may be 
 omitted now that the Gospel is revealed. And 
 yet, forasmuch as it was needful to appoint a 
 certain day that the people might know when 
 they ought to assemble together, it appears that 
 the Church destined the Lord’s Day for this 
 purpose. This day seems to have the rather 
 pleased them, in order that men might have 
 thereby a proof of Christian liberty, and know 
 that the observance whether of the Sabbath or of 
 the other day was not a matter of necessity.”’ 
 It goes on to reprobate the discussions which 
 have taken place, “about the change of the 
 law, the ceremonies of the new law, the change 
 of the Sabbath,” which it attributes “to a false 
 persuasion that the Church’s worship ought to 
 
 Q 
 
220 LECTURE VI. 
 
 be like the Levitical:”’ ““ Some,” it says, “ argue 
 that the observance of the Lord’s Day is not 
 ‘juris divini, sed quasi juris divini;’ and pre- 
 scribe how far it is lawful to work on holidays. 
 All these disputations, what are they but snares 
 for consciences ?”’ 
 
 A later edition of this Confession, put forth 
 A.D. 1540, though it slightly varies the above 
 statement, has nothing upon which I need 
 dwell. 
 
 But to pass for a few minutes to individual 
 writers. 
 
 Chemnitz (born a.p. 1522, died a.p. 1586), 
 who has deservedly obtained a place among the 
 more eminent followers of Luther, charged the 
 Romanists with superstition, because they taught 
 an inherent sanctity in the Lord’s Day and other 
 festivals ; and while he would prohibit such 
 labours as interfere with divine service, thought 
 it ““ἃ Jewish leaven”’ to prohibit such as do not 
 so interfere. 
 
 Bucer (born a.p. 1491, died a.p. 1550) wrote, 
 as is well known, a book “ Concerning the King- 
 dom of Christ,’’ which he presented to King 
 Edward the Sixth of England, as a New Year’s 
 gift. In it he referred to the miseries of Ger- 
 many and the German reformation, and to the 
 want of ecclesiastical discipline, the adoption 
 of which he strongly recommended in England. 
 This was to begin by a more careful refusal of 
 the Eucharist to ill-livers, by the sanctification 
 
LECTURE VI. 22:7 
 
 of the Lord’s Day, of holidays, and of days of 
 fasting, which last he proposed should be more 
 numerous and less confined to Lent, a season 
 which had been popularly disregarded. And 
 yet the man who wrote thus says, “To think 
 that working on the Lord’s Day is in itself a 
 sin, is a superstition, and a denying of the 
 grace of Christ.”’ 
 
 Not less remarkable, if we may trust Heylin’s 
 account of the matter, was a statement made by 
 Peter Martyr (born a.p. 1500, died Α.Ὁ. 1562). 
 A question had been put to him, why the old 
 Seventh Day was not observed in the Christian 
 Church. His reply was, “That on that day, 
 and on all the other days, we ought to rest from 
 our own works, the works of sin. But as to this 
 day being chosen rather than that for God’s 
 public service, that Christ left to the liberty of 
 the Church, to do therem what should seem 
 most expedient.’”’ And further, “that the 
 Church did very well, in that she did prefer 
 the memory of the Resurrection, before the 
 memory of the Creation.” 
 
 I come now to the Heidelberg Catechism, 
 which was drawn up by Ursinus, A.D. 1563, and 
 was almost universally adopted by the Calvinist 
 or Reformed section of the Continentals. It is 
 curious on two accounts. First, as making the 
 Fourth Commandment refer to the worship of 
 God, and various matters connected with it, 
 generally (cw aliis, tum precipué festis diebus), 
 
 QE 2 
 
228 LECTURE VI. 
 
 without special mention of the Lord’s Day; 
 and, secondly, as supposing that it enjoins 
 such a constant abstinence from sin as shall 
 allow God to work His work in man’s heart by 
 His Holy Spirit, to the end that even in this 
 life man may begin that never-ceasing Sabbath 
 predicted by Isaiah. 
 
 The words of Calvin himself are‘much of the 
 same character. The Sabbath is abrogated. This 
 he asserts boldly. It was a typical and shadowy 
 Ordinance which is required no longer, now that 
 the antitype and substance thereof have been 
 manifested. Yet it has given a hint in various 
 matters to the Christian Church. That we rest 
 constantly from our own works, and allow God 
 to work His work in us; that we employ our- 
 selves privately in meditating on God’s work ; 
 and that we observe the lawful order appointed 
 by the Church, for hearing the word, for mini- 
 stration of the sacraments, for public prayer,— 
 that we avoid oppressing those who are under 
 us, whether our servants or our beasts of bur- 
 then. The seventh of our time, and in particular 
 the first day of the week, seem to be indicated, 
 the one as a convenient proportion of our life, 
 and the other as the special portion. 'The provi- 
 sion made for the Jews points to the former— 
 and ancient, even apostolic practice to the latter. 
 But the proportion and the special portion, though 
 the First Day be the Day of the Resurrection, are 
 alike matters of indifference. He is particularly 
 
LECTURE VI. 229 
 
 severe on those who, in former ages, had imbued 
 mankind with Jewish ideas, such as developed 
 themselves in the assertion that, while the 
 ceremonial part of the command, that is, the 
 observance of the seventh day, was abolished, 
 its moral part, which they stated to be the 
 observance of one day in seven, remained. 
 What is this, he says, but to insult the Jews 
 by changing the day, while they imitate the 
 Jews by observing one which they invest with 
 the same sanctity P The result of their doctrine 
 is, that they have gone thrice as far as the Jews 
 themselves in a gross and carnal Sabbatism, and 
 deserve Isaiah’s reproaches on that subject even 
 more than the Jews deserved them. 
 
 Thus far Calvin; and the Catechism of Ge- 
 neva, and certain statements of Beza, his dis- 
 ciple, fully carry out his view. Much to the 
 same purpose speaks the Helvetic Confession, 
 drawn up A.D. 1566. This document premises, 
 that religion is not bound to stated times, but 
 that without due distinction of times it cannot 
 be planted and fostered. On these two prin- 
 ciples combined, each Church determines for 
 itself a certain time for public prayer, for the 
 preaching of the word, and for the celebration 
 of the sacraments. It is not, however, left free 
 to each individual to overturn the arrangement 
 made by his Church in this behalf. And, suf- 
 ficient leisure is a requisite to the maintenance 
 of religion. Men would otherwise be drawn 
 
230 LECTURE VI. 
 
 away from it by the distractions of their worldly 
 affairs. Then it goes to make this statement :— 
 ςς Hence we see that in the Churches of old, from 
 the very times of the Apostles, not merely were 
 certain days in each week appointed for religious 
 assemblies, but the Lord’s Day itself was con- 
 secrated to that purpose and to holy rest. This 
 practice our Churches retain for worship’s sake 
 and for charity’s sake. But we do not thereby 
 give countenance to Judaic observance or to 
 superstition. We do not believe, either that one 
 day is more sacred than another, or that mere 
 rest is in itself pleasing to God. We keep a 
 Lord’s Day, not a Sabbath Day, by an uncon- 
 strained observance.” 
 
 We are now, I think, in a condition to sum 
 up the views of the Continental Reformers of the 
 Sixteenth Century on the subject ‘before us. 
 Sabbatarians indeed those eminent men were 
 not. They are utterly opposed to the literal 
 application of the Fourth Commandment to 
 the circumstances of Christians. They scarcely 
 touch upon that Commandment, except to show 
 ει that the Sabbath has passed away. So far they 
 agree with the Ancient Church. But when we 
 examine the manner in which they speak of the 
 Lord’s Day, we cannot help noticing a marked 
 difference between them and the early Fathers. 
 That simple assertion, ‘“‘ We observe the First 
 Day, on which Christ rose from the dead,” is 
 never made by them as a matter of course, with- 
 
LECTURE VI. 231 
 
 out the slightest fear of its being called in 
 question, and with no more doubt of its ad- 
 missibility than attends anything else derived 
 from the inspired Apostles. They feel it neces- 
 sary to defend their practice, on grounds, some- 
 times perhaps of Apostolic example (with the 
 proviso, however, that such example is to be 
 taken only for what it is worth), but generally, 
 of Antiquity, of the Church’s will, of the 
 Church’s wisdom, of considerations of expedi- 
 ency, of regard to the weaker brethren, and 
 sometimes on lower grounds still. And neither 
 the day itself, nor the interval at which it 
 recurs, is of obligation. Our Lord’s Resurrection 
 is made a decent excuse for the day, rather than 
 the original reason, or one of the original rea- 
 sons, of its institution. We miss also in their 
 writings that close connexion of the Lord’s Day 
 with the Lord’s Supper, which was prominently 
 brought forward in early times. Therefore, to 
 class together these writers and documents, and 
 those of the Ancient Church, as similar, though 
 distant links of a chain which is to prove the 
 Lord’s Day to be a purely Ecclesiastical insti- 
 tution, is, I feel persuaded, a fallacy and a snare. 
 And it seems to me more than probable that 
 the want of a deeper sanction for the observance 
 of the Lord’s Day than their teachers supplied, 
 led the members both of the Protestant and of 
 the Reformed Communions into ἃ practical 
 disregard of it, closely resembling that of the 
 
232 LECTURE VI. 
 
 Communion which they had indignantly dis- 
 claimed. It paved the way also, bye and bye, 
 for a partial and temporary reception of Sab- 
 batarianism—a doctrine which had this at least 
 to say for itself, that, compared with the purely 
 Ecclesiastical view, it traced the original of its 
 weekly observance, though not to an inspired 
 college of Apostles, yet to an inspired Law- 
 giver. 
 
 Towards the end of the sixteenth century, Dr. 
 Bownd’s work was published in England. What 
 reception it experienced there we shall see after- 
 wards. Suffice it to say at present, that the view 
 which it inculcated, viz. the basing both the ob- 
 ligation and the observance of the Lord’s Day 
 directly on the Fourth Commandment, spread in 
 a very short time from England to Holland. 
 Certain Puritans who sought an asylum in Zea- 
 land were its original introducers. Then followed 
 a maze of controversy, in threading which I 
 thankfully accept the guidance of Hengsten- 
 berg. It was first put forth so as to attract 
 notice in two works on Ethics, by Udemann in 
 1612, and then by Teelling in 1617. Mosheim 
 speaks most respectfully of the latter of these 
 two writers as a systematizer of the science of 
 Christian morality, which Calvin and his asso- 
 ciates had left in an imperfect state. Several 
 ministers embraced the new opinions, (for new 
 indeed they were), others retained those which 
 they had inherited from the earlier Reformers. 
 
LECTURE VI. 233 
 
 The contest thus generated soon reached such a 
 height that the Synod of Dort, which met a.p. 
 1618, could not help noticing it. It does not 
 indeed, appear that the question was formally 
 entertained until the Synod was virtually closed 
 by the departure of “the Foreigners.’’ But 
 some supplementary Sessions were afterwards 
 held. In these the practical neglect of the 
 Lord’s Day in Holland, which had scandalized 
 the English divines, was recommended to the 
 notice of “their High-Mightinesses the States 
 General,” that it might be “obviated and re- 
 strained by new ordinances and strict pla- 
 cards.”’ It is curious to find that this resort to 
 the secular power had been suggested by the 
 English at the 148th Session, and especially by 
 the English Bishop (Carlton of Llandaff), at the 
 14th Session of the Synod. An enquiry was 
 made in what manner persons were compelled in 
 other countries to go to church, and ‘keep the 
 whole Sabbath as they ought?” He replied, 
 “that in fis country the civil magistrate set 
 a fine, or pecuniary penalty, upon those who 
 forebore coming to Divine Service, according to 
 their duty; ᾿᾿ and (he added with great naiveté), 
 “that such fine wrought much more on the 
 people than any the most pious exhortations.” 
 Of this by the way. To reconcile the contending 
 theorists, certain ‘‘ orders for the observation of 
 the Lord’s Day,”’ were drawn up by the Divinity 
 Professors, present at the Synod, with the con- 
 
234 LECTURE VI. 
 
 currence of the Clergy of Zealand, and read and 
 approved. They run thus :— 
 
 1. In the Fourth Commandment of the Law of 
 God, there is something ceremonial, and some- 
 thing moral. 
 
 2. The resting upon the seventh day after the 
 creation, and the strict observation of it, which 
 was particularly imposed upon the Jewish people, 
 was the ceremonial part of that law. 
 
 3. But the moral part is, that a certain day be 
 fixed and appropriated to the service of God, and 
 as much rest as is necessary to that service and 
 the holy meditation upon Him. 
 
 4. The Jewish Sabbath being abolished, Chris- 
 tians are obliged solemnly to keep holy the 
 Lord’s Day. 
 
 5. This Day has ever been observed by the 
 ancient Catholic Church, from the time of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 6. This Day ought to be appropriated to reli- 
 gion in such a manner as that we should abstain 
 from all servile works at that time, excepting 
 those of charity and necessity; as likewise from 
 all such diversions as are contrary to religion. 
 
 Within the limits of these articles, which were 
 indeed remarkably moderate, it was hoped that 
 both parties might rest contented, until the ‘““New 
 National Synod” should take further cognizance. 
 of the matter. It failed, however, to produce any 
 effect. The subject was of too domestic a cha- 
 racter, and one of which men were too frequently 
 
LECTURE VI. 235 
 
 reminded, to be easily glossed over. The age 
 was one which demanded definite statements 
 on other matters—why should they be with- 
 held on this? The ministers had begun the 
 controversy. After their example the professors 
 of nearly all the Academies in Holland engaged 
 in it, and it was continued for almost a hundred 
 years. 
 
 It is impossible to do more than allude to the 
 principal combatants on either side. The cele- 
 brated Calvinist Gomarus was at the com- 
 mencement of the contest the chief opponent 
 of Sabbatarianism. In his Hvamen Sabbati, 
 published a.p. 1628, he maintained that the 
 Sabbath was first delivered to the Israelites in 
 the desert, and was an institution of a cere- 
 monial character. His position was that of 
 Professor of Hebrew, and also of Theology, at 
 Leyden. He was not unopposed either in his own 
 university or elsewhere; Rivetus, and Waleeus, 
 both.of them Theological Professors at Leyden, 
 William Ames, an Englishman, but naturalized 
 in Holland, and eventually Theological Professor 
 at Franeker in Friesland, and Voétius (some- 
 time a student at Leyden), who held a similar 
 office at Utrecht, wrote vigorously against por- 
 tions of his views. At Leyden, and perhaps 
 elsewhere, attempts were made to moderate 
 between the parties. They may have partially 
 succeeded, for there seems to have been a short 
 lull of the storm, unless, as Herodotus says of 
 
236 LECTURE VI. 
 
 the storm off Cape Sepias, ἄλλως κως αὐτὸς ἐθέλων 
 ἐκόπασε. 
 
 A few years afterwards the contest broke forth 
 again. Two Theological Professors of Leyden, 
 Heidanus and Cocceius, argued very strongly 
 for the purely ecclesiastical origin and obligation 
 of the Lord’s Day. The latter of these seems 
 to have entertained the strange view that “ the 
 Ten Commandments were promulgated by Moses 
 not as a Rule of Obedience, but as a Represen- 
 tation of the Covenant of Grace.” ‘This of 
 course made the Sabbath merely typical even 
 under Judaism, and ἃ fortiori typical under 
 Christianity. Hoornbeeck, also a professor of 
 Theology, opposed his colleagues, and the con- 
 test grew so hot at Leyden that the States 
 General at length interfered. An edict was 
 issued (Aug. 7, 1659), prohibiting any further 
 discussion, and referring to the Six Articles of 
 Dort as final. Whatever effect this measure 
 may have had at Leyden, the subject was by 
 no means suffered to rest elsewhere. At Utrecht, 
 Kissen attacked the line of argument taken by 
 Cocceius ; Francis Burmann supported that line, 
 and applied to his antagonists a remark made by 
 Augustine in writing to Jerome, concerning the 
 ensnarers of the Galatians, ““ Dum volunt esse et 
 Judeei et Christiani, nee Judzei nec Christiani esse 
 potuerunt.” Less courteous words than these 
 were exchanged between them and their respec- 
 tive followers. At Groningen, the Professors of 
 
LECTURE VI. 237 
 
 Divinity and of Hebrew embraced different 
 sides. The former, Maresius, or Des Maréts, 
 agreed with Cocceius: the opinions of the latter, 
 Alting, may be surmised from the facts that 
 his enemies said that he needed nothing but 
 circumcision to constitute him a Jew, and that 
 he himself scarcely disguised his regret that he 
 had not been submitted to that ordinance. 
 After some further controversy, matters ended 
 im an acquiescence in the purely Ecclesiastical 
 view, on the part of nearly all the Reformed 
 bodies on the Continent. But by this time the 
 Highteenth Century had commenced. 
 
 There is little doubt, I apprehend, that much 
 of the attention which Sabbatarian views re- 
 ceived in Holland is attributable to their appear- 
 ing to be a refuge from the prevailing disregard 
 of the Lord’s Day. A similar yearning recom- 
 mended them to earnest and thoughtful men in 
 various parts of Germany, during a portion of 
 the time of which we have been speaking. But 
 here their spread was comparatively silent and. 
 eradual. Men held them perhaps privately, but 
 it was a considerable time before any open 
 promulgation of what was obviously opposed 
 to their authorized Confessions of Faith was 
 attempted. At length, however, they seem to 
 have spread so widely as to demand public 
 notice—and Fecht, a Lutheran divine and his- 
 torian, of Rostock, wrote against them. This 
 was in 1688. Still, in spite of the power and 
 
298 LECTURE VI. 
 
 learning which he employed, they gained ground 
 daily. At Holstein we find them thoroughly 
 in the ascendant by 1701. A translation of one 
 of Francis Burmann’s works had been published 
 there. Judged by the standard of the Augsburg 
 Confession it was strictly orthodox. But it was 
 attacked by Schwartz, the general superintendent 
 of the province, and declared by him to contain 
 “false doctrine, and to be fraught with evil 
 consequences to the land.” 
 
 Mayer, the General Superintendent of the 
 Churches in Pomerania, seems also to have 
 espoused the Sabbatarian views about this time. 
 In Α.Ὁ. 1707, an able antagonist appeared against 
 him in the person of John Samuel Stryk, a jurist 
 of Halle, who had succeeded his father (also an 
 eminent jurist) in the professorship of Law at 
 that University. As those of the other side had 
 become Sabbatarians through dislike of the pre- 
 vailing licence on the Lord’s Day, so this man 
 adopted the purely Ecclesiastical view, from dis- 
 like of the Pharisaic strictness which the other 
 view rendered obligatory. He had no doubt the 
 best intentions, but his zeal against days and for- 
 malism carried him to a very dangerous extreme. 
 He would allow the advanced Christian to be 
 independent of the Lord’s Day; such a man is 
 above all ordinances; even the day itself might 
 be changed, so purely is it a matter of indif- 
 ference, if it seem good to the civil power. His 
 work and that of Fecht, which he caused to be 
 
LECTURE VI. 239 
 
 reprinted, created a great sensation in Germany. 
 A host of writers opposed it, so deeply rooted 
 had Sabbatarianism become. 
 
 I might mention several writers, Buddeeus of 
 Jena, for instance, who upheld Mayer’s view; 
 but the name of Spener, who about a.p. 1680 
 founded one branch of the practical reformers 
 called Pietists, deserves especial notice. He felt 
 strongly on the moral obligation of the Jewish 
 ordinance, but at the same time he valued quiet 
 above controversy. It did not escape him that 
 the Confession of Augsburg was decidedly against 
 what he conscientiously held, and he had suffi- 
 cient misgiving of the prudence of his partisans, 
 to make him fear that the inculcation of too 
 strict a theory would produce a reaction in prac- 
 tice. He preferred, as indeed did the great 
 Scottish divine, Dr. Chalmers, long afterwards, 
 to rest the argument for the Lord’s Day on the 
 experience of those who have tasted its blessed- 
 ness. In fact, the eloquent words of the latter 
 might have been used by Spener. “ For the 
 permanency of the Sabbath, we might argue its 
 place in the decalogue, where it stands enshrined 
 among the moralities of a rectitude that is im- 
 mutable and everlasting; and we might argue 
 the traditional homage and observancy in which 
 it has been held since the days of the Apostles ; 
 and we might argue the undoubted and experi- 
 mental fact, that where this day is best kept, 
 there all the other graces of Christianity are in 
 
240 LECTURE VI. 
 
 most healthful exercise and preservation. But 
 we rather waive, for the present, all these consi- 
 derations; and would rest the perpetuity of the 
 Sabbath law on this affirmation, that, while a 
 day of unmeaning drudgery to the formalist, it 
 is, to every real Christian, a day of holy and 
 heavenly delight,—that he loves the law, and so 
 has it graven on the tablet of his heart, with a 
 power of sovereignty over his actions, which it 
 never had when it was only engraven on a tablet 
 of stone, or on the tablet of an outward reve- 
 lation,—that, wherever there is a true principle 
 of religion, the consecration of the Sabbath is 
 felt, not as a bondage, but is felt to be the very 
 beatitude of the soul,—and that, therefore, the 
 keeping of it, instead of being to be viewed as 
 a slavish exaction on the time and services of 
 the outer man, is the direct and genuine fruit 
 of a spiritual impulse on the best affections of 
 the inner man.” 
 
 One is loth to mar the effect of this passage 
 by anything approaching to criticism. It is, 
 however, obvious to remark, that the subjective 
 argument, how valuable soever for the mutual 
 comfort and edification of those who, already 
 observing a duty, communicate with deep joy, 
 each to his brother, “‘ what God has done for his 
 soul’’—will hardly prevail with the gainsayer. 
 And there is another grave fault in it. It is 
 liable to lead to such a severance of action and 
 feeling from principle, that if applied generally, 
 
LECTURE VI. 241 
 
 if would render us incapable “of giving an 
 answer to every man that asketh us a reason of 
 the hope that is in us.”’ Its extreme develop- 
 ment is exhibited in that notorious line, 
 “He can’t be wrong whose life is in the right,” 
 
 which if once adopted destroys whatever is objec- 
 tive, not merely in morality, but in theology. 
 
 The learned Mosheim, (Chancellor of Gottin- 
 gen, died A.D. 1755) whose name I mentioned in 
 my Fifth Lecture, coincided with neither of the 
 two contending parties. He held that the Lord’s 
 Day and the Sabbath were perfectly distinct in- 
 stitutions, and that the latter, which was a pecu- 
 harity of Judaism, has entirely passed away. 
 And he held also, that the Lord’s Day is so 
 thoroughly traceable to the Apostles, so proved 
 by the universality of its prevalence, and the 
 consistency of the testimony concerning it, to be 
 an institution of their founding under inspired 
 guidance, as to demand, Jure Divino, the observ- 
 ance of Christians. He supplied, therefore,—at 
 least so it seems to me,—exactly the hold upon 
 the conscience, in which the purely Ecclesiastical 
 view is defective. He was, however, unsuccessful 
 in the enforcement of the higher view upon his 
 countrymen. The Sabbatarian view also has nearly 
 died out in Germany. ‘The prevalent notions 
 among the Protestants there, as well as among 
 the Reformed in other parts of the Continent, 
 give little encouragement to it. Academical 
 theses are constantly written upon the subject. 
 
 R 
 
242 LECTURE VI. 
 
 Several of these I have seen. They are generally 
 in the purely Hcclesiastical direction. Ο. C. L. 
 Franke, for instance, who wrote in 1826, is 
 determined that he will find no trace of an Apo- 
 stolic and Divine origin for Sunday. In par- 
 ticular he desires to get rid of the testimony 
 borne to this fact by the phrase ἐγενόμην ἐν 
 πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ: His scholarship 
 indeed will not allow him to change the arrange- 
 ment of the words, or to tamper with the text, 
 and with Augusti interpret the words of John’s 
 being spiritually in the day of Judgment; but 
 he chooses, contrary to almost every authority, 
 to refer it to Easter Day. And if this be not 
 allowed, he is willing rather to give up the 
 genuineness of the Book of the Revelation, and 
 - to attribute it to some unknown author at the 
 end of the first century, than allow an Apostle 
 to speak of the Lord’s Day ! 
 
 In closing my account of the manner in which 
 the Lord’s Day has been regarded or treated of 
 on the Continent, I ought not to pass over the 
 earnest and able man, whose treatise on the 
 subject has supplied me with the groundwork of 
 much that I have just now said, 1 mean HE. W. 
 Hengstenberg, Professor of Theology at Berlin. 
 He belongs to what has been called the Evan- 
 gelical section of the foreign Reformation. 
 
 His doctrine on the subject may be regarded 
 in two aspects, the destructive, and the con- 
 structive aspect. 
 
LECTURE VI. 243 
 
 Destructively, nothing can be clearer than his 
 statements, or more convincing than the manner 
 - In which he has substantiated them. The Sab- 
 bath does not depend upon the Creation words. 
 It was a Jewish institution. The Ten Com- 
 mandments are not exclusively a moral document. 
 The Sabbath was not simply for rest, but for 
 other high purposes. Our Lord did not abrogate 
 it in so many words, but he virtually abrogated 
 it, together with the remainder of the Law, by 
 fulfilling all its commands and all that it signi- 
 fied. The Apostles declared its abrogation in 
 express terms, and forbade any approach to 
 reimposing its obligation. Nothing like a trans- 
 fer of the obligation of the Sabbath to the Lord’s 
 Day took place, or could take place, without injury 
 to the distinctive character of the New Testament. 
 
 The constructive portion of his system, though 
 good in some respects, is neither so definite nor so 
 satisfactory. What appeared in the Old Testa- 
 ment was God’s revelation, and though fulfilled 
 by Christ, and abrogated so far as the letter is 
 concerned, seems still to be about and around the 
 Christian Church, at any rate to the following 
 extent : it is suggestive of the principle, that if 
 similar wants exist—such, for instance, as that 
 of periodic returns of a day of worship—they must 
 be met in a similar, though more spiritual way. 
 This is especially true of the manner in which 
 the Sabbath suggested the Sunday. Not that 
 Christ instituted the Sunday, or that His Apostles 
 
 R 2 
 
244, LECTURE VI. 
 
 instituted it, though no doubt they observed it 
 from the earliest days of the Faith, (Scripture 
 tells us this, and the historical testimony to it 
 is so constant and so universal, that we can find 
 no other origin for it); they had no more autho- 
 rity to do so than any one else had; they would 
 not have ventured upon ἃ step which appeared 
 to contradict their own teaching. The obser- 
 vance of the day arose from the spontaneous 
 feeling, by which nations, however unconnected, 
 commemorate events in the history of their 
 Founder, This feeling was especially strong in 
 the Apostles, who were intimate with the Founder 
 of the Church ; but their example in this matter 
 is useful to us, not as an inspired authority, but 
 as an evidence of the truth and genuineness of 
 the Christian feeling from which the observance 
 sprung. ‘The same feeling was further developed 
 in other festivals, the observance of which rests 
 on the same basis as that of Sunday. The only — 
 difference is that the benefits conferred by Him 
 whose day Sunday is, and consummated on that 
 day, are greater than any others which can be 
 stated or even imagined. And we retain the day 
 chosen by the Apostles, on the same principle, or 
 rather on the same spontaneous feeling, which 
 dictated its selection. Christ is still the same 
 Saviour, and His Resurrection, the climax of the 
 whole work of redemption, must have the same 
 importance for us, as for those who saw Him, 
 when risen, with their bodily eyes. In one sense, 
 
LECTURE VI. Q45 
 
 perhaps, the Lord’s Day is a Divine institution. 
 The Spirit guided and overruled what men 
 thought was their spontaneous feeling. The 
 Church, that is, universal Christendom, cannot 
 have gone wrong in the selection of her day of 
 worship; and its existence as a day of worship, 
 necessitates its further character as a day of rest. 
 It belongs to all, for all need it in both its 
 characters, the holiest, as well as those furthest 
 from God. Besides, by its possession of the 
 “‘semper, ubique, et ab omnibus ’”’ qualification, 
 or at least so far forth as it possesses it, (though 
 this of course is a modern argument), the Lord’s ° 
 Day has even a stronger claim upon men’s 
 regard now, than it had in the days of the 
 Apostles. By the observance of it we enter into 
 the closest fellowship with the whole Christian 
 Church of the present and the past; and the 
 consciousness of this fellowship must of neces- 
 sity exert a lively influence on our devotion. 
 
 This is what Hengstenberg offers us as a plea 
 for the Lord’s Day. One cannot help regretting 
 that he did not localize, so to speak, the super- 
 intending influence which he acknowledges dic- 
 tated the institution, in the Apostolic men, 
 whose practice, as in many other things, so in 
 this, seems at once to have been inspired, and to 
 be binding on the Church for ever. 
 
 It is curious, however, to find that even the 
 inadequate views entertained by this writer do 
 not prevent his being anxious to promote prac- 
 
246 LECTURE VI. 
 
 tically the observance of the Lord’s Day. He 
 is most anxious for this, and thus he refutes 
 the assertion that those only care for it who 
 hold the Sabbatarian opinions; and there are 
 other points connected with his treatise which 
 deserve notice. He is convinced that the Sab- 
 batarian view is unsound; he condemns such 
 recent German writers on the subject as take 
 that view, (Oschwald for instance entirely, and 
 Liebetrut partially), for inculcating it; he be- 
 lieves that as that view came originally from 
 England, so certain Sabbatarian efforts which 
 are now being made in Lower Saxony, come 
 from England also, and, theoretically, are much 
 to be deprecated; and he supposes that England 
 holds dogmatically the Sabbatarian view. But 
 what is the foundation of this last supposition ὃ 
 He fancies the Kirk of Scotland and the Church 
 of England to be perfectly at one on this subject, 
 and his ideas of our theology in general are 
 derived from Dr. Dwight the American—an 
 author who, whatever be his excellences, cer- 
 tainly wrote in a superficial manner, and without 
 much acquaintance with antiquity, on the Lord’s 
 Day. 
 
 With all this, Hengstenberg somewhat admires 
 our English Sunday. He sees, that despite of 
 the dogmatical view which he attributes to the 
 English, the Lord’s Day is more what it should 
 be amongst them, than it is in Germany and the 
 greater part of the Continent—where opinions 
 
LECTURE VI. 247 
 
 prevail more nearly in accordance with his 
 own. 
 
 How far he is right in attributing what he 
 does attribute to the English Church, we shall see 
 bye and bye. Whether he be right or wrong, he 
 is at any rate not singular in so doing. Olshau- 
 sen says incidentally (on Romans xiv. 5, 6), 
 ‘An Old Testament observance of the Sabbath, 
 such, for example, as prevails in England, is, 
 according to this passage, surely not that which 
 is objectively correct.” The Chevalier Bunsen is 
 more discriminating. But he complains that some 
 persons in the English and Scottish Churches 
 maintain that what is really a “relapse into 
 Jewish ceremonial, and an unchristian interrup- 
 tion of congregational and social life,” is “a 
 divine institution binding upon all Christians.” 
 He adds, that they should be “contented with 
 defending a wise and free popular custom, which 
 may be, within certain limits, a necessary correctio 
 for many people, as Christian and moral in the 
 idea.” These persons are “amiable in other 
 respects ;” but “Judaism remains Judaism, and 
 is both foreign and in opposition to the Gospel.” 
 His own view, as indeed he declares in so many 
 words, is in accordance with that of Hengstenberg. 
 Meanwhile, it is worth remarking that there 
 seems to exist at present, not merely in 
 Germany, but in other parts of the Continent, 
 at least here and there, a longing for some- 
 thing like the English Sunday. This, however, 
 
948 LECTURE VI. 
 
 is connected in some cases with Sabbatarian 
 views, despite of the testimony which nearly 
 every language of the Continent affords to the 
 difference between the Sabbath and the Sunday, 
 by the names of the two days: in other cases, 
 as among the Romanists, with false miracles, 
 that of “‘ Notre Dame de la Salette’’ for instance, 
 rebuking “la violation du Dimanche,” or with a 
 garbled version of the Fourth Commandment, 
 in order to enforce the observance of the day 
 by sanctions belonging to a distinct institution. 
 “Le Dimanche tu sanctifieras,’ which agrees 
 with a French metrical version of the Decalogue, 
 is the burden and, indeed, the text of a tract by 
 the Abbé Mullois, chief domestic Chaplain to the 
 French Emperor ; and he evidently assumes that 
 the command was given in this exact form amid 
 the thunderings and lightnings of Smai. Ger- 
 many, this writer considers to be in a better con- 
 dition than France, so far at least as abstinence 
 from. labour on the Lord’s Day is concerned ; and 
 he rejoices to be able to point to the good ex- 
 ample set recently even in Paris by the suspen- 
 sion of the public works for the junction of the 
 Tuileries to the Louvre on that Holy Day. But 
 words fail him in his attempts to describe his 
 abhorrence of “the selfish, criminal, and lewd 
 Sunday, without heart and without pity” 
 (un Dimanche égoiste, scélérat et débraillé, 
 sans coeur et sans pitié,) which prevails in 
 France generally, or to implore with sufficient 
 
LECTURE VI. 249 
 
 urgency the reestablishment among his coun- 
 trymen of “a respectable, beneficent, and humane 
 Sunday.” And then he points to England— 
 * You allege,” he exclaims, “the demands of 
 commerce, of arts and manufactures. The 
 English, I suppose, have no commerce ; those 
 poor people, no concern with arts and manu- 
 factures! Aye, but indeed they have. Their 
 business transactions are enormous; yet they 
 do no work on the Lord’s Day. Look at the 
 banks of the Thames. There are wharves and 
 dockyards extending leagues in length ; and on 
 week-days they are covered with a mass of work- 
 men. ‘The Lord’s Day arrives. All these work- 
 men rest ; and not a blow of the axe is given.” 
 
 Of course 1 quote this description of an English 
 Sunday, simply as an indication that there is, on 
 the Continent, a yearning for something higher 
 and better, in observance at least, than the perio- 
 dical return, to a large portion of the people, of 
 mere dissipation, and than, to another large part, 
 the existence of seven days’ unbroken toil. The 
 French clergy seem really exerting themselves to 
 promote a better observance of the Lord’s Day, 
 and an association exists in Paris, with branches 
 in many towns of France, for this laudable object. 
 Even the Pope has been induced to sanction the 
 movement, by a Brief given under “ the ring of 
 the Fisherman,” and dated December 22, 1854. 
 The document is indeed of a thoroughly Romish 
 character, and excites the zeal of the faithful 
 
250 LECTURE VI. 
 
 rather by “indulgences,” than by the desire to 
 promote God’s glory. And the publications of 
 the association are many of them strongly tinc- 
 tured with expediency or-with Judaism. Still 
 even this is a great step in a nation which in 
 A.D. 1793 abolished the Lord’s Day, and (though 
 speedily obliged to find a substitute for it, by 
 a tenth-day intermission of labour) did not 
 restore it till a.p. 1802. Ten years these without 
 the Lord’s Day, and, it is to be feared, without 
 the Lord ! 
 
 The Abbé Gaume, Vicaire Général de Nevers, 
 has written some interesting letters on the pro- 
 fanation of the Lord’s Day in France. His style 
 is very earnest, and one cannot help sympathising 
 with him in many of his remarks. But his 
 foundation is sadly insecure. He assumes that 
 the Sabbath was communicated to man in the 
 beginning, and that, after having been enforced 
 from Sinai, and urged throughout Jewish history, 
 it is identified in some unexplained manner 
 with the law of the Lord’s Day now. Putting 
 this aside, it is instructive to find him arguing 
 that all the revolutions and troubles which 
 France has gone through for these seventy years 
 are owing to neglect of the Lord’s Day. And 
 in answer to the economical argument, that 
 to observe it would be a ruinous waste of one 
 seventh of man’s existence, he appeals confi- 
 dently to the condition of England and of the 
 United States. “Put the case at the very 
 
LECTURE VI. 251 
 
 lowest, those countries are not the worse; their 
 commerce, their marine, their industry, their 
 agriculture are not impaired by the regard they 
 pay to ‘le jour sacré du repos.’ ” (Voyez lAn- 
 eleterre et les Htats-Unis. Parce qwils con- 
 tinuent de témoigner le respect le plus édifiant 
 pour le jour sacré du repos, ces deux peuples, 
 auxquels nous ne le cédons sous aucun autre 
 rapport, en sont-ils moins les deux rois de la 
 fortune et de l’opulence ἢ Leur commerce est-il 
 moins florissant que le nétre? leur marine moins 
 puissante et moins belle? leur industrie moins 
 avancée? leur agriculture moins intelligente ? 
 leur bien-étre moins générale et moins solide? 
 Si le cadre vous parait trop restreint, parcourez 
 V Europe entiere, et j’ose de nouveau défier tous 
 les chercheurs de citer un seul homme, une seule 
 famille, une seule province, une seule nation, que 
 la sanctification du dimanche ait appauvrie ou 
 empéchée de s’enrichiv. ) 
 
 In another part of his work, this writer gives 
 a too flattermg account of an English Sunday, 
 and wishes that he could see the like of it in his 
 own country. ; 
 
 Still these are only partial and ill-directed 
 efforts; so ill-directed that they sometimes stir 
 up the zeal of persons on the other side. (Louis 
 Victor Mellet, the pastor of Yvorne, in the Pyre- 
 nees, has written against what he calls Sabbatism, 
 and adopted instead of it the most extreme Eccle- 
 siastical theory of Sunday.) Some time, it is to 
 
252 LECTURE VI. 
 
 be feared, must elapse before any great and visible 
 change takes place. The majority of the Conti- 
 nental population cares little for the first day of the 
 week as the Lord’s Day. Romanists and those who 
 differ from Rome are alike obnoxious to the charge 
 of lightness in this matter. Paris, as we know, 
 shows few signs of religion on Sunday, beyond 
 the morning Mass (in spite of the exception just 
 mentioned). In Spain and Portugal, multitudes 
 rush, on Sunday, from the confessional to the 
 bull-fight. In Reformed Geneva it is, I under- 
 stand, a fact that though for a long time plays 
 were altogether forbidden, even in private houses, 
 they are now freely permitted in theatres, and 
 on Sundays. And as to Protestant Sweden, it 
 is not more than three years ago that evidence 
 was given in a trial before Lord Campbell, that 
 on Sunday bills are presented and counting- 
 houses open, and business transacted as usual. 
 Towards the end, too, of the legislative session, 
 the Diet sits frequently on Sunday, and after the 
 morning service, the clergy are seen going in 
 their robes to the hall where it is held. 
 
 To what may much of this be traced? In the 
 case of the Church of Rome, I believe to the 
 fact that she has, in order to raise other 
 festivals in estimation, lowered the Lord’s Day 
 to a mere Church ordinance, and having done 
 so, is unable to induce her members to con- 
 sider it anything but a Church Day, or more 
 binding on their consciences than many of her 
 
LECTURE VI. 253 
 
 indefensible ordinances. She still teaches her 
 children the Catechism drawn up by Bellarmine, 
 and sanctioned by the Bulls of Clement the 
 Highth, a.p. 1558, and of Benedict the Thirteenth, 
 A.D. 1728. That document, I should inform you, 
 travesties the Fourth Commandment thus, “ Re- 
 member to keep holy the festivals,’ (Ricordati 
 di sanctificare le Feste), placing every other fes- 
 tival on an equality with the Lord’s Day; and 
 by the existence of more festivals than can pos- 
 sibly be observed, produces an irreverent use of 
 all. Having thus lowered the Lord’s Day, in 
 vain does the Catechism afterwards enjoin, among 
 “the few Commandments which the Church has 
 added to the Commandments of God” (quelli 
 pochi, che ha aggiunto la Santa Chiesa), that men 
 should “hear Mass every Sunday, and on all 
 other appointed festivals’ (Udir la Messa tutti le 
 Domeniche, ed altre Feste comandate). In the case 
 of those who disagree with Rome, I believe that 
 the indifference with which their Reformers spoke 
 of the obligation to observe any one day in par- 
 ticular, has issued in a disregard of the particular 
 day which they chose. It is Luther’s day. It 
 is Calvin’s day. It is the day which the former 
 adopted out of consideration to the multitude ; 
 the day which the latter, after some hesitation, 
 preferred for expediency’s sake to Thursday. 
 This it is; but it is not the Day of the Lord,— 
 that on which His Humanity had its triumph ; 
 which, if the indications of Seripture and the 
 
254. LECTURE VI. 
 
 practice and language of the Apostles and of the 
 early Church are to have weight with us, is the 
 ‘Day of Praise of God, and of Love to man; 
 and which, bringing Christian (not Jewish) 
 Rest in its train, refreshes the whole man, body 
 and soul and spirit; which is the People’s Day 
 because it is the Lord’s Day. 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 JEREMIAH VI. 16. 
 
 STAND YE IN THE WAYS, AND SEE, AND ASK FOR THE OLD PATHS, WHERE IS 
 THE GOOD WAY, AND WALK THEREIN, AND YE SHALL FIND REST FOR YOUR 
 SOULS. 
 
 σ΄“ 408. ἐπ, ΄ if “ Ao a> / , a , > , 5 
 Στῆτε ἐπὶ ταῖς ὁδοῖς καὶ ἴδετε, καὶ ἐρωτήσατε τρίβους Κυρίου αἰωνίους" Kai 
 a ΄, > c eg ς» ‘ 4 , > > ‘ « “ 
 ἴδετε ποία ἐστιν ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀγαθὴ, καὶ βαδίσατε ἐν αὐτῃ, καὶ εὑρήσετε 
 » c 4 ΄ ΄ « ~ 
 ἁγνισμὸν (v. 1. ἁγιασμὸν) ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν. 
 
 (Conf. Matt. il. 29, καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν.) 
 
 OvuR inquiries have at length brought us to 
 England. We will suppose ourselves to-day to 
 be tracing the stream of thought and practice 
 amongst us, in reference to the Lord’s Day, from 
 the Reformation to the present time. Not that 
 we can allude, even by name, to more than a few 
 of the writers on the subject, or touch upon any 
 but the most striking events connected with it. 
 We may, however, be able to exhibit in a com- 
 pendious form a succession of facts, the careful 
 consideration of which may lead us to some 
 practical conclusion. 
 Some important questions present themselves. 
 
256 LECTURE VII. 
 
 Is it possible to discover, in the fully author- 
 ised documents of the English Church, such defi- 
 nite statements about the Lord’s Day as will 
 favour decidedly, either the Sunday-Sabbatarian 
 view on the one hand, or the purely Hcclesiastical 
 view on the other ἢ 
 
 Is it possible to frame such a Catena of 
 writers in the English Church, as will, by the 
 number of its links and the solidity of each link, 
 serve as an adequate interpretation of those 
 documents in one direction or the other ? 
 
 If neither of these courses is possible, should 
 not the acknowledged moderation of the English 
 Church be an element in the discovery of her 
 view ? And may we not interpret her by anti- 
 quity, to which she has ever had regard? . 
 
 Certain cognate questions, will, by God’s per- 
 mission, be discussed in the concluding Lecture. 
 
 Something has been said already to the effect 
 that Sunday-Sabbatarianism at any rate is not 
 authoritatively sanctioned by the Church of 
 England. For this I may perhaps refer you to 
 the latter part of my Fifth Lecture. Nor is 
 what was stated there invalidated by the exist- 
 ence of the document usually styled the West- 
 minster Confession, which was drawn up A.D. 
 1643. It was indeed examined and approved 
 A.D. 1647 by the General Assembly of the Kirk 
 of Scotland, and ratified by Scottish Acts of Par- 
 liament a.p. 1649 and 1690. But it had nothing 
 
LECTURE VII. 257 
 
 to do with England except during the abnormal 
 period of the Great Rebellion, and was, de facto, 
 ignored by the Savoy Conference. Its language 
 is as follows :—‘ As it is of the law of nature 
 that in general a due proportion of time be set 
 apart for the worship of God, so, in His word, 
 by a positive, moral, and perpetual Command- 
 ment, binding all men, in all ages, He hath 
 particularly appointed one day in seven for a 
 Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him; which, 
 from the beginning of the world to the Resur- 
 rection of Christ, was the last day of the week ; 
 and from the Resurrection cf Christ was changed 
 into the first day of the week, which in Scripture 
 is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued 
 to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath. 
 This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, 
 when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, 
 and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, 
 do not only observe an holy rest all the day from 
 their own works, words, and thoughts about 
 their worldly employments and recreations; but 
 are also taken up the whole time in public and 
 private exercises of His worship, and in the 
 duties of necessity and mercy.” 
 
 On the Continent this is frequently supposed 
 to be our view. I confidently assert that it is 
 not ours. It may have been, indeed it was, 
 derived from the Hnglish Puritans, but it was 
 not derived from the English Church. Their 
 influence carried it into Scotland. In Scotland 
 
 5 
 
258 LECTURE VII. 
 
 it found a congenial soil; took root and became 
 eventually the predominant view. Thencefor- 
 ward it belonged to Scotland, where it was 
 developed in a most exaggerated form, as the 
 Records of the Kirk Sessions may show. (And 
 as little is the Church of England concerned in 
 the statements made by the Westminster Assem- 
 bly in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, both 
 of which were adopted by the Kirk of Scotland 
 A.D. 1648. 1 need not quote them here, for they 
 are little more than the Confession itself ex- 
 hibited in a catechetical shape.) It is obvious 
 at first sight how strong is the contrast presented 
 by the reckless historical assertions of the Con- 
 fession, and by its particular designation of the 
 things demanded or forbidden on the Lord’s Day, 
 to the simplicity of the Church of England. 
 She asserts indeed practically, by her prepared 
 services, that “ἃ due proportion of time is to be 
 set apart for the worship of God. And acci- 
 dentally, because the first day in seven is one in 
 seven, and is shadowed forth by her presentation 
 of the Fourth Commandment to the people, she 
 appears to speak of one day in seven. But, 
 apart from this, there is scarcely a proposition 
 contained in the Confession which finds a coun- 
 terpart in her fully authorised documents. For 
 instance, she nowhere lays down— 
 
 That from the beginning, one day in seven 
 was particularly appointed to be kept holy unto 
 God, or 
 
LECTURE VII. 259 
 
 That from the beginning of the world to the 
 Resurrection of Christ this was the last day of 
 the week, or 
 
 That from the Resurrection of Christ this was 
 changed to the first day of the week, or 
 
 That the Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath, 
 except perhaps metaphorically. 
 
 Much less has she so ignored the compound 
 nature of man, as to pronounce— 
 
 That the whole time of a man on the Lord’s 
 Day is to be taken up in public and private 
 exercises of God’s worship, and in works of 
 necessity and mercy, to the exclusion of recrea- 
 tion for mind and body. 
 
 The utmost that she has done in this direction 
 has been, as we have said, to present the Com- 
 mandments to the people in the Jewish form, as 
 ἃ convenient summary of duty, qualifying that 
 presentation by the Seventh Article of Religion. 
 She has also inserted them in the Church Cate- 
 chism; but the comment with which they are 
 there accompanied does no& bear the slightest 
 resemblance to the Westminster Confession. 
 
 This latter fact, however, has been employed 
 as an argument the other way. Some have held 
 it to indicate at least a leaning to the purely 
 Ecclesiastical view; to imply, that is, that Sun- 
 days and other Holy days stand exactly upon 
 the same ground; that no higher sanction is 
 possessed by the former than belongs to the 
 latter; and that whatever belongs to the for- 
 
 8 2 
 
260 LECTURE VII. 
 
 mer is possessed by the latter in the same 
 measure. It is urged that the Lord’s Day is 
 not mentioned in our Catechism—but it seems 
 to have been forgotten that the inspiration of 
 Holy Scripture is not mentioned in our Articles 
 —and that therefore the argument from omission 
 may perhaps prove too much. Both the inspi- 
 ration of Holy Scripture and the obligation of 
 the Lord’s Day, though beset with difficulties of 
 man’s devising, may have been taken for facts 
 in Christianity, and so not specially alluded to. 
 (Thus, as we saw in the Third Lecture, even the 
 Great Council of Niczea only noticed the Lord’s 
 Day in order to regulate a perfectly indifferent 
 matter, the bodily posture of the worshipper, 
 during the continuance of its Services.) All were 
 agreed as to the fact of the inspiration of Holy 
 Scripture, however widely they might differ as to 
 the mode in which it was effected, or as to the 
 degree to which it was extended. So, all or 
 nearly all, were agreed as to the fact of the 
 Lord’s Day being obligatory in some way or 
 other, though they might have serious differences 
 as to the ground of its obligation, or as to the 
 exact manner in which it should be observed. 
 But in truth, neither the argument just 
 noticed, nor another which I am about to 
 notice, is at ali conclusive for the purely Ec- 
 clesiastical view. Our Church, it is said, has 
 a Table of proper Lessons for the Sundays and 
 other Holy days throughout the year, therefore 
 
LECTURE VII. 261 
 
 she regards both classes in the same light. But 
 if so, how is it, I reply, that she immediately 
 proceeds to separate the classes? How is it 
 that the selections from the Bible are arranged 
 in order for the former merely ? How is it that 
 no Apocryphal Lesson is admitted on the Lord’s 
 Day? And how can we possibly compare the 
 Festival of the Resurrection which occurs once 
 in a week, with a collection of Festivals each of 
 which occurs only once in a year? It is surely 
 a gross fallacy to consider Sunday as merely one 
 among the Festivals; it is one repeated fifty-two 
 times, while the others have a single celebration. 
 Besides, if mentioning Sundays and other Holy 
 days together brings the former to the level of 
 the latter, then Wednesdays and Fridays are also 
 equal to Sundays, for on all these three days the 
 Litany is appointed to be used. A mere rubrical 
 direction, therefore, originating in a certain re- 
 semblance of services, is scarcely sufficient to 
 prove, that the days to which it refers have all 
 of them the same claim to our regard. And 
 what though it is said in the Thirteenth Canon, 
 ** All manner of persons within the Church of 
 England shall from henceforth celebrate and 
 keep the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, 
 and other Holy Days, according to God’s will 
 and pleasure, and the orders of the Church of 
 England prescribed in that behalf”? <A circum- 
 stance which occurred at the Savoy Conference 
 explains beyond all controversy how that Canon 
 
202 LECTURE VII. 
 
 should be understood, and with it the heading 
 of the Table of Lessons. The Presbyterian ob- 
 jectors to the Prayer Book had made the fol- 
 lowing demand :—“ That if any [Saints’ Days| 
 be retained, they may be called Festivals, and 
 not Holy Days, nor be made equal with the 
 Lord’s Day, nor have any peculiar service ap- 
 pointed for them, nor the people be upon such 
 days forced wholly to abstain from work.” The 
 reply was this—‘‘ The observation of Saints’ 
 Days is not as of Divine, but of Ecclesiastical 
 institution ;’’ an expression which of course im- 
 ples that in the judgment of those who last 
 reviewed our formularies, that of the Lord’s Day 
 is of Divine institution. It is curious also, that 
 the reply goes on to say, that on the Saints’ 
 Days, ‘‘the people may be dispensed with for 
 their work, after the Service, as Authority pleases.” 
 No hint of a like dispensation occurs in reference 
 to the Lord’s Day. 
 
 We are warranted then, I think, in concluding 
 that so far as her fully authorized documents are 
 concerned, the Church of England does not pro- 
 nounce in favor either of the purely Hcclesias- 
 tical or of the Sunday-Sabbatarian view of the 
 Lord’s Day. Not of the former, for the day is of 
 Divine institution. Not of the latter, for though 
 she presents the parable of the Jewish law as 
 a reminder that the Sunday is of Divine insti- 
 tution, she does not assert that the Sabbath is 
 continued. So far as those documents are con- 
 
LECTURE VII. 268 
 
 cerned we seem to be justified in “standing in the 
 ways, and seeing, and asking for the old paths, 
 where is the good way, and walking therein,”’ if 
 haply thereby, we may “find rest for our souls.” 
 
 But in defect of a clear statement in favor of 
 either extreme by the Church of England herself, 
 can we not frame such a Catena of writers be- 
 longing to her Communion as may prove that 
 she was always understood to lean to one or to 
 the other? This would not indeed amount to 
 a demonstration, but it would amount to a high 
 probability as to what her leaning is. 
 
 I prepared you in some sort in my First 
 Lecture, for a negative answer to this question, 
 both by the variety of views which I mentioned 
 and by the great names which I attached to 
 them. No such Catena can be fairly framed. 
 I proceed now to illustrate this assertion, throw- 
 ing what 1 shall have to say into the form of 
 a continuous narrative. 
 
 At the commencement of the Reformation no 
 doubt the Ecclesiastico-Sabbatarian view was 
 the one most prevalent in England. This is 
 evident both from “The Institution of a Chris- 
 tian Man,” and from another work termed “A 
 necessary Doctrine and Erudition of any Chris- 
 tian Man,”’ set forth respectively, A.D. 1535 and 
 1543. But this is little to be wondered at. The 
 Church was in a state of transition, and had 
 not yet thoroughly emancipated itself from the 
 traditions of the Roman Schools. For, let us 
 
264 LECTURE VII. 
 
 observe the vague manner in which they speak. 
 “The Sabbath is abolished in its literal sense.” 
 «St. Augustine is an authority for making a differ- 
 ence between the Fourth Commandment and the 
 remaining nine.’ “The only points now binding 
 in that Commandment are the ceasing at certain 
 times from bodily labour, and the giving our minds 
 wholly and entirely to God.” ‘Instead of the 
 Sabbath Day succeedeth the Sunday, and many 
 other holy and feastful days which the Church 
 hath ordained from time to time, which be called 
 holidays, not because one day is more acceptable 
 to God than another, or of itself is more holy 
 than another, but because the Church has or- 
 dained that upon those days we should give our- 
 selves wholly without any impediment unto such 
 holy works as be before expressed.” ‘“ Not- 
 withstanding ....it is not meant but that in 
 time of necessity we may upon the holy day 
 give ourselves to labour,... but as commonly 
 is used, to pass the time either in idleness, in 
 gluttony, in riot, or in plays....is not accord- 
 ing to the intent and meaning of the Command- 
 ment, but after the usage and custom of the 
 Jews, and doth not please God.’’ Here is exactly 
 what Rome did. The day is with other days 
 set upon an Ecclesiastical foundation ; and yet 
 directions for the observance of it, and of other 
 days coordinate with it, in order to develop the 
 supposed spirit of the Fourth Commandment, 
 are laid down. How far, putting aside for a 
 
LECTURE VII. 265 
 
 moment the character of these positions, the 
 documents in which they occur are to be con- 
 sidered binding on our Church still may be 
 judged from this fact. Those documents also 
 ‘entreat of the institution, the virtue, and the 
 right use of the Seven Sacraments, and of Pur- 
 gatory.” To us, then, they are mere historical 
 monuments of the opinions of those who drew 
 them up. 
 
 The sentiments of Tyndale, the first translator 
 of the Scriptures into modern English, and of 
 his friend and fellow-sufferer John Fryth, were 
 of the Ecclesiastical character. But those worthy 
 Reformers were influenced rather by animosity 
 against the Roman Schools than by conformity 
 with them. “As for the Sabbath (says the 
 former), we be lords over the Sabbath, and yet 
 change it into Monday, or into any other day 
 as we see need, or may make every tenth day 
 holy day only, if we see cause why. Neither 
 was there any cause to change it from the Satur- 
 day, but to put a difference between ourselves 
 and the Jews; neither need we any holy day 
 at all, if the people might be taught without it.” 
 It is curious to find Tyndale foreshadowing the 
 Decade of the French Revolution, and also, 
 whilst he agrees with Calvin as to man’s right 
 to select any day in the week, urging against 
 Calvin, that the first day was chosen in contra- 
 distinction to the Jewish Day. Fryth is even 
 more explicit than Tyndale. Those who super- 
 
266 LECTURE VII. 
 
 stitiously observe Sunday are ‘*much madder’”’ 
 than the Jews who superstitiously observe Satur- 
 day. ‘The Jews have the Word of God for 
 their Saturday, sith it is the seventh day, and 
 they were commanded to keep the seventh day 
 solemn. And we have not the Word of God for 
 us, but rather against us; for we keep not the 
 seventh day, as the Jews do, but the first, which’ 
 is not commanded by God’s law.’ This is a 
 remarkable admission, and if it fell into the 
 hands of earnest men, with a “zeal not after 
 knowledge,”’ was likely to produce the inquiry, 
 “ought not the Sabbath which God appears 
 to command to be observed either in the spirit 
 or in the letter?’”’ It did produce this inquiry. 
 One extreme was the precursor of the other. 
 
 The language of Cranmer, both in his Cate- 
 chism of A.D. 1548, and in his “ Confutation of 
 Unwritten Verities”’ (if indeed it be his), shows 
 that he was not in the slightest degree inclined 
 to the Sabbatarian view. The former document 
 makes “the Sunday and other days to be ap- 
 pointments of the magistrates, whom in this 
 thing we ought to obey.’ The latter states that 
 “the Church has ordained the Sunday.” And 
 the Book of Prayer set forth in the last year 
 of Henry VIII., while it curtails the Fourth 
 Commandment into “ Remember that thou 
 keep holy the Sabbath Day,” seems after the 
 Romish method to consider Sundays and all 
 other holy days to come under it, and to de- 
 
LECTURE VII. 267 
 
 mand equal reverence. It has a Confession, 
 enumerating violations of each of the Com- 
 mandments, and, in reference to the Fourth, 
 the sinner states, as in the presence of the 
 Almighty, “1 have not sanctified the Holy Days 
 with works that be acceptable to Thee.” 
 
 One cannot note this diversity, which a glance 
 at the index of the works published by the 
 Parker Society would increase twenty-fold, with- 
 out a feeling of thankfulness that we are not 
 bound as the Kirk of Scotland is, or: as Foreign 
 Communions consider themselves to be, by elabo- 
 rate catechisms, or by the writings of individual 
 Reformers. The sort of half authority which 
 our Homilies possess, has proved in some in- 
 stances a source of embarrassment. There are 
 passages in them which cite the Apocrypha as 
 inspired Scripture, and call other Ordinances 
 Sacraments than the two spoken of in our 
 Articles. How greatly would such embarrass- 
 ment have been increased, did we owe allegiance 
 to the individual opinions of men who were 
 feeling their way out of Rome, and struggling 
 after truth amid various difficulties ! 
 
 The injunctions of Edward VI., Archbishop 
 Cranmer’s Visitation Articles of A.p. 1547, and 
 the Act of the 5th and 6th of Edward VI., A.p. 
 1552, must be understood rather as correctives 
 of the Ecclesiastical Sabbatarianism of Romish 
 observance, than as enactments to be rested on, 
 or as indications of the final judgment of the 
 
208 LECTURE VII. 
 
 English Church. Therefore, I do not concern 
 myself as Heylin does, so to reconcile the last 
 of them with the contemporary insertion of the 
 Commandments in the Liturgy, as to argue that 
 other Holy days beside the Lord’s Day were 
 included by the Church under the responsive 
 petition annexed to the Fourth Commandment. 
 Thus much only I should argue, that the coin- 
 cidence of the two documents in point of time 
 proves that no Sabbatarian doctrine was covertly 
 insinuated by the insertion of the Commandment 
 and the petition. The Act was occupied with 
 the outer observance of holy days in general ; 
 the Liturgy with an inward and religious con- 
 cern, with the establishment of something like 
 a Divine authority for the one day, or at least 
 a hint of it, under the parable, as we have called 
 it, of the precept in the Decalogue. 
 
 I spoke just now of Scotland, and quoted the 
 document which is, in the present day, con- 
 sidered to be the standard of the Kirk. It is 
 worth remarking that before that standard was 
 adopted, another was in existence, the Confession, 
 drawn up by John Knox in a.p. 1560. The 
 sixteenth chapter of this has for its heading, 
 “What works are reputed good before God?” 
 And in the body of the chapter is the following 
 explanation of the First Table of the Decalogue. 
 “We confess and acknowledge that God has 
 given to man His holy Law, in which are not 
 only forbidden all such works as displease and 
 
LECTURE VII. 269 
 
 offend His Godly Majesty, but also are com- 
 manded all such as please Him, and as He 
 hath promised to reward. And these works be 
 of two sorts; the one are done to the honor of 
 God, the other to the profit of our neighbours ; 
 and both have the revealed Word of God for 
 their assurance. To have one God, to worship 
 and honor Him; to call upon Him in all our 
 troubles ; to reverence His holy Name; to hear 
 His word; to believe the same; to communicate 
 with His holy Sacraments, are the works of the 
 first table.” So far John Knox. There is in 
 this document, you will notice, not the slightest 
 allusion to the Sabbath, or to the Sabbatarian 
 observance of any day whatever. <A sort of 
 strictness in reference to Sunday occurs in the 
 “ Book of Discipline,” set forth a.p. 1561; but 
 it is obvious that its provisions relate principally 
 to the circumstances of Towns. And though 
 Pocklington observes that in a letter to Calvin, 
 signed by Whittingham and Knox, in the 
 “Troubles at Frankfort,” the word Sabbath is 
 used for Sunday, he must be admitted to have 
 made too much of the circumstance. Swnday is 
 the word generally employed in that document, 
 and no question appears to be raised either on its 
 name or on its obligation. On the whole, what- 
 ever the language held at present in Scotland may 
 be, it is certainly not owing to the great man 
 whom the Scotch regard as the Apostle of the 
 Reformation in their country. Of the practice 
 
210 LECTURE VII. 
 
 of Knox, Randolph, the English Ambassador, 
 writing to Cecil, in November 30, a.D. 1562, has 
 a few passing words :—“ Upon Sunday, at night, 
 the Duke supped with Mr. Knox, where the 
 Duke desired I should be.” This was after the 
 ratification of the “ Book of Discipline.” Knox 
 was the intimate friend of Calvin —visited 
 Calvin, and, it is said, on one occasion found 
 him enjoying the recreation of bowls on Sun- 
 day. He himself ministered at Geneva at 
 intervals for four or five years (A.D. 1555— 
 1559). The opinions of Calvin were, as 1 
 showed in the Sixth Lecture, anything but 
 Sabbatarian. It has been said, that the disputes 
 at Frankfort, which Knox encouraged, were the 
 origin of Liturgical Dissent. This is true, but 
 he did not carry his Dissent in the direction of 
 the Sabbath. 
 
 But to return to England. Practically, the ob- 
 servance of Sunday was in a very unsatisfactory 
 state throughout the reign of Elizabeth (4.D. 
 1558—1603). There seems to have been a great 
 forgetfulness of its religious character. In 
 one of the Queen’s Injunctions Sunday is classed 
 with other holidays, and it is expressly said, that 
 “if for any scrupulosity or grudge of conscience 
 some should superstitiously abstain from work- 
 ing on those days, they shall grievously offend.” 
 In fact, labour was almost enjoined after com- 
 mon prayer. On the same principle, we find 
 the Queen “ granting a license to one John 
 
LECTURE VII. 271 
 
 Seconton, to use certain plays and games upon 
 nine several Sundays.” After a time, in a.pD. 
 1580, the London magistracy obtained from her 
 an interdiction of this practice on Sundays within 
 the liberties of the City. Elsewhere it was 
 carried on ; and the pictures of the Sunday 
 recreations of the period which have come down 
 to us, though somewhat profusely colored, indi- 
 cate a low tone of feeling on the subject of the 
 Holy Day. 
 
 Meanwhile the state of theology in reference 
 to it was equally unsatisfactory. The chief 
 writers against the prevalent desecration of Sun- 
 day were not found among persons who repre- 
 sented the moderate and reserved view, which I 
 suppose the Church to have advisedly enter- 
 tained. A new sect had sprung up, whose 
 members were called sometimes Precisians, some- 
 times Disciplinarians, but more generally Puri- 
 tans. From them proceeded the strongest pro- 
 tests on the subject. They were shocked at the 
 forgetfulness of God which manifested itself at all 
 times and on the Lord’s own day especially. The 
 Government, political, social, and ecclesiastical, 
 under which it existed must evidently be unsound. 
 Was there any remedy for it? They took the 
 Bible into their hands, and decided that in it 
 they would find a model of the true polity. And 
 in particular, they decided that in it they would 
 find a model for God’s worship, superior to any 
 thing visible, and yet applicable to the present 
 
272 LECTURE VII. 
 
 hour. Perhaps there was not exactly what they 
 wanted, but there was something like it. A con- 
 fusion already existed of the Sunday and the 
 Sabbath. The former word did not occur in 
 Scripture; it had a rather heathenish sound. 
 The latter word did occur in Scripture, and in 
 
 - that part of it which men knew, if they knew 
 
 \ 
 
 nothing else, the Ten Commandments. Its ob- 
 servance was enforced under the Jewish system, 
 in one case certainly, by a notorious and present 
 judgment. Neglect of it was spoken of by the 
 Jewish Prophets as the crying sin of the nation. 
 The Old Testament was, by the admission of the 
 Church of England, not contrary to the New 
 Testament. This they interpreted to imply that 
 it was identical with the New in all respects. - 
 Whatever is to be received and believed was to be 
 found in Holy Scripture; this, again, the Church 
 of England confessed. Sunday, under some 
 name or other, they felt was to be received 
 and believed. They did not find it in Scripture 
 under that name, but they found a good deal 
 about the Sabbath. Therefore, the Sabbath was 
 to be enforced as a Scripture doctrine. 
 
 Of course some difficulties had to be got over. 
 The Sabbath was the seventh day, Sunday was 
 the first day of the week. But an ingenious 
 theory that one day in seven was the essence of 
 the Fourth Commandment speedily reconciled 
 them to this. St. Paul had objected to Sabbaths. 
 No doubt he had; but surely this was only to the 
 
LECTURE VII. ἊΣ: 
 
 Jewish aspect of them, or only to the annual 
 Sabbaths of the Jews; and then the Fourth Com- 
 mandment might be construed to mean that the 
 Sabbath existed before it was regulated by Moses. 
 This Sabbath might remain, the adventitious 
 elements being laid aside. It might have been 
 given, it was given to man in Paradise, before the 
 fall, and so was a primeval institution anterior to 
 the Mosaic law. All obstacles vanished before 
 these zealous men. It was nothing to them that 
 the New Testament distinguished the Lord’s Day 
 from the Sabbath. Nothing that the early Church 
 either declared the Sabbath to be abolished, or if 
 it observed it at all, observed it as a continua- 
 tion of Friday, or as a preparation for Sunday. 
 Nothing that the early Church never appealed to 
 the Fourth Commandment as a ground for ob- 
 serving Sunday. Nothing that it asserted that 
 the ante-Mosaic patriarchs pleased God without 
 the observance and without the knowledge of the 
 Sabbath. All this they either ignored or were 
 ignorant of. Every mention of a septenary divi- 
 sion of time was tortured into a sanction of 
 their theory. And a phrase in the fourth 
 chapter of Genesis, ‘‘in the process of time,” or 
 “at the end of days,” was presumed to imply 
 the Sabbath Day. 
 
 There was another strange inconsistency in 
 their system. They quoted our Lord’s observance 
 of the Sabbath. But, in doing so, they forgot 
 two very important points. First, that He does 
 
 i 
 
274. LECTURE VII. 
 
 not appear to have proscribed or declined per- 
 sonally, innocent recreation or social converse 
 upon it. Secondly, that, so far as He corrected 
 the prevailing way of keeping it, it was by mode- 
 rating, not by enhancing, its strictness. The 
 natural inference from these two points would 
 have been this: “Granting, for argument’s sake, 
 that Sunday and the Sabbath are identical, yet, 
 by our Lord’s own example, greater liberty at- 
 taches to the day of rest than we are disposed 
 to concede.”’ ‘This inference they did not draw. 
 
 Such were, in general, the statements and 
 tenets of the Puritans respecting the Lord’s Day, 
 _ which were floating about the nation during the 
 reign of Elizabeth. Their favourite appellation 
 of it was The Sabbath. Sunday was almost 
 proscribed, as savouring of heathenism. Not 
 indeed that this feeling was universal. Many 
 who were well educated, and not blinded by reli- 
 gious prejudice, knew perfectly well how to dis- 
 tinguish the two words. Shakspere, no mean 
 exponent of the proprieties of English phraseology, 
 puts into the mouth of the Jew, Shylock, 
 
 “ And by our holy Sabbath have I sworn ;” 
 
 but he makes Hamlet say, as a Christian, 
 
 ““Why such impress of shipwrights, whose sore task 
 Doth not divide the Swxday from the week ?” 
 
 The Puritans abolished this distinction. The* 
 name Lord’s Day, however, occurs very frequently, 
 and we find it even in “the form of discipline con- 
 sidered by the brethren in solemn synod, with the 
 
LECTURE VII. 275 
 
 several decrees thereof, in A.D. 1582.’ Grindal, 
 who was Archbishop of Canterbury from A.D. 1575 
 to 1583, was favorable to their general views. 
 So was Sandys, the other metropolitan, who had 
 succeeded Grindal, first at London and then at 
 York. (He died in A.D. 1588.) Both of them had 
 been among the number of Marian exiles, and 
 both of them, in their banishment, had espoused 
 the Church side, in opposition to Knox. But 
 both of them, especially the former, had become 
 tinctured with what was afterwards called Puri- 
 tanism, and belonged to the party which, in 
 Dr. Arnold’s words, ‘desired to carry the Refor- 
 mation further.” 
 
 Dr. Pocklington calls the year a.p. 1554 (the 
 date of Knox’s and Whittingham’s letter) “ the 
 year of the Sabbath’s nativity,” but asserts “ that 
 it was full thirty years before the children (of 
 Knox, Whittingham, and their fellows) could 
 turn their tongues from Sunday to hit upon 
 Sabbath.” This brings us to Α.Ὁ. 1584, the first 
 full year of Whitgift’s primacy at Canterbury. 
 But many writers had advocated Puritanism in 
 general, and Sabbatarianism in particular, before 
 that time. Judgments were said to follow on 
 the desecration of ‘the Sabbath Day,” and that 
 phrase, sometimes, though seldom, crept into 
 public documents. Eleven years later, A.D. 1595, 
 Dr. Bownd’s book reduced Sabbatarianism to a 
 system. His main propositions, as given by 
 Fuller, are these :— 
 
 T 2 
 
270 LECTURE VII. 
 
 1. That the commandment of sanctifying every 
 seventh day, as in the Mosaical decalogue, is 
 moral and perpetual. 
 
 2. That whereas all other things in the Jewish 
 Church were taken away, (priesthood, sacrifices, 
 sacraments) this Sabbath was so changed that it 
 still remaineth. 
 
 3. That there is great reason why we Christians 
 should take ourselves as straitly bound to rest 
 upon the Lord’s Day as the Jews were upon 
 their Sabbath ; for seeing it. is one of the moral 
 commandments it bindeth us as well as them, 
 for they are all of equal authority. 
 
 4. The rest upon this day must be a notable 
 and singular rest, a most careful, exact, and 
 precise rest, after another manner than men are 
 accustomed. 
 
 5. Scholars on that day are not to study the 
 liberal arts, nor lawyers to consult the case, nor 
 peruse men’s evidences. 
 
 6. Serjeants, apparitors, and sumners [8168] to 
 be restrained from executing their offices. 
 
 7. Justices [are] not to examine causes for the 
 conservation of the peace. 
 
 8. Ringing of more bells than one on that day 
 is not to be justified. 
 
 9. No solemn feasts nor wedding dinners [are] 
 to be made on that day. (1 omit the remainder 
 of Fuller’s description of this Ninth Article, for, 
 as Mr. Brewer observes, it does not do justice to 
 Dr. Bownd.) 
 
LECTURE VII. ΤΙ 
 
 10. All honest recreations and pleasures, law- 
 ful on other days, (as shooting, fencing, bowling) 
 [are] on this day to be forborne. 
 
 11. No man [is] to speak or talk of pleasures 
 or any other worldly matter. 
 
 A more particular statement of his positions is 
 given by Dr. Bownd himself, in the preface to his 
 work. We find from it that he held that the 
 ante-Mosaic patriarchs were acquainted with the 
 Sabbath. One does not find fault with the tone 
 of the book, it is amiable; or with its intention, 
 it was an excellent one. But two great errors 
 pervade it. It is incorrect in its historical ac- 
 count of the origin of Sunday—and it deals too 
 much with rules, too little with broad principles 
 of Sunday observance. Hence, like every book 
 of mere rules, it provoked a burdensome multi- 
 plication of rules for cases not provided for. 
 And its assertion, that the command to observe 
 the Sabbath is moral in the same sense that 
 other commands in the Decalogue are moral, led, 
 as we shall see presently, to misunderstandings 
 of the most absurd character. Still, as we have 
 said, the intention of the book was an excellent 
 one. The desecration of Sunday which prevailed, 
 seems to have been most appalling. Perhaps the 
 words of the Homily, written some thirty-five 
 years before, are not too strong to express it: 
 ‘God was more dishonored, and the Devil 
 better served on the Sunday, than upon all 
 the days in the week beside.” Dr. Bownd’s 
 
278 LECTURE VII. 
 
 book was designed to counteract such desecra- 
 tion, and it produced in many parts of the 
 kingdom well nigh a revolution in outward 
 practice. ‘‘ It is almost incredible, (says Fuller), 
 how taking this doctrine was, partly because of 
 its own purity, and partly for the eminent piety 
 of such persons as maintained it; so that the 
 Lord’s Day, especially in corporations, began to 
 be precisely kept, men becoming a law to them- 
 selves, forbearing such sports as yet by statute 
 permitted—yea, many rejoicing at their own re- 
 straint herein.”’ 
 
 It did not, indeed, escape animadversion. Arch- 
 bishop Whitgift condemned it in his synods and 
 visitations, called in whatever copies he could 
 lay his hands on, and forbade it to be reprinted. 
 This was in A.D. 1599. Lord Chief Justice Pop- 
 ham did the same in a.p. 1600. Its language 
 in reference to the other festivals occasioned 
 the thirteenth Canon of A.D. 1603, and various 
 severities were exercised towards those who 
 adopted its tenets, which drove them to Hol- 
 land or elsewhere. And if the immediate 
 results of it were those mentioned by Strype, 
 no wonder that the authorities, ecclesiastical 
 and civil, put into operation the various methods 
 of discouraging its adherents which at that time 
 were employed without scruple. 
 
 “Τὸ was preached in Oxfordshire, (says that 
 writer) that to do any work on the Sabbath was 
 as great a sin as to kill or to commit adultery. 
 
LECTURE VII. 279 
 
 It was preached in Somersetshire, that to throw 
 a bowl on the Sabbath Day was as great a sin as 
 to commit murder. It was preached in Norfolk, 
 that to make a feast or wedding dinner on that 
 day was as great a sin as for a father to take a 
 knife and cut his son’s throat. It was preached 
 in Suffolk, (and my author saith that he could 
 name the man,) that to ring more bells than 
 one on the Lord’s Day, to call the people to 
 Church, was as great a sin as to do an act of 
 murder.” 
 
 It is probable, however, that these extrava- 
 gances did not develop themselves at once. The 
 tendency of the positions contained in the book 
 would not have been discovered directly—and it 
 would have taken some time to carry out the 
 tyranny of the inquisition into private life, in 
 which it eventuated, and which an able opponent 
 of it called “‘ more than either kingly or popely.” 
 ἐς Learned men,” says Fuller, ‘‘ were much divided 
 about these Sabbatarian doctrines: some em- 
 braced them as ancient truths, consonant to 
 Scripture, long disused and neglected, now 
 seasonably revived for the increase of piety ; 
 others conceived them grounded on a wrong 
 bottom, but because they tended to the manifest 
 advance of religion it was a pity to oppose them, 
 seeing none have just reason to complain, being 
 deceived to their own good; but a third sort 
 flatly fell out with these positions, as galling 
 men’s necks with a Jewish yoke, against the 
 
280 LECTURE VII. 
 
 liberty of Christians; that Christ, as Lord of the 
 Sabbath, had removed the rigour thereof, and 
 allowed men lawful recreation; that this doctrine 
 put an unequal lustre on the Sunday, on set 
 purpose to eclipse all other holy days, to the 
 derogation of the authority of the Church; that 
 this strict observance was set up out of faction, 
 to be a character of difference, to brand all for 
 libertines who did not entertain it.” 
 
 One cannot but feel somewhat surprised, that 
 Hooker, generally so clear, is to a certain extent 
 inexact in his statements on such a subject, and 
 at such a time. 1 ventured in my Fourth Lecture 
 to make some remarks upon this fact. I will 
 only add here that the first Four Books of his 
 Polity came out in A.D. 1592, before Dr. Bownd’s 
 performance appeared; that the Fifth Book came 
 out in A.D. 1597, before it was fully known, at 
 least in its dangerous aspect; that he was more 
 concerned in defending the theory of other holy 
 days, and of the Church system generally, which 
 were speculatively assailed, than the Lord’s Day, 
 which, though practically disregarded, was in 
 some way or other speculatively acknowledged ; 
 and that, had he gone out of the way to discuss 
 the obligation of the Lord’s Day separately, 
 he might have appeared to symbolize with those 
 who urged that other holy days were unlawful. 
 This is somewhat confirmed by his language 
 in B.V. 70. 9. ‘*The rest (remainder) of the 
 Festivals, they (the Puritans) say we ought to 
 
LECTURE VII. 281 
 
 abolish, because the continuance of them doth 
 nourish wicked superstition in the minds of men, 
 besides, they are all abused by the Papists, the 
 enemies of God, yea certain of them, as Easter 
 or Pentecost even by the Jews.” It is perilous 
 to differ from such a man, but I still presume 
 to suggest the following considerations. That 
 his supposition that St. Paul, when writing to 
 the Galatians, meant Sabbaths in the Jewish 
 aspect exclusively, is unsupported by antiquity. 
 That he has not shown how the obligation to 
 observe one day in seven is moral in the primary 
 sense of that word, or, if the morality of that 
 obligation is proved by the appearance of the 
 seventh day in the commandment, how the 
 Sabbath may be changed in the day and manner 
 of observance. And finally, that he has no 
 support from antiquity for his assertion, that 
 the Church had a right to change, or did change 
 the day and manner of observance. Thus much, 
 however, is satisfactory in what he says. He 
 gives no such minute instructions for keeping 
 the Lord’s Day as can interfere with Christian 
 liberty. | 
 
 Whitgift was scarcely dead, (his death occurred 
 in A.D. 1604), when a new and enlarged edition of 
 Dr. Bownd’s book was issued, in A.pD. 1606. For 
 a good while, as Fuller quaintly expresses it, 
 “not so much as a feather of a quill in print did 
 wag against him.” And Heylin says, “that in 
 a very little time it grew the most bewitching 
 
982 LECTURE Vil. 
 
 error, the most popular deceit, that had ever 
 been set on foot in the Church of England.” 
 Abbot, who occupied Canterbury after the short 
 tenure of Bancroft, was by no means disposed to 
 use very harsh measures. And those who really 
 discerned the unsoundness of the doctrines in 
 vogue, were probably of opinion that it was as 
 well to take advantage of whatever good they 
 might produce, and trust to time for the elimina- 
 tion of the evil. But in a.p. 1618, King James, 
 in one of his progresses in Lancashire, had it 
 represented to him that the people were greatly 
 dissatisfied with the curtailment of the rude 
 amusements on Sundays and holy days to which 
 they had been accustomed. Their education had 
 scarcely prepared them for anything better, 
 and they found time hang heavily on their 
 hands. He accordingly issued what was called 
 “the Book of Sports,’’ by which persons were 
 allowed after church-time on Sundays, to culti- 
 vate athletic games, and pursue such pastimes 
 as were not in themselves unlawful. This 
 document, which was in the form of a declara- 
 tion, was to be read by clergymen during the 
 Church Service. This was not, however, very 
 generally enforced. Abbot refused to allow it 
 to be read at Croydon, and it was at length 
 silently dropped. It was, so it seems to me, 
 most faulty in principle. By its enumeration 
 of things permitted, it gave occasion to the 
 same minute casuistry, as the enumeration of 
 
LECTURE VII. 289 
 
 things forbidden had produced on the other 
 side. But the animus which had dictated the 
 issue of the Book of Sports continued more or 
 less in action, and contributed to carry out 
 that remarkable emigration to America of the 
 men whom we generally call “the Pilgrim 
 Fathers.” As long ago as A.D. 1607, various In- 
 dependents had fled from England to Holland, 
 finding their non-conformity expose them to 
 hardships. Here they set up what they termed 
 “the Pilgrim Church.” But they found them- 
 selves losing their nationality, and, though not 
 persecuted, were in danger, so they expressed 
 it, of being corrupted by the world around them. 
 A division of them accordingly set out from 
 Leyden, in A.D. 1620, having been joined by some 
 of those who objected to the Book of Sports. 
 The observance of the Lord’s Day in Holland 
 was no more satisfactory to them than that 
 which was now obtruded upon their brethren in 
 England. They were, in fact, Puritans of the 
 most austere cast. Literal interpreters of such 
 parts of the Old Testament as they chose to con- 
 sider binding upon them in consequence of the 
 absolute morality of the Fourth Commandment, 
 they were distressed at finding their views 
 controverted in this particular. They allowed 
 indeed Sunday to be substituted for the Sabbath, 
 but the Judaism of their views would allow no 
 more. And with the Sabbath, which they 
 could not help seeing was the great sign between 
 
284. LECTURE VII. 
 
 God and His people, under Judaism, and was 
 intimately connected with the Jewish polity, 
 they thought themselves bound to re-introduce, 
 so far as they could, all such positive enactments 
 of the older covenant, as Christianity did not 
 appear on the very surface to contradict. To 
 erect a similar commonwealth, and with it, to 
 re-establish ‘the Sabbath”’ in its integrity, these 
 men had originally quitted England. 
 
 To obtain, I say, a freer development of their 
 opinions, they quitted Holland in 4.p. 1620, and 
 went to New Plymouth. In imitation of them a 
 larger body left the mother country in a.p. 1629, 
 for Massachusetts Bay. One cannot help greatly 
 respecting these sufferers for conscience’ sake. 
 It is with no slight interest that the log-book, 
 for so it may be called, of the religious voyage 
 of the good ship ‘*‘ May-Flower,” which carried 
 out the earlier adventurers, is perused. And 
 the artist yet loves to dwell on the parting from 
 Delph-haven, when Robinson, their pastor, knelt 
 down on the shore and prayed with and for 
 those whom he was to see in this world no more. 
 The records of the second emigration are not 
 so minute, but there is much in them to mov 
 our feelings, even at the distance of two centu- 
 ries and a half. The charm, however, somewhat 
 vanishes, on our discovering that “the tyranny 
 which they feared under the Book of Sports” 
 was exercised unsparingly to members of their 
 own body. ‘I came from England, said a sturdy 
 
LECTURE VII. 285 
 
 Puritan named William Blackstone, because I 
 did not like the Lord-Bishops: and I cannot 
 join with you, because I would not be under 
 the Lord-Brethren.”” Here is a specimen of it, 
 in the form of rules said to have been drawn up 
 by John Cotton, a minister who had emigrated 
 from Boston in Lincolnshire, and to have been 
 intended as a draft of the laws of the Colony of 
 Massachusetts. ᾿ 
 
 ““ Whosoever shall profane the Lord’s Day by 
 doing unnecessary work, by unnecessary tra- 
 velling, or by sports and recreations, he or they 
 who so transgress shall forfeit forty shillings, 
 or be publicly whipped; but if it shall appear 
 to have been done presumptuously, such person 
 or persons shall be put to death, or otherwise 
 severely punished at the discretion of the court. 
 
 “No one shall run on the Sabbath Day, or 
 walk in his garden, or elsewhere except reve- 
 rently to and from meeting. 
 
 ‘No one shall travel, cook victuals, make 
 beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave on the 
 Sabbath Day.” 
 
 There is more of the same sort, which I omit 
 as unsuitable for quotation here. 
 
 This document I believe to be a genuine one. 
 The first of the three ordinances is unquestion- 
 ably so, totidem verbis. The second and third 
 represent the spirit, if not the exact form, of 
 Puritan legislation. The parallel which it offers 
 to other Judaic documents, such as those of 
 
286 LECTURE VII. 
 
 Pharisaism, or Rabbinism, or theoretic Roman- 
 ism, is only too obvious. ‘Let no man judge 
 you in respect of the Sabbath days,’ seems to 
 have been indeed forgotten by 
 
 “ The pilgrim bands, who crossed the sea to keep 
 Their Sabbaths in the eye of God alone 
 In His wide temple of the wilderness.” 
 
 They had fled from persecution, but they carried 
 its spirit with them. Well does our late bril- 
 lant historian, Macaulay, describe the sect in 
 the mother country, which they represented only 
 too faithfully, ‘‘as turning the weekly Festival, 
 by which the Church had from the primitive 
 times commemorated the Resurrection of her 
 Lord, into a Jewish Sabbath.” And he adds 
 this strong but not untrue account of their 
 general system :—‘‘ Morals and manners were 
 subjected to a code resembling that of the syna- 
 gogue, when the synagogue was in its worst 
 state. Their dress, their deportment, their 
 language, their amusements, were regulated on 
 principles resembling those of the Pharisees, 
 who, proud of their washed hands and broad 
 phylacteries, taunted the Redeemer as a Sabbath- 
 breaker and a wine-bibber.”’ 
 
 I noticed just now that the Puritans generally 
 had modified the words of the Fourth Command- 
 ment in one respect. They had substituted the 
 First Day for the Seventh Day. But there were 
 those to whom this alteration seemed un- 
 justifiable. If the Fourth Commandment was 
 
LECTURE VII. 287 
 
 binding in the letter, it was binding to the very 
 letter. Men had no more right to change the 
 day than they had to change the manner in 
 which the day was to be observed. In con- 
 sistency a Sabbatarian must keep his Sabbath 
 on Saturday. One Traske, who founded a sect 
 called Traskites, or Saturday Sabbatarians, and 
 was judicially censured by Bishop.Andrewes, set 
 forth this doctrine. But Theophilus Brabourne, 
 a minister of Suffolk, is usually regarded as their 
 representative, from one of his books having been 
 chosen by Bishop Francis White as worthy of a 
 refutation. He seems to have been subjected to 
 measures which induced him formally to retract 
 his statements. His sincerity may be doubted; 
 for we find him afterwards writing in the same 
 strain; but the retractation is a fact. His doc- 
 trine still found upholders ; and an Anabaptist, 
 named Bampfield, revived it in a.p. 1672. 
 
 But before the appearance of the extreme- 
 phase of Sabbatarianism apparent in Bra- 
 bourne’s book, the disputes concerning the 
 Lord’s Day had excited notice in high quarters. 
 Prideaux, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, pro- 
 nounced a decision, as Professor of Divinity at 
 Oxford, on the whole question, in a.p. 1622. 
 He held strongly what I called in my Second 
 Lecture the Apostolical view. In a.p. 1633 
 Laud became Primate of all England. Charles I. 
 was induced to republish the unhappy Book of 
 Sports, and two eminent men, Dr. Heylin and 
 
288 LECTURE VII. 
 
 Bishop Francis White, were requested by Laud 
 to take up the subject of the Lord’s Day. The 
 former threw what he had to say into the form 
 of an elaborate treatise, borrowing much of the 
 learning which it displays from Bishop Prideaux, 
 but not observing that writer’s distinction between 
 what is Apostolic and what is Ecclesiastical. 
 Bishop F. White exhibits the same confusion in 
 his rather acrimonious writings directed against 
 Brabourne. Bishop Cosin in A.D. 1635 took the 
 sounder view of Bishop Prideaux. So did, in some 
 respects, Dr. Young in Α.Ὁ. 1639; and so did 
 Richard Baxter, who wrote expressly to moderate 
 between the extreme Hcclesiastical view of Dr. 
 Heylin, and the Judaic view of the Puritans. He 
 felt, and he believed that he could prove, that 
 there exists a via media, so to speak, between a 
 theory which would not touch the conscience, 
 and a theory which subjected it to Judaism. 
 -Perhaps, he somewhat approaches his Sabbatarian 
 opponents in his precepts for the observance 
 of the day; but he strongly protests against 
 its assuming a penitential rather than a joyous 
 character. 
 
 But we have somewhat anticipated. <A multi- 
 tude of Sabbatarian writers claim at least a 
 passing notice, before we arrive at the date of 
 Baxter’s treatise, A.D. 1671. The most eminent 
 of these were, Henry Burton (Prynne’s compeer), 
 in A.D. 1636; John Ley, the author of “Sunday 
 a Sabbath” (which he dedicated to Archbishop 
 
LECTURE VIL. 289 
 
 Ussher), in A.D. 1641 ; Hamon L’Estrange, also in 
 A.D. 1641, who wrote ‘‘ God’s Sabbath before and 
 under and after the Law vindicated from Novel 
 and Heterodox Assertions ;’’ Cawdrey and Palmer 
 in A.D. 1645 and 1652, and Dean Owen in A.D. 
 1670. <A favorite question was, ‘At what 
 exact hours does the Lord’s Day commence and 
 conclude?” This employed the ingenuity of 
 W. Prynne himself. Within the same range of 
 time appeared various works, mostly in the 
 Kcclesiastical extreme,—those, for instance, of 
 Thomas Broad, of Edward Brerewood, of C. Dow, 
 of David Primerose, of Dr. Pocklington, and of 
 Bishop Ironside. Archbishop Bramhall, of the 
 general merits of whose theory I have spoken 
 already, wrote more soundly in A.D. 1658. Bishop 
 Jer. Taylor took the purely Ecclesiastical view. 
 Bishop Nicholson and Bishop Stillingfleet pro- 
 posed a rather composite theory, in which they 
 urged ‘‘ the moral equity of one day in the week.” 
 This they added to the consideration that “the 
 Lord’s Day was a reputed Apostolical tradition.” 
 Bishop Sanderson wrote very learnedly on the 
 subject, and referred to Apostolical practice, and 
 to “probable insinuations of the Lord’s Day in 
 Scripture ;’’ but his tone concerning the im- 
 mutable character of the Day, is not so firm 
 as that of the School of Bishop Prideaux and 
 Archbishop Bramhall. Dr. Isaac Barrow and 
 Thorndike are purely Ecclesiastical in their view. 
 
 I cannot pause to narrate the events of the 
 
 τ 
 
200 LECTURE VII. 
 
 period,—Laud’s contention with Chief Justice 
 Richardson, about wakes and Sunday amuse- 
 ments—Daniel Neale’s unfair representation of 
 the whole matter as ‘‘a petition on the part of 
 the laity for the religious observation of the 
 Lord’s Day, while the Bishop and Clergy were 
 pleading for the profanation of it’”—the West- 
 minster Assembly and its Documents—the Theo- 
 logical decisions of Peers and Commons on the 
 subject, and the final predominance of the 
 Puritan Sabbath, until the Restoration. One 
 strange phase of opinion was the revival of the 
 Schwinckfieldian or Anabaptist notion, which 
 had appeared just after the Reformation, that no 
 religious day whatever was, either by Divine right 
 or by Ecclesiastical institution, to be observed 
 under Christianity. Meanwhile, in Scotland the 
 Sabbatarian doctrines had taken deep root, and 
 were improved into an elaborate system. Four 
 examples shall suffice. In the year 1644, the 
 ** Six Sessions” ordained public intimation to be 
 made, that “no person, man nor woman, shall 
 be found vaging, walking, and going upon the 
 streets upon the Lord’s Day after the afternoon’s 
 sermon, keeping idle, and entertaining imperti- 
 nent conferences.’’ In the next year, the same 
 court ordered that “the magistrates, attended 
 by the ministers by course, shall go up and down 
 the streets upon the Lord’s Day after the after- 
 noon sermon, and cause take particular notice 
 of such as shall be found forth of their houses 
 
LECTURE VII. 291 
 
 vaging abroad upon the streets, and cause cite 
 them before the Session to be rebuked and cen- 
 sured.” And on the 5th of April, a.p. 1658, this 
 direction was issued: — “The magistrates to 
 cause some English soldiers go along the streets, 
 and those outparts above written, both before 
 sermon and after sermon, and lay hold upon 
 both young and old whom they find out of their 
 houses or out of the Church.” 
 
 My fourth instance shall be taken from the 
 records of the Presbytery of Strath-bogie, June 6, 
 A.D. 1658 :—** The said day, Alexander Cairnie, 
 in Tilliochie, was delaitit for brak of Sabbath, 
 in bearing ane sheep upon his back from the 
 pasture to his own house. The said Alexander 
 compeirit and declarit that it was of necessitie 
 for saving of the beast’s lyfe in tyme of storme. 
 Was rebukit for the same, and admonished not 
 to do the lyke.” 
 
 If the Pharisees had sat in the Kirk Sessions 
 they would have been more merciful; they 
 would, indeed, have condemned the people for 
 ἐς rubbing out the corn in their hands,”’ but they 
 would not have condemned their walking in the 
 fields on the Sabbath Day. The Pharisees were 
 silenced by our Lord’s allusion to saving an 
 animal fallen into the pit on the Sabbath Day. So 
 would not have been the Scottish Presbyterians 
 of that period. 
 
 With the Kirk of Scotland, however, and with 
 the doctrines and practices in or connected with 
 
 U2 
 
292 LECTURE VII. 
 
 her Communion, we are not directly concerned. 
 (It is only to be noticed further, that whereas 
 in the Ancient Church the Lord’s Supper was 
 associated with the Lord’s Day, the Kirk has 
 severed this association. A semi-annual cele- 
 bration of it has sprung up instead.) But 
 we are much concerned with the Church of 
 Ireland, both as being perfectly organized like 
 our own, and as formally united to our own. 
 How was the Lord’s Day esteemed there? Till 
 A.D. 1615, her authorized documents said no more 
 than do those of the Church of England. But 
 in that year, the thirty-nine Articles of the 
 English Church were revised and amplified, 
 chiefly under the direction of Archbishop Ussher, 
 then Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and 
 made in all One Hundred and Four. The Fifty- 
 sixth of the Series is to this effect :—‘'The first 
 day of the week, which is the Lord’s Day, is 
 wholly to be dedicated unto the service of God: 
 and therefore we are bound therein to rest from 
 our common and daily business, and to bestow 
 that leisure upon holy exercises both public and 
 private.” In this document there is certainly 
 more approach to precise strictness than the 
 Church of England prescribes. The word 
 “wholly”? seems to indicate a forgetfulness of 
 what human nature is, and of its inability to 
 employ the entire day in a manner directly 
 religious. But no Sabbatarian foundation is 
 assumed for Sunday. It is what Scripture calls 
 
LECTURE VII. 293 
 
 it; and so far as this latter point goes, it has 
 no Judaic character. 
 
 But whatever be our determination concerning 
 this point, the Irish Articles were soon repealed 
 practically, if not formally. In a.p. 1685, Arch- 
 bishop Bramhall, at that time Bishop of Derry, 
 prevailed on the Irish Convocation “to receive 
 and approve ”’ the Book of English Articles. This 
 was conceived to be either an abrogation of the 
 Irish Articles, or an admission that the two 
 documents were perfectly in harmony. Arch- 
 bishop Ussher and certain other Bishops held 
 the latter view, and candidates for Holy Orders 
 were required by them to subscribe to both. 
 The former view has prevailed since the Resto- 
 ration. Subscription has been demanded only to 
 the First Canon, which enforces the Thirty-nine 
 Articles of the Church of England. Thus the 
 object which Bishop Jer. Taylor in his funeral 
 sermon on Archbishop Bramhall attributes to 
 that enactment has been obtained. ‘“ That they 
 and we might be populus wrius tabi, of one 
 heart and one lip, building up our hopes of 
 heaven on a most holy faith; and taking away 
 that Shibboleth which made this Church (the 
 Irish) speak too undecently, or rather in some 
 little degree to speak the speech of Ashdod, and 
 not the language of Canaan.”’ 
 
 The Savoy Conference, as we have said, refused 
 to make any alteration in our authorized docu- 
 ments so far as Sunday was concerned. Since that 
 
294, LECTURE VII. 
 
 time the Church of England has not formally 
 meddled with the subject. Meanwhile Sunday 
 has gone through considerable vicissitudes. What 
 it was in the licentious reign of Charles the 
 Second may be surmised from the mournful 
 picture given by Evelyn of the Sunday preceding 
 the death of that king. Puritanism had indeed 
 died out in reference to the Lord’s Day; but I 
 confess that the state of things which succeeded 
 was worse than Puritanism. In the middle of 
 the eighteenth century there was a reaction. 
 Methodism rose up. This is not the place to 
 discuss either the justifiableness of that move- 
 ment, or the influence which it has had upon 
 the Church of England. But I may venture to 
 quote a passage from Earl Stanhope which 
 illustrates very clearly its bearing upon the 
 immediate subject. “It is (says he) certainly ὁ 
 one of the ill effects of Methodism that it has 
 tended to narrow the circle of innocent enjoy- 
 ments.”” Then, after mentioning some instances, 
 he adds,—‘ Of one clergyman, Mr. Grimshaw, 
 who joined the Methodists, and is much extolled 
 by them, it is related by his panegyrist, ‘ He 
 endeavoured to suppress the generally prevailing 
 custom in country places during the summer, of 
 walking in the fields on a Lord’s Day, between 
 the services, or in the evening, in companies. 
 He not only bore his testimony against it from 
 the pulpit, but reconnoitered the fields in person 
 to detect and reprove the delinquents.’ How 
 
LECTURE VII. 295 
 
 different was the saying of good old Bishop 
 Hacket, ‘ Serve God, and be cheerful’ ’’ ! 
 Bishops Beveridge, Horsley, and Jebb, to 
 whom may be added Dr. Burton, hold a promi- 
 nent position among those who have treated of 
 the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day since the Revo- 
 lution. It is difficult to reduce their schemes 
 and assertions to any one denomination. Bishop 
 Beveridge considers the Sabbath to have been a 
 positive institution, but one known before Ju- 
 daism existed. Bishop Horsley insists that as 
 the command to observe it appears in the Deca- 
 logue among commands confessedly moral, it 
 must be a part of natural religion; and the 
 Christian Church has, he conceives, restored the 
 Sabbath to its patriarchal simplicity by divesting 
 it of what was purely Judaic. Bishop Jebb and 
 Dr. Burton, the former rather rhetorically, the 
 latter more soberly, say the same thing. But 
 how do they connect the Lord’s Day with the 
 Sabbath? This perhaps may be best described 
 in the words of Archbishop Whately,—‘‘ They 
 first adduce from the Old Testament many in- 
 junctions respecting the Sabbath; all of them 
 confessedly relating to the seventh day of the 
 week,—to the Israelites, and to the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation. And next they adduce proofs from 
 the New Testament and from early Christian 
 writers, that the primitive Christians were ac- 
 customed to assemble on the first day of the 
 week, to worship, and to commemorate their 
 
296 LECTURE VII. 
 
 divine Master’s resurrection. And then they 
 seem to regard their task as completed. But 
 that the primitive Christians regarded the Fourth 
 Commandment as binding on them, and believed 
 that the Sabbath was transferred by divine au- 
 thority from the last day of the week to the first, 
 and that in celebrating the Lord’s Day they were 
 keeping the Sabbath,—all this, which is the only 
 pomt im dispute, they take for granted, without 
 offering any proof at 811. Thus much for their 
 view regarded doctrinally. It is, as I said be- 
 fore, almost identical with that of Dr. Bownd. 
 But in practice it was not so severe as his. In 
 fact, it possessed this point of unreality, it 
 explained away the Jewish institution, which 
 it had introduced into Christianity, in order to 
 make it bearable by Christians. It owed its 
 existence amongst us to a desire on the part of 
 earnest men to meet the prevailing license of 
 the eighteenth century in respect to the Lord’s 
 Day, by a directly divine precept. And it owed 
 its continuance, partly to the example of certain 
 Dissenting bodies who seemed during that slug- 
 gish period to possess more life than the Church, 
 and partly to the neighbourhood of the Scottish 
 Kirk, with which the Church of England was 
 brought into very close contact. 
 
 Many excellent and good men, Richard Cecil 
 for instance and Charles Simeon, whose founda- 
 tion for Sunday was much the same as that of 
 Dr. Bownd, and whose personal practice was 
 
LECTURE VII. 297 
 
 very strict, took a merciful view of its observance 
 by others. “Christ came not to abolish the 
 Sabbath (says Cecil), but to explain and enforce 
 it, as He did the rest of the Law.’ But he pro- 
 ceeds, “‘ Its observance was nowhere positively 
 enjoined by Him, because Christianity was to be 
 practicable, and was to go to all nations: and it 
 comes thither stripped of its precise and curious 
 circumstances. ‘I was in the Spirit on the 
 Lord’s Day,’ seems to be the soul of the Christian 
 Sabbath.”? The words of Simeon also are so full 
 of charity and withal of sound common sense 
 that I cannot help quoting them. “In my own 
 personal habit I am as strict as most: but in my 
 judgment as before God, I think that many 
 religious characters—Ministers as well as others 
 —are in error. I think that many Judaize too 
 much, and that they would have joined the 
 Pharisees in condemning our Lord on many 
 occasions. But I would have you remark this. 
 I do not think that they err im acting up to their 
 own principles (there they are right); but that 
 they err in making their own standard a standard 
 Sor all others. This is a prevailing evil among 
 religious persons. They will in effect argue 
 thus :—‘ 7 do not walk out on a Sabbath day, 
 therefore an artisan may not walk out into the 
 fields for an hour on that day.’ They forget that 
 the poor man is confined all the rest of the week, 
 which they are not: and that they themselves 
 will walk in their own garden when the poor 
 
 ~» 
 
208 LECTURE VII. 
 
 have no garden to walk in. Now in this I do 
 not think that they act towards others, as they, 
 in a change of circumstances, would think it 
 right for others to act towards them: and if your 
 brother will limit his refreshment to such a relax- 
 ation as is necessary for health, or materially 
 conducive to it, I shall agree with him, and shall 
 rank this amongst works of necessity or of 
 charity. Again, I am not prepared to utter 
 either anathemas or lamentations if Ministers of 
 State occasionally, in a time of great pressure of 
 public business, and. im a qmet way, avail them- 
 selves of an hour or two for conference with each 
 other on that day. Ido not commend it; but I 
 do not condemn it. They cannot command their 
 own times. Public affairs may be full as pressing 
 and may call for immediate conference, as much 
 as an ox or an ass for deliverance from a pit into 
 which it has fallen; and I think that love to 
 one’s country may justify a deviation from a 
 ritual observance of the Sabbath, as much as 
 love or pity for a beast. In fact, if the most 
 scrupulous will examine the frame of their own 
 minds, and the real spirituality of their own 
 conversation for two or three hours on some part 
 of the Sabbath, they will find but little right, 
 whatever their disposition be, to cast a stone at 
 a poor man with his family, or at a Minister of 
 State with his compeers. Again, I say, they may 
 be right; but the others who think and act dif- 
 ferently are not therefore wrong. Those who ate, 
 
LECTURE VII. 299 
 
 and those who refused to eat, meat offered to 
 idols, were both right if they acted to the Lord, 
 as were those also who observed, and those who 
 did not observe, certain days, which under the 
 Jewish dispensation were actually prescribed. 
 I will tell you what I consider the perfect 
 rule: let all judge for themselves in relation to 
 the ritual observance of such matters ; the strong 
 not despising the weak, and the weak forbearing 
 to sit in judgment on the strong. ‘This will be 
 the surest and best discharge of the duty of all 
 parties whether to God or man: to God, who has 
 said, “1 will have mercy and not sacrifice ;’? and 
 to man, who should be left to stand or fall to his 
 own Master.” So writes Charles Simeon. 
 
 But the very mercifulness of this teaching led 
 to two very remarkable results. Men quite in 
 earnest on the subject perceived that it was not 
 in accordance with the theory on which it was 
 founded. “If Sunday is the Sabbath, it ought 
 to be observed exactly as the Jews may be sup- 
 posed to have observed it,” was their feeling. 
 Hence their inculcation of what seemed the closest 
 approach to such an observance, the strictness of 
 a Scottish Sunday, which Dr. Chalmers depre- 
 cated, and, as far as he could, endeavored to 
 modify. Though it is strange to find even him, 
 when speaking of the person who, according to 
 his view, observes Sunday rightly and literally, 
 write thus :—*‘‘ He could, but for example’s sake, 
 walk fearlessly abroad, and recognise in the 
 
900 LECTURE VII. 
 
 beauties of nature the Hand that has graced and 
 adorned it.”” A few words, written by an intelli- 
 gent resident in Scotland, will convey some idea 
 of that strictness. ‘‘ Here, (he says,) it is wrong 
 to touch the piano, even for the most sacred 
 music, on Sunday; it is wrong to take a walk, 
 even between the services. One distinguished 
 member of the Free Kirk openly avows his wish 
 to see the interference of the police to prevent 
 such a desecration of the day. At a recent meet- 
 ing of the Presbyters and Lay Elders of the 
 largest non-conforming body in Scotland—the 
 United Presbyterians—some one expressed his 
 horror that ‘on the evening of the Lord’s Day he 
 found a Protestant minister walking with his 
 wife on the ramparts of Strasbourg. That stroll 
 was a miserable adoption of the Continental 
 Sunday.’ In many places a person can only pre- 
 serve his credit as an observer of the Lord’s Day, 
 and obtain the indulgence of a walk, by frequent- 
 ing a Church as distant from his own dwelling 
 as his walking powers will allow; and, (he adds,) 
 the extreme severity which is enforced out of 
 doors produces very often a system of covert 
 laxity.’ Such a Sunday as this, many who held 
 the Sabbatarian theory felt themselves bound to 
 introduce into England. 
 
 This was one result. Here is another. Find- 
 ing that Sabbatarianism was producing here as 
 much evasion as it produces in Scotland, if only 
 nominally observed—-as much unsocial austerity, 
 
LECTURE VII. 901 
 
 if really observed—and as much aversion to every- 
 thing religious on the part of many who judged 
 Christianity by this specimen of it, Archbishop 
 Whately was led to re-examine the foundation of 
 the system. His inquiries led him further, to an 
 attempt to re-establish what has been termed the 
 purely Ecclesiastical theory, which, as I under- 
 stand it, introduces us to difficulties of another 
 description. Certainly, it has met with no great 
 favor, and I do not think that the development 
 of it by the “‘ National Sunday League to obtain 
 the opening of the British Museum and other 
 National Institutions on Sunday afternoon, and 
 the repeal of the law which compels the closing 
 of the Crystal Palace, and of other collections for 
 instruction and rational recreation on that day,”’ 
 has at all added to its popularity. ‘Men are afraid 
 of a theory which they see touches the conscience 
 only by Church ruling, and not by Scriptural and 
 Apostolical authority. If the Sabbatarian view 
 seems to be more severe than the authorized 
 documents of the Church demand, and to reim- 
 pose fetters which Christ by His coming struck 
 off, and which His Apostles did not gather from 
 the ground and bind upon us; this other view 
 seems to allow something more than liberty, or 
 at least to open the door to something more than 
 liberty. 
 
 At present the two opposing schools stand in 
 direct antagonism. Is there no method by which 
 they may be reconciled ? The Church of England 
 
902 LECTURE VIL. 
 
 has not encouraged either view very decidedly. 
 But with her accustomed judgment she has, both 
 by what she has said, and by what she has for- 
 borne to say,—intimated that while the Lord’s 
 Day is of Divine obligation, it is an institution 
 established for the good of the whole man. The 
 whole man I say—that marvellously composite 
 being, of heavenly destiny, but of earthly con- 
 formation,—of high aims, but of weak and cor- 
 ruptible body, making him often fall short of 
 them—and who, until he is clothed upon with a 
 body incorruptible, requires refreshment for body 
 as well as soul, even on the Lord’s Day; yea, who 
 may demand it on His Day, whose Great Human 
 Heart could be touched with a feeling for the 
 infirmities of His brethren. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 PSALM CXVIII. 24. 
 
 THIS IS THE DAY WHICH THE LORD HATH MADE; WE WILL REJOICE AND 
 BE GLAD IN IT. 
 
 Αὕτη ἡ ἡμέρα ἣν ἐποίησεν ὁ Κύριος" ἀγαλλιασώμεθα καὶ εὐφρανθῶμεν 
 ἐν αὐτῇ. 
 
 THE tendency of what has been said hitherto is 
 this :—To show, that as the Lord’s Day is of 
 Divine institution, because of Apostolic practice 
 and of Scriptural indication, it is not necessary to 
 resort to a Judaic origin of it in order to make it 
 binding upon the conscience. I have contended 
 that the Ancient Church considered it to be a 
 day of obligation, quite independently of any 
 connexion with the Sabbath, on purely Christian 
 grounds ;—that it was not until after the fifth 
 century that this view was materially impaired ; 
 and that it was not until towards the end of the 
 sixteenth century that a Sabbatarian origin was 
 formally proposed instead. 
 
 I have contended also, that in the Ancient 
 Church nothing like a Sabbatarian view of the 
 
904 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 manner in which the Lord’s Day should be 
 observed, was even thought of ;—that if its 
 origin was not traced by the early Christians to 
 enactments contained in the Jewish law, still 
 less were they in the habit of referring, I will 
 not say to the glosses put upon it by the Phari- 
 sees and Rabbins, but to that law itself, for 
 restrictions and directions concerning it ;—that 
 as they did not dream of saying, the Sabbath 
 still exists though shifted from the seventh to 
 the first day of the week by Christianity, so they 
 did not dream of asserting that the Lord’s Day, 
 admitting it to be a distinct institution, is to be 
 observed as was the Sabbath either of tradition 
 or of Scripture. And I may add here, that if 
 any passages seem to imply anything opposed to 
 these positions, they will be found on examina- 
 tion either to be of questionable genuineness, or 
 to assert no more than is conveyed in such words 
 as the following :—‘“ The Jewish Church had one 
 day, the Seventh, for her worship, which was 
 marked in a special manner. ‘The Christian 
 Church has given up that day; but she has a 
 day—a more glorious day—the First, for her 
 worship, and that not a Jewish worship.” In 
 this manner may be explained also even Arch- 
 bishop Bramhall’s word ‘substitution,’ which 
 is opposed to his general theory of the distinct 
 origin and observance of the two days. 
 
 _I have contended, moreover, that the Jewish 
 system was at the best a system of restrictions 
 
LECTURE VIII. 3805 
 
 (though not so severe as is generally supposed) ; 
 Christianity a dispensation of freedom. 
 
 And, in illustration of this, that in no respect 
 is the difference between the two dispensations 
 more manifest than in the religious character of 
 the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day respectively. 
 
 That, as to the former, it was primarily a rest 
 (Ewald has termed it “a sacrifice of renuncia- 
 tion’’), formally enjoined, and enforced under 
 severe threatenings, and even penalties, in order 
 to give time, and opportunity, and disengage- 
 ment, for religious duties. (I am not speaking 
 here of its other aspects.) 
 
 That, as to the latter, it was the setting apart 
 a day as a religious day simply—nothing being 
 said about rest—nothing being peremptorily laid 
 down as to cessation from personal labour, or as 
 to the enforcement of rest upon others. 
 
 These and many other positions bearing more 
 or less upon them I have ventured to treat of, 
 not merely as theological, but as literary and 
 antiquarian topics, with what has been well 
 called ‘‘the chartered freedom of historical dis- 
 cussion.” And I have brought down my in- 
 quiry almost to the present time. My task, 
 however, is not completed. I cannot conceal 
 from myself, and I would not conceal from you, 
 that there are several practical questions con- 
 nected with our subject which it would not be 
 right to pass over—questions blending them- 
 selves most nearly with our social life, our indi- 
 
 x 
 
306 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 vidual comfort, and I may say with our earliest 
 religious prepossessions. Such are the follow- 
 ing :—Though the Lord’s Day be not the 
 Sabbath, is it not a day of rest? If of rest, of 
 what sort of rest? Is it a rest permissive of 
 recreation? If so, of what kind or degree? 
 Supposing the rest to be not expressly com- 
 manded in Scripture, on what principle may 
 society either enforce it by forbidding employ- 
 ments, or regulate it by directing recreations ? 
 
 We will take these questions in order. 
 
 Is the Lord’s Day a day of rest ? Thank God, 
 we may reply, It is. But why is it so? Because, 
 for many hundred years, it has been so esteemed, 
 and been productive of incalculable benefit ? or 
 because it has survived in that character the 
 world’s attempts to deprave it, or the attempts 
 of corrupt churches to confuse it with other 
 days ἢ or because Constantine so decreed it, and 
 found an echo and confirmation of his decree in 
 the gladdened hearts of Christians? or because, 
 when he so decreed it, their acquiescence proved 
 that it had been either observed or desired as 
 a rest before? or because, directly the Church 
 was so far free as to be able to profess her rest, 
 she proceeded to regulate it? or because certain 
 early Fathers, as Tertullian, allude to cessation 
 of business upon it? or because the inspired 
 Apostles, who set it apart, must have had before 
 them the analogy of the Jewish law? or because 
 our own Church parabolically sets that law 
 
LECTURE VIII. 307 
 
 before us in the public recital of the Decalogue ? 
 or because that law so set before us is founded 
 deep in the necessities of human nature, which 
 requires rest after labour? or because the mys- 
 terious example of the Creator seems to denote 
 that rest and labour are to alternate ? or because 
 none who have tried to make it a rest have 
 denied its blessedness? These are reasons, many 
 of them powerful singly, and, in their combi- 
 nation, very powerful indeed, why the Lord’s 
 Day should be considered a day of rest, and 
 though not the Sabbath, yet metaphorically a 
 Christian Sabbath. 
 
 But, all these supposed and allowed to have 
 their due weight, there is yet a higher reason. It 
 
 is a divinely sanctioned religious day, or rather _, 
 
 the religious day of Christians. “It has the 
 nomen et omen of the Lord’s Day. As such,.it 
 
 is a day which from its very character draws us 7 / _ 
 away from the ordinary things of this life—life’s” ὁ 
 
 labours and life’s cares—and bids us with hearts 
 “swept and garnished”’ invite the Lord’s pre- 
 sence. It is a day set apart—a day for religion. 
 But how can it be this except those opportunities 
 of distraction, which interfere with religion in 
 general, are foregone? How can we—lI speak for 
 the multitude—how can we, amid the struggle 
 how to live, the anxieties of families, the urgency 
 of affairs, the competition of selfishness, imitate 
 those of old in reverence for the Lord’s Day, 
 unless we make it a resting day ?—unless for 
 x2 
 
308 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 those prayers that we utter we have time to 
 search our hearts ?—unless we have leisure to 
 prepare for and meditate on the Holy Eucharist ? 
 —unless to that social worship in which we join 
 is added sufficient disengagement to enable us to 
 escape from the narrow circle of self into thoughts 
 of and actions for the large family of God? From 
 its very nature the day bids us lift up our hearts, 
 and points us to the invisible. It must, there- 
 fore, be a rest from the routine of things 
 temporal. 
 
 But the Lord of the Day is not merely God, 
 but both God and Man. It is, therefore, the day 
 of One who, flesh of our flesh, knoweth whereof 
 We are made, and considereth that we are but 
 dust. Accordingly, it is not merely one in 
 which, as a religious day, we are reminded of 
 the better things appertaining to the Divine part 
 of our nature, and on which we have rest for 
 them, but on which we may refresh and recreate 
 our whole nature. Christ’s resurrection from 
 the dead, ‘‘ with all things appertaining to the 
 perfection of man’s nature,’”’ being commemo- 
 rated upon it, it is a day of rest to those for 
 whom their Lord by His rising conquered sin 
 and death. 
 
 Weli, but if the Lord’s Day is a day of rest, 
 what sort of rest is it? Is it a mere animal rest ἢ 
 This was not enjoined, as I showed in the Fourth 
 Lecture, even upon the Sabbath—-much less, then, 
 should a repose suitable only ‘to the beasts that 
 
LECTURE VIII. 309 
 
 99 
 
 perish”? be assigned to “the children of the 
 resurrection.” Is it a gloomy penitential rest, 
 one which checks cheerful converse, family meet- 
 ings, gladdening sights and sounds, invigorating 
 air and exercise, contemplation of God’s wonders 
 in earth and sky, and which strictly forbids every- 
 thing save direct participation in religious offices, 
 and receiving or communicating religious in- 
 struction? Were it so, the Ancient Church 
 would scarcely, I think, almost with one voice, 
 have applied to the Lord’s Day the words of our 
 text, “‘This is the Day which the Lord hath 
 made, we will rejoice and be glad in it:” and the 
 terms, cheerfulness, joyfulness, (εὐφροσύνη, xappo- 
 σύνη,) and the like, would not have occurred so 
 often as they do occur in Patristical writers, as 
 descriptive of a temper not unbefitting the Day 
 of the Lord’s Resurrection. The Sabbath itself, 
 Christ being the interpreter of it, was no day of 
 penance and mortification such as this would be. 
 The religion indeed of the Lord’s Day makes it a 
 resting day, and may naturally tinge the enjoy- 
 ments of it with sobriety ; but sobriety is not sad- 
 ness, still less is it abstinence and mortification. 
 Is it a rest merely for the intellectual man, the 
 man of business, or the man of laborious bodily 
 exertion, that according to the poet’s words, 
 “vegeti preescripta ad munia surgant,”’ on the 
 Monday ? Is it intended merely to turn their 
 thoughts into another channel, say of pleasant 
 recreation, or sight-seeing, or travelling, or con- 
 
910 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 vivial gatherings? It might be so, could the 
 thought be laid aside that each of these is an 
 immortal man. But can this be done on the Day 
 of Him who rose from the dead, whose Resur- 
 rection is a pledge of ours, who won our Resur- 
 rection for us ? 
 
 Is it again a rest so strict that upon it all 
 labour is forbidden, and to all, whatever occasion 
 of necessity or charity, or public or private good, 
 may call us to action? Then surely He was 
 wrong who healed the sick even on the Sabbath, 
 and desired the sick man to carry his bed; who 
 sat at meat on the Sabbath Day in the house of 
 one of the Pharisees, where servants waited upon 
 Him ; who justified circumcision on the Sabbath, 
 and blamed not the priests’ offices, many of them 
 minute and servile, performed in the temple on 
 that day ? 
 
 Thus far negatively, upon this part of our 
 subject. Perhaps an outline of positive teaching 
 upon it may be obtained from the following 
 words of Bishop Prideaux, which I give you 
 in a quaint but in the main correct translation, 
 made some two hundred years ago:— “ He 
 that endeavors to pursue the several bye-ways, 
 and dissonant clamours of particular men, in 
 this present argument, entereth into a most 
 inextricable Labyrinth. But generally those 
 things which others have propounded in some 
 obscurity, may be reduced most fitly unto these 
 two heads: First, that we mark distinctly, in 
 
LECTURE VIII. 911 
 
 the celebration of this Day, what special duties 
 are commanded, and next, what offices are per- 
 mitted. To the discovery whereof, these words, 
 our God, our neighbour, and ourselves, like a 
 Mercurial finger, will direct our journey, amidst 
 the several turnings of this present world. These 
 three are principally aimed at in those pious 
 duties, which on this day have been commended 
 to us, or rather imposed on us, by the acts and 
 practice of the Apostles. First, ‘the Disciples 
 came together, to break Bread and hear the Word:’ 
 which, without solemn and preparatory Prayers, 
 were a faint Devotion (Acts xx.). This is the 
 honor due to God. ‘Collections’ are secondly 
 appointed (1 Cor. xvi.). This is in reference to 
 our neighbour. And last of all, St. John ‘ was in 
 the Spirit on the Lord’s Day’ (Rev. i.). This in 
 relation to ourselves: that so our pious contem- 
 plations, borne by the wings of the Spirit, may 
 ascend on high; ‘even to those Hills from whence 
 cometh our Salvation.’ Therefore, upon this 
 Day, God’s people are to meet in the Congre- 
 gation, to celebrate Divine Service, and to hear 
 the Word: Alms to be given, and godly Medita- 
 tions to be cherished with our best endeavors. 
 From whence ariseth that, as an Accessory in the 
 Gospel, which was a Principal in the Law of 
 Moses, Rest from servile Works, and from the 
 ordinary works of our vocation. (Unde consec- 
 tarium fit illud in Evangelio, quod in Legis eminet 
 frontispicio, ab operibus, sive servilibus, sive 
 
912 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 vocationis, vacatio.) For since there is not extant 
 either commandment or example in the Gospel, 
 which can affix the Rest of the Jewish Sabbath 
 to the Lord’s Day now celebrated ; and that our 
 Christian liberty will not away with that severe 
 or Ceremonial kind of Rest which was then in 
 use: we only are so far to abstain from work, as 
 it is an impediment of such duties as are then 
 commanded. .... To end in brief, those things 
 are all commanded, which do advance God’s 
 public service; and those permitted, which are 
 no hindrance thereto. Of this sort, specially, are 
 the works of necessity ....; then, works of 
 Charity, first, in relation to ourselves; and here 
 we are permitted recreations (of what sort soever) 
 which serve lawfully to refresh our spirits, and 
 nourish mutual neighbourhood amongst us: next 
 in relation to others, and here no labour (how 
 troublesome soever) is to be refused, which may 
 accommodate our neighbour, and cannot fitly be 
 deferred. Where we must always keep this rule; 
 that this our Christian liberty be void of scandal, 
 T mean of scandal justly given, and not vainly 
 caught at; that we pretend not charity to absent 
 ourselves from refigious duties, when covetous- 
 ness or loathing, or neglect of God’s holy Ordi- 
 nances are underhand the principal motives . . . 
 And unto all these, whether Recreations or Enter- 
 tainments, Feastings and other indifferent cus- 
 toms, it only appertaineth to the Religious 
 Magistrate to prescribe bounds and limits; not 
 
LECTURE VIII. 919 
 
 to the rash zeal of every one, which out of 
 Schismatical Stoicism . . . relapse into Judaism, 
 nor on the other side, to every prodigal and 
 debauched companion.”’ 
 
 The words of Bishop Prideaux, may, I think, ’ 
 with a few qualifications and explanations, 
 supply something like a principle or set of prin- 
 ples for the employment and enjoyment of the 
 Lord’s Day. And if any choose to insist that 
 because no command is given in set words for 
 rest, all labour is allowable—or, that if any 
 labour is allowable, none can be fairly pro- 
 hibited—or again, that supposing rest to be poli- 
 tically and socially desirable and expedient, no 
 limitation of the nature of the recreation to be 
 enjoyed upon it is reasonable—reples are at 
 once ready. 
 
 For the first and second points. An intelligent 
 Christian State cannot possibly ignore the fact of 
 the religion of the Lord’s Day, and is therefore 
 bound to promote it. As little can it help per- 
 ceiving that except opportunity is given for the 
 exercise of that religion, the world will intrude 
 into the Day, and swamp it altogether. There 
 are millions of persons subject to the State who 
 as much require protection by reason of their 
 poverty, or their irresolution, or their blindness 
 to what is good for them, from the spirit of the 
 world, as they require protection from aggression 
 upon their goods or attacks upon their person. 
 And as Christian men, one of the dearest 
 
314 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 rights which they claim, is the Lord’s Day. 
 To these, therefore, it extends its aid, by forbid- 
 ding, as far as may be, the external exercise of 
 men’s callings on the Lord’s Day. I say, the 
 external exercise, for it can only do this, and it 
 transcends its legitimate province if it attempts 
 more. And I say, as far as may be, for first, it 
 often finds itself dealing with miserable neigh- 
 bourhoods, which cannot be dealt with by sharp 
 remedies applied indiscriminately, but must be 
 prepared by religious ‘and social influences. 
 Then, it has to deal with an accumulation 
 sometimes of millions, crowded together after an 
 abnormal sort, covering I know not how many 
 contiguous square miles, whose mere bodily 
 wants, and measures for whose temporal con- 
 venience and even existence, must cause the em- 
 ployment of a vast number of persons on every 
 day. And thirdly, the limits between what is a 
 public and what is a private exercise of a man’s 
 calling, are frequently so faint and indistinct, 
 that it cannot touch the one without invading 
 the other—or cannot touch one class of persons 
 without unfairly indulging another class. 
 
 By the light of these replies we may, I think, 
 see our way to the solution of some of the 
 questions which beset us in reference to Sunday. 
 The State, if it has a conscience, and a con- 
 science as well-informed as that of individuals, 
 ought indeed to deplore, and, we may be sure, 
 does deplore, the awful condition of many parts 
 
LECTURE VIII. 315 
 
 of great cities,—the buying and selling that goes 
 on—the disappearance from the face of things 
 not merely of anything like religion, but of any- 
 thing like rest on the Lord’s Day—and the dis- 
 couragement which the better disposed part of 
 the population experiences from the competition 
 of worldly neighbours. And therefore it is 
 bound, so far as may be possible, to put a stop 
 to this state of things. But what is it to do? 
 Is it to determine at once to close every shop 
 —to prevent all dealings of man with man on 
 Sunday? Surely, until the dwellings of the poor 
 are better fitted for keeping perishable articles 
 —until wages are so paid as to enable persons 
 to make their purchases on the evening of 
 Saturday, and until each poor man has con- 
 venience at home for preparing his scanty Sun- 
 day meal, it were worse than mockery, it were 
 cruelty itself, to insist that none shall supply 
 his brother’s need in these and many other 
 matters relating to his very existence. What 
 remedy, then, would you propose? Shall it be 
 to legalise Sunday dealings during certain hours 
 or up to a certain hour, and out of certain 
 hours or after a certain hour to render them 
 illegal ? The remedy were worse than the disease. 
 You would thereby infringe upon the principle 
 that Sunday is a day of religion, and so of rest. 
 You would admit formally that a considerable 
 portion may be subtracted from it. On this 
 ground I firmly protest against a certain Bill 
 
316 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 which has just passed the House of Lords— 
 but which I hope will never become law. For 
 its effect may be stated thus—(observe, I do not 
 mean the intention of the respected proposer of 
 it, but its effect or tendency)—‘‘ Whereas, at 
 present, with certain exceptions, the Divine 
 authority of the Lord’s Day is recognised as a 
 reason for general suspension of business during 
 its continuance; and whereas, also, such excep- 
 tions premised, whatever business now takes 
 place on that day, is a contravention, whether 
 excusable or not, of provisions for such suspen- 
 sion; this state of things shall determine. For 
 the future, the public recognition of the Lord’s 
 Day rest shall be considerably limited in the 
 case of large classes of tradesmen in London, 
 whose numbers may, by a little management, 
 be almost indefinitely extended. And, by impli- 
 cation, the customers of these large classes of 
 tradesmen shall be tempted to limit it in like 
 manner.’ In other words, that whereas suspen- 
 sion of business on the Holy Day is now the rule, 
 and carrying it on, whether partially or wholly, 
 the exception, it shall hereafter be lawful, in 
 London, to large classes, to traffic, as a rule, in 
 many cases up to Ten o’clock, in many others 
 throughout the Day, with the reservation of from 
 Ten to One. To such narrow limits, in the chief 
 City of this Christian land, in the nineteenth 
 century of Christianity, is Christ’s honor to be 
 reduced! If the Bill passes, the Lord’s Day is 
 
LECTURE VIII. S17 
 
 no more. Οὕτως ἠφάνισται ἐκ τῆς πόλεως, ὥσπερ εἴ 
 τις τὸ ἔαρ ἐκ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐξέλο. And though 
 we may say, its operation is confined to the 
 Metropolis, and that even there, ‘‘'Three Hours”’ 
 will still be reverenced, these questions may be 
 pertinently asked, When was a principle ever 
 surrendered without ill consequences ? How long 
 will it be before this precedent affects the pro- 
 vinces? How long will the ‘“‘Three Hours’’ be 
 spared to us? I do not speak at random, but 
 after a careful perusal of the Bill. And I assert, 
 advisedly, two things concerning it. First, it 
 will make matters worse than they are. At 
 present, but few shops are open during the after- 
 noon, and a vast proportion of those which are 
 open in the morning, is so in spite of the law. 
 The Bill will legalise the morning opening, and, 
 in many cases, enable the owners (and by en- 
 abling tempt them) to re-open them from One 
 o’clock throughout the day. And secondly, the 
 Bill says virtually, whereas the Legislature was 
 the guardian of the Lord’s Day, and held it in 
 trust for the religion and the rest of the People ; 
 it is expedient to confiscate this trust property, 
 and to convert it to secular uses, allowing out 
 of it “‘ three hours” to those whose right it was, 
 but 7s no longer. I hope, I say, this Bill will 
 never become law. A better expedient would 
 seem to be this: To retain the principle of prohi- 
 bition intact, to retain even penalties for viola- 
 tion of it, to strengthen, if necessary, the means 
 
318 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 of enforcing penalties; but remembering that 
 the religion which it is intended to promote is 
 one, which, like its Author, ‘will have mercy 
 and not sacrifice,” to abstain from enforcing 
 penalties where the offenders are scarcely respon- 
 sible. Meanwhile, however, to encourage -all 
 such missionary and philanthropic agencies as 
 may prepare and make ready the way for further 
 measures bye and bye. 
 
 Of course this forbearance would not apply, 
 save in a very few exceptional instances, to trade 
 in anything but the necessaries of life. Even 
 in respect to these, there seems to be no absolute 
 impossibility in the enforcement of the closing 
 principle at certain hours on Sunday. As to 
 labours carried on within the dwellings, whether 
 of rich or poor, other influences must be brought 
 to bear, of which we shall speak presently. 
 
 So again with respect to travelling. Here it 
 is perfectly obvious that the State should, for 
 the sake both of those who minister to travelling, 
 and of those who might be tempted to travel, 
 enforce, as far as possible, the religion and the 
 rest of Sunday. But such are the necessities 
 of its subjects that it can only do a very little, 
 only diminish the number of trains, only regu- 
 late the hours, only insist that the attendants 
 shall be sufficiently numerous to allow of their 
 having some repose, if not a total repose. The 
 same remark will apply to postal and police 
 arrangements, and to those many social matters 
 
LECTURE VIII. 319 
 
 which an intricate system does and must bring 
 before it. The State may do something, and it 
 does do something, to reduce the amount of 
 things which are performed on the Lord’s Day, 
 and which, so far forth, assimilate it to other 
 days. It may do something to ameliorate the 
 condition of those whom itself employs, by 
 having in each department sufficient relays of 
 servants, and by treating them, not as mere 
 instruments, but as men with immortal hopes, 
 and present spiritual life. But it cannot stop 
 such labours altogether. Those who demand 
 most loudly that it should stop them, would 
 do well to recollect the confusion and almost 
 dismay caused no long time ago by a temporary 
 concession to the demand for the absolute closing 
 of the Post Office during the twenty-four hours 
 of Sunday. 
 
 In all this, the State, which I have supposed 
 to be thus acting, acts strictly upon principle. 
 It forbids labour on Sunday, as for a man’s own 
 worldly profit, absolutely. It only permits what 
 is accidentally for a man’s own worldly profit, 
 from broad considerations essentially connected 
 with society. It compels no man to labour on 
 that day, for it compels no. man to enter upon 
 such and such employments. But it is obliged 
 to say, if a man enters upon such and such em- 
 ployments, some labour must necessarily be 
 endured. Its forbearance, its tenderness, its 
 consideration for its subjects, its remembrance 
 
320 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 of their immortal destinies, its thoughtfulness 
 for their temporal interests, remain unimpeach- 
 able and unimpaired, though let of their full 
 development. It feels, that in a matter on which 
 no positive directions are laid down in Holy 
 Scripture, it has to determine, on a Scriptural 
 view of its own functions, what is on the whole 
 necessary, first, in the way of prohibitions, and 
 secondly, in the way of merciful interpretation 
 of its own prohibitions. Regarded merely as 
 ancient records, the provisions of the Hebrew 
 economy are monuments and lessons to a Chris- 
 tian State. But the Holy Volume in which 
 those provisions are contained, exhibits to it at 
 least an adumbration of the manner in which 
 both the moral obligation to worship God at 
 some time, and a positive law to worship Him 
 at a particular time, may and ought to be carried 
 out. 
 
 And so it is with reference to the recreations 
 permissible on the Lord’s Day. Here Scrip- 
 ture has given no exact directions as to what 
 men may indulge in, or from what they are 
 bound to abstain. But in Scripture are found 
 assertions of the necessity of rest, and indications 
 that the periodic rest enjoined under a stricter 
 and less pliable dispensation than Christianity, 
 was compatible with a variety of relaxations, 
 and that on it the poor, the uninstructed, the 
 weak in mind or in body, were considered by 
 the strong, and protected by the State. So, a 
 
LECTURE VIII. 9291 
 
 Christian State acts thus: First, it interferes as 
 little as possible with private amusements on 
 Sunday, leaving them to the conscience of the 
 individual; secondly, it gives a wise facility of 
 air and exercise to the working classes and the 
 poor, especially in crowded localities, by provid- 
 ing parks and similar open spaces; thirdly, 
 it throws no obstacles in the way of those who, 
 unable to find these indispensable requisites at 
 home, desire to move elsewhere to find them. 
 But here it pauses. It does not compel men to 
 listen to, and virtually to approve of, any public 
 declaration, like that in the “ Book of Sports,”’ 
 that such and such things are lawful or desirable; 
 or resort to ruder ages, such as those before the 
 Reformation, for mummings and miracle plays 
 —or to over strict countries, such as Scotland, 
 for exclusively devotional pleasures—or to lax 
 countries, such as may be found on the Continent, 
 for a license which does away with the sanctity 
 of the day altogether. It does not insist that all 
 persons shall recreate themselves in the same 
 way, or lay down that every mode of relaxation, 
 abstractedly lawful, shall be permissible. Τί 
 considers, on the one hand, that men of different 
 labours and pursuits need differences of relaxa- 
 tion; and on the other, that the following points 
 fairly come under the State’s notice; ‘ Do such 
 and such amusements make large and noisy 
 gatherings? Do they involve unduly extensive 
 employment of attendants? Do they offer induce- 
 Y 
 
322 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 ments to the multitude to forget the religion of 
 the Day ἢ Do they offend the reasonable scruples 
 of the religious and well-affected? Are they 
 but pretexts of affording relaxation to the mil- 
 lion, while they are really attempts to improve 
 gigantic trading speculations?’ So again, it 
 does not pronounce it to be lawful or unlawful, 
 in the abstract, to contemplate works of art, or 
 collections of natural history, or the like, on the 
 Lord’s Day. But it refrains from haying them 
 then opened to the public. And this for various 
 reasons. In some cases, because the plea of 
 public health or necessity is not sufficiently 
 established ; in others, because if public collec- 
 tions are opened, it might be difficult to discover 
 grounds on which similar private collections 
 should be closed; and in others, because on 
 the principle— 
 
 *Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes,” 
 
 a design of getting rid of the religious charac- 
 ter of the day, under a specious show of devoting 
 it to moral and intellectual improvement, may be 
 apprehended. In general, the State seems to 
 hold, that any systematic employment of the 
 Christian rest, which shall intensely direct the 
 mind of the multitude to special studies not 
 religious—and that any large assemblies, not 
 religious, or even pretending to be religious, then 
 held, are an intrusion upon the character of the 
 Day, in which if men meet together, it 15 85 the | 
 
LECTURE VIII. 323 
 
 Body of Christ, in commemoration of His Resur- 
 rection, and in anticipation of their own. 
 
 No doubt, such is the complication of things, 
 the State is unable to be entirely consistent. Did 
 it pretend to be so, it might easily be confounded 
 by the argument, that it is no more objectionable 
 to visit the National Gallery, than to gaze at the 
 Cartoons at Hampton Court, which, as far as one 
 can see, do as little harm as the gardens there— 
 that one may as well be studying practical 
 Geology in Jermyn Street, or Archeology in the 
 British Museum, as Botany in the gardens at 
 Kew—that if it is not wrong for the proprietors 
 of the Crystal Palace or the members of the Zoo- 
 logical or Botanical Societies, to walk in their 
 pleasure grounds on the Lord’s Day; it is not 
 wrong for the general public to be admitted into 
 those places. But to demand absolute consistency 
 would be to put the matter on a wrong issue. 
 The State has to promote the religious and tem- 
 poral welfare of its subjects. It conceives itself 
 bound to promote the former, as far as it can, 
 and the latter by such means as will not impede 
 the realization of the former. It cannot, without 
 abdicating its functions, decline the office of 
 determining how far it can reconcile these two 
 designs. At the same time, as it cannot, without 
 tyranny, meddle with the use which men make 
 personally of their own property, it does not 
 meddle with proprietors, be they many or be 
 they few, who use their gardens or collections 
 
 y2 
 
924, LECTURE VIII. 
 
 purely for their private, ungainful purposes. On 
 them rests the responsibility, and on them, if 
 there be sin in using them, must rest the sin. 
 
 Still less would it be fair to make the State 
 responsible for the indirect consequences of 
 things which it is obliged to allow; for the 
 license of those who will not enjoy liberty in | 
 a sober manner; for the noisiness in which 
 Sunday visits to the country sometimes termi- 
 nate; or for the adoption of the plea of neces- 
 sity for such visits by those who, in conscience, 
 have no right to urge that plea. It does what 
 it can. Experience shows that it cannot do 
 much more than it does. Whenever it attempts 
 to descend to minute particulars; to distinguish 
 between travellers with grave cause, and travel- 
 lers for mere pleasure, or between houses which 
 dispense one sort of refreshment, and those 
 which dispense another; in fact, directly it gets 
 to rules, it is met by a cry of class legislation, 
 or by those uproarious demonstrations, of which, 
 no long time ago, one of our Metropolitan Parks 
 was the scene. 
 
 Indefensible as those demonstrations were in a 
 legal point of view, they were to a certain extent 
 natural—as being produced by a sense of unfair- 
 ness. It would, however, be a mistake to suppose 
 that this was their sole moving cause. Con- 
 siderable selfishness and thoughtlessness for the 
 welfare of the general body were mingled with 
 it. “The poor (says a well-known Nonconfor- 
 mist) have their dependents as well as the rich; 
 
LECTURE VIII. 825 
 
 dependents, not on an individual but on a num- 
 ber. Was not the real import of the demonstra- 
 tion this? Was it not the working classes 
 saying to the rich, “ Let us work our dependents, 
 and you shall work yours; give ours rest, and 
 you shall give your own rest?’ Was it not 
 working men making a compact with the rich to 
 use money-power to force the dependents of both 
 classes to serve their pleasures instead of enjoy- 
 ing a day of rest? No man is wholly servant, 
 and none is wholly master. On Committees the 
 lord serves; in shops, in omnibusses, and steam- 
 boats, the mechanic is employer. As servants, 
 both classes claim liberty. Lord or blacksmith, 
 they will have their Sunday. As employers, both 
 claim power, power to deprive others of a rest 
 as expressly given to servants as to masters. The 
 cry of Hyde Park was a cry for power. It was 
 the gold-beater, the joiner, the currier, the tailor, 
 crying ‘ Power, power over all whom I employ ! 
 Power over bakers, stokers, drivers, barmaids, 
 green-grocers, and butchers! Power to say to 
 all who depend upon me, Work on Sunday or 
 starve |’ ” 
 
 This extract has perhaps the faults of ignoring 
 the necessities of a great town population too 
 entirely, and of insisting that any relaxation 
 which involves the employment of others on the 
 Lord’s Day is unlawful. But it contains the 
 mournful truth, that the religious character of 
 the day, and the Christian bonds which should 
 
326 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 bind each man to his brother, and charitable 
 allowance for each other’s circumstances, are not . 
 unfrequently forgotten by those who insist most 
 urgently on its character as a Day of Rest. 
 Some, however, may still assert, in opposition 
 to what has been urged above, that “ all legisla- 
 tion in respect to Sunday is Sabbatarian ;” that 
 “a Christian’s surrender of his time to God 
 ought to be purely one of love.” The latter of 
 these propositions I grant to the fullest extent. 
 It ought to be so. It is so, in theory, and hence, 
 I suppose, it is that minute directions for the 
 employment of the Lord’s Day are not found in 
 Scripture. But then it must ever be remembered 
 how large a portion of Christians, in fact, how 
 nearly all of us, need to be considered under 
 education, and in preparation for better things ; 
 how readily we are carried away by bad example, 
 and how necessary therefore, it is, that the State, 
 which concerns itself with the external mainte- 
 nance of the moral commandments, should con- 
 cern itself with the eaternal maintenance of this 
 positive commandment also. For observe, the 
 State does not venture upon the training of the 
 inner rman, in the one case or in the other. That 
 is left to other and higher and more permeating 
 influences. It cannot directly check envy, or 
 hatred, or concupiscence, or the covetous desire ; 
 but it can to a certain extent, and to that extent 
 it ought to, prevent or punish the aggressions 
 which lead to some of these, and the crimes 
 
LECTURE VIII. 327 
 
 which proceed from others of these. So, it cannot 
 make men love Sunday, or keep it on a right 
 principle. But it may, and it ought to, remove 
 inducements to forgetfulness of its divine cha- 
 racter; it may forbid actions which reduce it 
 to a mere secular institution, and aggressions 
 upon it which tend to its practical abolition. 
 To prevent its operation in this way would be 
 to ignore the value of secondary motives and 
 checks, and their utility as educational appliances. 
 I might say something, perhaps, of the effect 
 of a foreign Sunday, even upon a well-disposed 
 English traveller, when he is freed from such 
 secondary motives and checks as he finds at. 
 home. But I forbear. I will only observe 
 further on this head, that I totally dissent from 
 the proposition that ‘all legislation in respect 
 to Sunday is Sabbatarian.” Very little of such 
 legislation as we have at present for Sunday or 
 the Lord’s Day can be called Sabbatarian. (There 
 is scarcely an English Act of Parliament, if in- 
 deed there is one, in which the word Sabbath 
 occurs, though the Divine authority of the Lord’s 
 Day is in set terms acknowledged. In the 
 Queen’s proclamation it is called the Lord’s 
 Day.) Our legislation is, so to speak, far less 
 Sabbatarian than was the edict of Constantine, 
 which has sometimes been thus designated. For 
 it does not, as that edict appeared to do, provide 
 for a different sort of obedience to it by different 
 classes. 
 
928 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 Others, as Mr. J. 8S. Mill, assert that “all 
 legislation in respect to Sunday is an illegitimate 
 interference with the rightful liberty of the indi- 
 vidual.” I am not much concerned to answer 
 this objection at length, for I find it supported 
 by the following statements :—‘“It remains to be 
 proved that society, or any of its officers, holds a 
 commission from on high to avenge any supposed 
 affront to Omnipotence, which is not also a wrong 
 to our fellow-creatures;”’ and again, ‘‘ The notion 
 that it is one man’s duty that another should be 
 religious was the foundation of all the religious 
 persecutions ever perpetrated, and, if admitted, 
 would fully justify them.’ Now, passing over 
 the fallacy contained in the word ‘‘ wrong,”’ such 
 statements obviously ignore,—first, the Christi- 
 anity of Government; secondly, the duty of 
 Government to promote, so far as it can, the 
 welfare of its subjects in accordance with 
 Christian principles. And they confound two 
 very distinct things, the making men think 
 alike, and the providing against external hind- 
 rances to their thinking and acting rightly. I 
 find too, on examining the work from which 
 these extracts are made, that the maxim,— 
 “ Deorum injuriz Dis cure” is quoted with 
 approbation by its author. If this maxim is to 
 be admitted to its full extent, the ruler indeed 
 ‘bears the sword in vain.’ Immorality, as well 
 as neglect of God’s worship, both of them, though 
 in a different way, come under the head of 
 
LECTURE VIII. 3829 
 
 ‘despite done to the Divine Majesty.’ It would 
 be difficult to lay down a principle on which the 
 legislator may interfere with external acts tend- 
 ing to the former, while he is forbidden to inter- 
 fere with external acts tending to the latter. 
 
 But how shall the Lord’s Day be placed 
 upon its true foundation ? In other words, how 
 shall it be employed both for the glory of God 
 and for the good of man ? 
 
 Two agencies may be set in motion—that of 
 the Church, and that of individuals. 
 
 A prominent method by which the Church 
 might place the Lord’s Day on its true founda- 
 tion would, I think, be this; so to meet the wants 
 of the people as to enable them to make it a 
 Religious Day, without losing it as a Rest Day. 
 At present her services are so long, or I should 
 rather say, so continuous, and celebrated at such 
 an hour, as to be unavailable to the poor, and 
 wearisome to children and invalids. What pas- 
 tor has not lamented the almost total neglect of 
 the Holy Communion by the poor, and found his 
 exhortations to them to come to Morning Ser- 
 vice, when alone it is generally administered, 
 well nigh in vain? And yet who does not see, 
 that it is next to impossible to the harassed 
 mother to do more than prepare her children for 
 Church or for School, while she has to attend to 
 household cares and the Sunday meal of the 
 family ἢ Who can expect the poor man, unaccus- 
 tomed to mental exertion, and worn out with 
 
990 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 bodily exertion, to frequent a Morning Service of 
 three or even of two hours duration? And how 
 few domestic servants can be spared for so long a 
 time, even if they possessed sufficient powers of 
 attention! One urges them perhaps to attend. 
 A feeling arises in them that more is expected 
 than can be performed. And, even if an After- 
 noon Service is attended, a severance takes place 
 of the Lord’s Day duties from the Lord’s Supper, 
 an ordinance which is not merely a distin- 
 guishing mark of the Day, but is the means, 
 to those who in faith partake of it, of maintain- 
 ing the Risen Life. 
 
 I suggest then, (earnest missionary action being 
 presupposed,) that an important step on the 
 part of the Church, if she would enable persons in 
 general to keep Sunday as a religious Day, would 
 be to rearrange her Services. This might, in many 
 cases, be done at once, by separating offices now 
 blended together, and by administering the Holy 
 Communion in the afternoon or evening, some- 
 times as a separate Service, sometimes as an appen- 
 dage to other Services. What insuperable objec- 
 tion there can be to this, I cannot conceive. The 
 poor man’s scanty repast at mid-day, is seldom 
 such as to unfit him for partaking in that holy 
 ordinance; and, whether we look to the time of 
 its institution, or to the practice of antiquity, we 
 find no special limitation of it to the hour of the 
 day at which it is now generally celebrated. 
 [There are parishes, though these are rather 
 
LECTURE VIII. 991 
 
 exceptional, where a very early Communion might 
 be desirable, and where indeed it has been intro- 
 duced with good effect. This, however, would 
 scarcely meet the need which I have now in view. 
 I would fain enable those to enjoy the ordinance, 
 who are poor, who are overworked during the 
 week, or who are urgently required at home from 
 domestic or other causes. They cannot attend 
 even the one o'clock Communion; still less could 
 they anticipate that hour. Yet many of them can 
 and do attend the Communion at a later hour, as 
 is proved by most satisfactory testimony. I would 
 increase such opportunities as much as possible. ] 
 And then, though I would not at this moment 
 urge that our Prayer-Book should be revised, 
 and certainly not by a Royal Commission, I 
 would venture to plead that we do need addi- 
 tions to it, in the shape of shorter and simpler 
 Services for the poor, for the unlettered and ‘for 
 children. ‘A parish can never be all at Church 
 at once, (says Thorndike). The order of the 
 Church never becomes the Church till it demon- 
 strates a care of all Christian souls alike. 
 Between the hours of eight and twelve there is 
 time enough for two assemblies. For who could 
 wish either of them to exceed an hour? They 
 that would have the reformation of the Church 
 to be indeed that which the law of the land call- 
 eth it, should first provide a course to be estab- 
 lished for law, by which all Christian souls (who 
 have an equal interest in the common salvation) 
 
992 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 might serve God in public all Sundays and Fes- 
 tivals.’’ He has more to the same purpose: and 
 his principle may be extended. If the people 
 cannot be brought to Church, and especially to 
 the Holy Communion, at our present hours, and 
 with our existing Services, the hours and the 
 Services must be adapted to suit them. I am 
 persuaded that we shall never make Sunday a 
 religious Day to the mass of our population, 
 until we make its Services such as the mass can 
 attend, more compatibly with their circumstances 
 and habits, and feel interest in, as brought more 
 to the level of their mental cultivation. 
 
 It is not a fault of the Church itself that I 
 have next to notice, but one properly belonging 
 to ourselves of the Clergy. We have, perhaps, 
 taken a narrow view of the manner in which 
 Sunday, as a day of rest, may or must be spent. 
 Accustomed to be occupied throughout it in 
 religious services, and with the deep interests of 
 souls which they involve—sustained by a sort of 
 excitement which prevents its palling upon us— 
 and, moreover, in many instances, finding in 
 it the crown and object of the past week’s 
 work, and strength for the week to come—we 
 imagine that the Laity ought to or can feel 
 exactly as we do, ought to be able to keep up 
 the same interest, ought to find their rest in 
 purely devotional exercises. If the truth must 
 be spoken, the Clergy are not the best possible 
 judges of what the Laity can endure. The Clergy 
 
LECTURE VIII. 999 
 
 are not resting, but labouring. The Laity are 
 and ought to be comparatively resting. They 
 can, therefore, scarcely be expected to maintain 
 during the whole of the Lord’s Day that con- 
 _tinuity of religious thought which may become 
 the Clergyman. Their pursuits are so various, 
 that their rest requires variety also. The same 
 rest does not refresh the student and the artisan, 
 the man “in cities pent,’ and the labourer in 
 the country. In a word, the different occupa- 
 tions and abodes of persons should be considered 
 in determining how they may be rested. Besides, 
 therefore, making our services interesting, acces- 
 sible, and such as men may easily frequent, the 
 Clergy should, so it seems to me, not frown on 
 those who consider Sunday to be, within certain 
 limits, a day of cheerful relaxation, of family 
 union, of social enjoyment, as well as of religious 
 services. There is nothing in Scripture to forbid 
 this, even though Sunday be, (which it is not), 
 identical with the Sabbath. Nay, Christ in 
 Scripture allowed and sanctioned this on the 
 Sabbath; and human nature, even under the 
 happiest circumstances, most imperatively re- 
 quires this on the Sunday. But, if this point 
 be allowed, and if, especially in great cities, men 
 cannot obtain change without means of locomo- 
 tion, we should not, (I appeal to my brethren of 
 the Clergy in this matter), brand those as Sab- 
 bath-breakers, who avail, themselves of the 
 means which offer of changing air and scene, 
 
994. LECTURE VIII. 
 
 at any rate, if they do it consistently with the 
 higher claims of the day. We should not pro- 
 nounce that those who are enjoying themselves 
 harmlessly, are, even though not occupied reli- 
 giously, irreligious. If we do so, we either 
 succeed in making people believe that all Sunday 
 recreation is wrong, or we do not. If we do, we 
 tempt them to break an obligation felt, but felt 
 to be too severe, and so we implant in them the 
 habit of transgressing obligations. If we do 
 not, if they see through the fallacy of our state- 
 ments, they distrust statements coming from us 
 in other matters, and in reference to these par- 
 ticular statements, rush headlong into the oppo- 
 site extreme. Rejecting a Puritanical or Judaic 
 Sunday, they betake themselves to a Continental 
 one. “The Church,” they say (for they confound 
 the Church and the Clergy) “cares for nothing 
 but our souls. She is very well intentioned, 
 perhaps, but she does not know the world, she 
 does not know human nature. She should re- 
 member that even by the analogy of Judaism, 
 the Sunday was made for man, and not man for 
 the Sunday. We will neglect her and take care 
 of our bodies. We feel the present want, let the 
 more distant be provided for as it may.” 
 
 I shall not, I think, be supposed to desire 
 anything like foreign license. All I urge is, that 
 the moderation which the Church of England 
 has displayed in not enjoining upon her members 
 austerity and mournfulness on the Lord’s Day, 
 
LECTURE VIII. 335 
 
 and by consequence in leaving to them the cheer- 
 fulness allowed by Antiquity, should be carried 
 out by her Clergy. In fact, that their judicious 
 inculcation of religious offices, and of temporal 
 relaxation upon it, should be so managed, 
 as not to take the expression either of a Scottish 
 enforcement of the Sabbath on the one hand, 
 or of a Continental secularization of Sunday 
 on the other. The former seems to be in danger 
 of forgetting the weakness of our human nature, 
 the latter of ignoring and so of choking the aspi- 
 rations of our divine nature. Other remedial 
 measures might be suggested, the revival of the 
 Church Festivals for instance, (there are not many 
 in the course of the year,) or of a Saturday half- 
 holiday and the like. But let not us of the Clergy, 
 especially those of us who write in fresh air and 
 in pleasant scenes, or find our pleasure in quiet 
 literary pursuits, whose profession is religion, 
 forbid the Laity, especially the poor among the 
 Laity, their scanty rest, or place upon them a 
 burden which we do not bear ourselves. As one 
 who does not write in the country, but who has 
 for years lived in the heart of London, I speak for 
 them, both feelingly and from some experience. 
 All of us, Laity as well as Clergy, individuals 
 as well as the Church, may do much by our 
 thoughtfulness for our weaker brethren, for the 
 young and the poor especially, and let it be 
 added, (in the case of those in better circum- 
 stances) by our personal self-denial, towards 
 
596 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 making Sunday that divine yet humane institu- 
 tion, that blessing to the whole man, which it 
 was doubtless intended to be. I fear that we 
 oftentimes make mistakes in this matter. To 
 begin with children—we find it difficult to know 
 what to do with them on Sunday —we take 
 them to Church perhaps twice—we give them 
 Services too long even for adults. They under- 
 stand but little of the prayers, and less of the 
 Sermon. But this gets over only a part of the 
 day—what is to be done with the remainder ἢ 
 Perhaps we have taught them a question from 
 what is called the broken catechism, ‘“‘ Can those 
 be thought to keep the Sabbath Day holy who 
 play on it?’ to which the answer is “By no 
 means’’—and we feel bound to carry out this 
 sort of teaching. Accordingly, when away from 
 Church, they must not do this, they must not do 
 that—they must sit still—or be very quiet—or 
 read only good books, and the like. Can we 
 wonder that they associate religion and Sunday 
 with dulness and restraint, and that when they 
 become their own masters they dislike a Chris- 
 tianity which seemed to check all natural cheer- 
 fulness and give them little that they could feel 
 or understand ἢ 
 
 And if this is the case with our own children, 
 it is much more the case with the children of 
 the poor. To the restraint of two Church Ser- 
 vices is frequently added the restraint of a 
 Sunday School. The Lord’s Day is made to 
 
LECTURE VIII. 307 
 
 them a day of positive work. Can we wonder, 
 again, that so soon as they grow to an age to 
 quit that School, they associate Sunday, and 
 everything connected with it, with heaviness and 
 wearisomeness? In Church they got little they 
 could understand; they were frequently seated 
 where they could neither hear nor see: out of 
 Church they were met by lessons—well intended 
 indeed, but ensuing upon what they had done 
 or suffered already, too much for their jaded 
 minds and bodies. An eminent Clergyman, Dr. 
 Miller, has said publicly, that “we need have 
 many searchings of heart when we see the small 
 effect produced by our Sunday Schools, and by 
 our Sunday teaching generally ; and that though 
 there are objections to detaching children from 
 the services in the Church, even this is prefer- 
 able to giving them what they cannot under- 
 stand.’”” He says, in effect, that “the whole 
 treatment of Sunday in reference to the children 
 of the poor requires revision.””’ Whether any 
 such continuous tension of mind, or stagnation 
 of bodily energy for a whole day, and that on 
 His Day, who cared for little children, should 
 exist, I leave you to judge. Whether any 
 Sunday School should be established which does 
 not possess a recreation-ground in which the 
 children should be allowed such regulated 
 amusement at intervals throughout the day as 
 shall suit their age and requirements; and 
 whether, again, there should not be a graduation 
 Ζ 
 
998 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 of the spiritual nutriment of children as com- 
 pared with men, analogous to that which 18 
 applied in bodily food, I leave to your charitable 
 consideration. At present there is undoubtedly 
 something wrong. Persons, directly they quit 
 School, throw off Sunday altogether in disgust ; 
 and hence the frequent confession that their first 
 step in evil was Sabbath-breaking. There is 
 some truth in that confession. But to state 
 their case more correctly —They had been 
 taught to consider the Lord’s Day a burden. 
 They could not bear it—threw off that burden, 
 and with it, all reverence for God, and all 
 thought of the unseen and their own hereafter. 
 And, perhaps, we may be in some respects 
 too severe judges of the conduct of the poor 
 generally on this Day. We wonder that they 
 do not love to go to Church twice, and stay 
 at home the remainder of their time and read 
 their Bibles. We wonder that our servants, 
 possessed, so we express it, of many religious 
 advantages, improve them so inadequately, relish 
 them so imperfectly. Here, again, let our charity 
 come in. Let us consider their distractions, 
 their wrestlings for bare existence, their confined 
 dwellings, their narrow education, the few oppor- 
 tunities of enjoyment which fall to their lot. 
 Let our self-examination come in. How little 
 with our superior knowledge, and freer dis- 
 posal of our time, do we realize the religion 
 of the Day! How irregularly do we attend 
 
LECTURE VIII. 339 
 
 its services! How small a portion of it do we 
 devote to the examination of Holy Scripture ! 
 How much do we allow our ordinary labours, 
 (for intellectual studies are the labours of the 
 educated), to intrude upon our thoughts of better 
 things! Let our self-reproval and determination 
 of will come in. How little have we done to 
 raise the condition of our poorer neighbours ! 
 Shall we not do our part in evangelising them, 
 even to our own discomfort ? And above all, let 
 our self-denial come in. Let us resolve that we 
 who can rest at other times, will so lighten the 
 labours of our dependents on the Lord’s Day, as 
 to enable them to promote the glory of God, 
 and their own present and future welfare, re- 
 membering that solemn account which we must 
 render at the tribunal of Christ. 
 
 There are, as I have candidly admitted, many 
 difficulties connected with the practical solution 
 of the questions which I proposed to treat of 
 in this Lecture; and I cannot for a moment hope 
 that I have done more than suggest principles 
 towards their solution. I have not determined, 
 for I am not authorised to determine, that a 
 Clergyman should tell his Parishioners, that 
 recreations, such as our law allows, out of Church 
 hours, and by those who have attended Church, 
 and within the bounds of their own Parish, are 
 unlawful to them in the sight of God. He 
 himself must judge, not merely whether, if 
 
 Z 2 
 
940 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 restricted, his people might do better, but whether 
 they will not probably do much worse, by re- 
 sorting to the ale-house, or the gin-shop. I 
 have not attempted to solve the problem, should 
 reading-rooms belonging to working men be 
 opened on the evening of Sunday. ‘This again, 
 must be considered, not simply with reference 
 to the literature which may be contained in 
 them, but frequently, especially in large towns, 
 regard being had to the condition and tempta- 
 tions of young, unmarried men, in that class 
 of society. And rules like that given by Bishop 
 Horsley, ‘‘ that the same proportion of this Day, 
 on the whole, should be devoted to religious 
 exercises, public and private, as every man 
 would spend of any other day in his ordinary 
 business,’ I have not thought it right to 
 attempt. It has been said, and said truly— 
 
 “ High Heaven rejects the lore 
 Of nicely calculated less or more.” 
 
 On this, and on many other grounds, it is 
 the wisest method to leave the determination of 
 particulars to the consciences of individuals, 
 principles being supposed to be established. The 
 conscience of a man will rarely lead him astray, 
 if informed by such historical inquiries as I have 
 endeavoured to lay before you, and enlightened by 
 earnest prayer, and love to God and man. As to 
 what persons. may do or should refrain from, a 
 
LECTURE VIII. 941 
 
 good maxim is supplied by the Roman moralist ; 
 “Bene precipiunt qui vetant quicquam agere, 
 quod dubites equum sit an iniquum.” St. Paul 
 speaks even more to the point, ““ Whatsoever is 
 not of faith is sin.” 
 
 I will only detain you with one word. 
 
 For myself, I trust that I have been guided 
 rightly in my language respecting this Divine 
 institution, of which I have endeavoured, feebly, 
 I fear, in performance, but earnestly in inten- 
 tion, to set forth the origin, history, and present 
 obligation. My prayer has been and will be 
 that of Augustine, ‘“‘Domine Deus, queecunque 
 dixi de Tuo, agnoscant et Tui: si que de meo, 
 et Tu ignosce et Tui.” 
 
 To you if there is anything further that I 
 would say, it is briefly comprehended in my 
 text; “This is the Day which the Lord hath 
 made, we will rejoice and be glad in it,’”’ not 
 as servants but .as sons. The day of our Lord’s 
 Resurrection, and the weekly earnest of our own. 
 The day which, treading in the scripturally 
 recorded footsteps of the Apostles, the Church 
 throughout the world has acknowledged for 
 eighteen centuries, and in which, even in the 
 worst of times, God’s Saints have found rest 
 and strength for life’s contests, spiritual and 
 bodily. The day which reminds men that they 
 are heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ, the 
 Son of God, the Son of Man, and members one 
 
342 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 of another. The day which, though it be not 
 the Sabbath, may have all the glorious things 
 said of it which were said of the Sabbath, and 
 so is to be “a delight, the holy of the Lord, 
 honorable.” The day on which St. John, even 
 while on earth, “was in the Spirit.”” The day 
 which, above all days, whether ordinary, or 
 stamped with Ecclesiastical honor, is the day 
 of the Holy Eucharist, of united prayer, chari- 
 table deeds, self-meditation, devout perusal of 
 Scripture on the one hand; the day of Christian 
 rest, Christian loving-kindness, Christian cheer- 
 fulness, and harmless relaxation, on the other. 
 The day which draws us closest to God; but 
 which at the same time reminds us that God 
 is brought near to us in Christ, who was mani- 
 fest in the flesh for our sakes, who did truly rise 
 again from the dead, and as Man is at the right 
 hand of the Father. The day which, in our 
 foolishness, we fancy we have adopted from ex- 
 pediency, or utility, or on political or sanitary 
 grounds, or the like, but which we really owe to 
 our moral wants, and to our moral sense, our 
 moral wants discovered to us, our moral sense 
 guided and directed to a particular issue, by the 
 Holy Spirit, speaking in Scripture and by the 
 Apostles. 
 
 “Let no man judge us in respect of the 
 Sabbath Days; but let no man deprive us 
 of the Lord’s Day. ᾿ 
 
NOTES. 
 
on 
 , 
 νὰ 
 "“᾿ 
 Μ᾿ ial ᾿ 
 ; “μιν, 1 τ Ee acet 
 
 Beh on a Ψ ἐξ Δ ain νων ἡ 
 arc ap εἰν Ral 2 
 
 sf elma tala (eh cath Ῥω pagel asad es 
 
 { a lilly iApwel δὰ 
 
 } es " 
 - ie 
 ye? ‘ Ψ 
 Ὁ a | ; 
 : . ion i 
 ᾿ . 
 ’ x in’? 
 τι Ἢ 
 no Pali ἐν 
 yc a . 
 fan ἐν ! rt. 
 . ᾽ 
 
 ἣν 
 ike Pe 
 ζ " αἱ 
 
 ia * ' Υ8) τὴν abet ii Dy, ae ae! 
 ἜΣ ΣΝ aaa an 
 "} ~ {aoe ν᾿ ον» > Ad ᾿ ὼ calc guaies ΟΝ ΓῪ 5 <5 
 7. ' mf 
 ; fh Cee ce «6 eed νερὰ at 
 μὲν νὰ] ᾿ 
 
NOTES. 
 
 ---ὁὅ--- 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 Page 2, line 25. As, for instance, the Cathedral at Chartres. 
 Not long ago, one of the ciceroni of that place declared to me that 
 the whole edifice is attributable to Bishop Fulbert, a.p. 1029. That 
 Prelate, indeed, built the crypt, but the church generally belongs 
 to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; and the north spire 
 was raised in a.D. 1514. The Cathedral at Poictiers is said to 
 have been founded by Henry II. of England, but nearly all of 
 it, except the north door, seems to be of a later date. Tradi- 
 tions connect a certain church at Milan with St. Ambrose, but 
 they evidently relate to a structure of an earlier period. The 
 “miraculous beam” at Christchurch Priory Church, Hampshire, 
 is found in a part of the church plainly of the fifteenth century, 
 whereas the original church to which the legend refers, was built 
 by Ralph, Bishop of Durham, in the time of William Rufus. 
 
 Page 2, line 29. ‘Septimontium.’ Taken strictly, this fes- 
 tival preserved the remembrance of a time when the Capitoline, 
 Quirinal, and Viminal hills were not yet incorporated with 
 Rome. It referred to the seven original hills or districts, Pala- 
 tium, Velia, Cermalus, Ceelius, Fagutal, Oppius, Cispius. See 
 Niebuhr, History of Rome, Hare and Thirlwall’s translation, 
 vol. i. p. 382, edit. 1831. 
 
 Page 2, line ult. Virg. Georg. II. 535. Compare, also, 
 Horace, Carm. Seecul. : 
 
 “Dis, quibus septem placuere colles.” 
 
 Page 5, line 4. “ Ps, exviil. 24.’ I do not quote this verse 
 in the way that the Fathers often do, as a direct prophecy of the 
 Lord’s Day. I only adopt it as a description of personal feeling 
 in reference to that day. Hengstenberg, (“The Lord’s Day,” 
 Martin’s translation, pp. 83, 84), animadverts upon its employ. 
 ment as an argument by Dwight and others. Even granting the 
 Psalm in which it occurs to be thoroughly of a Messianic cha- 
 racter, “The Day” is a term which would refer quite as well to 
 
346 NOTES. 
 
 the annual as to the weekly celebration of the Lord’s resurrec- 
 tion. This, however, need not prevent our spiritualizing the 
 verse either here, or in the Eighth Lecture. 
 
 Page 6, line 6. On the jirst view, see Lecture V. pp. 192, 
 193; VII. p. 290. Fuller, vol. vi. p. 103, Brewer’s edit. makes 
 this view to be a reaction from Saturday-Sabbatarianism. It 
 did re-appear in that way, but it had been known before. 
 In fact Daniel Cawdrey is a witness to this, and makes Satur- 
 day-Sabbatarianism a reaction from it. “ There is,” says he, “a 
 tract by a Sabbatarian Anabaptist, (for such they say he is), with 
 this title, ‘The Doctrine of the Fourth Commandment,’ wherein 
 he pleads strongly for the Saturday Sabbath. It seems the 
 Anabaptists, who usually cry down the Sabbath either as anti- 
 Christian or ceremonial, begin to see the necessitie of a Sabbath ; 
 and will rather return to the old Sabbath of the Jews than have 
 none at all.” The name of this writer appears from the margin 
 to be J. Ockford, but I have not seen his tract. See the preface 
 to the Second Volume of Cawdrey’s “Sabbatum Redivivum.” 
 
 Compare Jewel’s Apol. Part III. “ Fatemur quidem novas 
 quasdam et non antea auditas sectas, Anabaptistas, Libertinos, 
 Mennonios, Zuenkfeldianos, statim ad exortum Evangelii exsti- 
 tisse. Verum agimus Deo nostro gratias, satis jam orbis terrarum 
 videt, nos nec peperisse, nec docuisse, nec aluisse ista monstra.” 
 And Bishop Prideaux, ‘ Oratio Septima—De Sabbato,” p. 64. 
 “ Quid enim attinet Anabaptistas, Familistas, Schwenckfeldistas 
 insectari, qui in diebus omnibus promiscuée habendis licentiam 
 intromittunt Ethnicam? Aut é contra Sabbatarios conclamatos 
 protrahere in proscenium, qui Sabbatizando Judaismum revo- 
 carent ?” And Heylin, p. 460. “Some sectaries, since the Refor- 
 mation, 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 St. Paul, who seemed to them to abro- 
 gate that difference of days which the Church retained. This 
 was the fancy, or the frenzy rather, of the Anabaptists, taking 
 the hint, perhaps, from something which had been formerly 
 delivered by some wiser men ; and after them, of the Swinck- 
 fieldians, and the Familists ; as in the times before, of the Petro- 
 ᾿ brussians, and, (if Waldensis wrong him not), of Wiclif also.” 
 Gaspard de Schwenckfeld was born, a.p. 1490, in Silesia. He 
 
NOTES. 847 
 
 was originally a follower of Luther, but separated himself from 
 him, and founded a religious sect, so extravagant, that almost 
 every one armed themselves against him. He died at Ulm, a.p, 
 1561. Mosheim, Part II. Cent. 16, chap.i. ὃ. 23, gives a more 
 favorable account of him. But see Middleton’s “ Family of 
 Love,” and a curious note by the Rev. A. Dyce. 
 
 Page 6, line 23. On the second view, see Lecture VII. p. 287. 
 There was, until recently, in the department of the Rolls, a 
 person who belonged to the sect of Saturday-Sabbath Christians, 
 or pure Sabbatarians. He would on no account do any work on 
 Saturday. This produced a difficulty ; but, on Lord Langdale’s 
 representation, that he was really a well informed man, and 
 valuable in his position, he was allowed to keep his Sabbath. 
 He would have worked on Sunday without scruple ; but this 
 was not required of him, of course. It is a curious fact, that he 
 had applied to the Jews for admission into their body, but had 
 been rejected by them. 
 
 Compare the following from Thorndike, “Of the ae 
 of Christian Truth,” Works, Oxford edit. vol. ii. p. 416. ‘“ And 
 surely those simple people who of late times have taken upon 
 them to keep the Saturday, though it were in truth and effect 
 no less than the renouncing of their Christianity, yet, in reason, 
 did no more than pursue the grounds which their predecessors 
 had laid, and draw the conclusion which necessarily follows upon 
 these premises ; that if the Fourth Commandment be in force, 
 then either the Saturday is to be kept, or the Jews were never 
 tied to keep it.” * 
 
 Page 7, line 11. ‘Theophilus Brabourne.’ See Lecture VII. 
 p. 287. 
 
 Page 7, line 15. For the third view, see Lectures VI. 
 p. 232, and VIL. pp. 271, seg. ; and for the “‘ Westminster Con- 
 fession,” Lecture VII. pp. 256, seg. 
 
 Page 7, line 29. ‘Dr. Nicholas Bownd.’ Lectures VI. p. 232, 
 and VII. pp. 275, seq. 
 
 Page 8, line 4. ‘Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer.’ See 
 Lectures III. p. 78, and VIL p. 289. 
 
 * Alicubi Judaicum Sabbatum in usum revocarant, fenestris clausis 
 Colcestrie ipsum Judaismum propagant, et proselytos faciunt. Honor 
 Reggii [Georgii Horn] de Statu Eccles. Britannic. hodierno, p. 102, 
 Dantisci, 1647. 
 
3848 NOTES. 
 
 Page 8, line 7. For the fourth view, see Lecture VII. 
 especially pp. 296, seg. 
 
 Page 8, line 23. ‘The Sabbath was made for man,’ &c. This 
 text is discussed in Lecture IV. p. 164. : 
 
 Page 8, line 25. ‘ Let no man judge you in respect of the 
 Sabbath-days,’ &c. This text is discussed in Lecture V. p. 178. 
 
 Page 9, line 26. ‘Bp. Horsley,’ in his ‘Three Sermons on 
 Mark ii. 27.” See Lectures VII. p. 295, and VIII. p. 340. 
 
 Page 9, line 27. ‘ Bp. Jebb,’ in his “Two Sermons on Isaiah 
 lvili. 19, 14.” See Lecture VII. p. 295. 
 
 Page 9, line 27. ‘Dr. Burton,’ in his “ Advice for the proper 
 observance of Sunday,” published by the Christian Knowledge 
 Society, No. 261. See Lecture VII. p. 295. 
 
 Page 10, line 4. ‘A season of severity and self-denial, as in 
 Scotland” See Lecture VII. pp. 290, 291. 
 
 Page 10, line 6. For the fifth view, see Lecture V. 
 especially pp. 178, seg. 
 
 Page 11, line 11. ‘Rev. 1. 10. This text is discussed in 
 Lecture 11. p. 45, and Lecture VI. p. 242. 
 
 Page 12, line 9. ‘Dr. Heylin.’ “ History of the Sabbath.” 
 
 Page 12, line 9. ‘Bp. Francis White.’ “A Treatise of the 
 Sabbath Day, containing a Defence of the Orthodoxall Doctrine 
 of the Church of England against Sabbatarian Novelty.” He also 
 wrote “An Examination and Confutation of a Lawless Pamphlet, 
 intituled ‘A brief Answer to a late Treatise on the Sabbath- 
 Day.’” See Lecture VII. p. 288. 
 
 Page 12, line 10. ‘ Bp. Sanderson,’ in his “ Opinion upon cer- 
 tain Cases of Conscience on the Sabbatarian Question.” Works, 
 vol. v. Oxford edition. See also Lectures V. p. 189, and 
 WEL. 289. 
 
 Page 12, line 14. ‘Abp. Whately. “Thoughts on the 
 Sabbath.” See also Lectures V. p. 189, VII. pp. 295, 296, 301. 
 
 Page 12, line 25. ‘Dr. Arnold,’ in his “ Letter to his Sister, 
 Lady Cavan,” Stanley’s Life, vol. 1. p. 320; his three “ Letters 
 to Mr. W. L. Newton,” vol. ii. pp. 198, seg., and his “ Sermon 
 on Genesis ii. 3,” vol. 111. Sermon 22. See also Lecture V. 
 pp. 187, 191. . 
 
 Page 13, line 18. ‘Another writer, the late Mr. Baden 
 Powell, “Christianity without Judaism.” See also Lectures II. 
 pp. 67, 69; and V. p. 183. 
 
NOTES. 349 
 
 Page 13, line 34. ‘Abp. Bramhall,’ in his discourse entitled 
 “The Controversies about the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, 
 with their respective Obligations,” &c. Vol. v. of Works ; 
 Oxford edition. See also Lectures IV. pp. 134, 136, V. pp. 187, 
 211, 212. 
 
 Page 14, line 26. ‘ Archdeacon Paley.’ “ Moral Philosophy.” 
 B. V. ὁ. 7. See Lecture II. p. 53, in the notes to which the 
 passage here alluded to is quoted. See also Lecture IV. p. 137. 
 
 Page 14, line 237. ‘Bp. Prideaux.’ “ Oratio Septima—De 
 Sabbato.” See also Lectures VII. pp. 287, 288, and VIII. pp. 
 310—313. 
 
 Page 14, line 28. ‘Bp. Cosin,’ in his ‘ Letter to Mr. Collins 
 concerning the Sabbath,” and in his “Letter to Mr. Wood.” 
 Works, vol. iv. Oxford edition. Again in vol. v, “A Determina- 
 tion on the Immutable Obligation of the Lord’s Day.” See 
 also Lecture VIL. p. 288. 
 
 Page 14, line ult. ‘Richard Baxter. “The Divine Appoint- 
 ment of the Lord’s Day, proved, as a separated Day for Holy 
 Worship, especially in the Church Assemblies. And consequently 
 the Cessation of the Seventh Day Sabbath.” See also Lecture 
 VII. p. 288. 
 
 Page 16, line 4. ‘Of course I have not intended this 
 enumeration to be an exhaustive one.’ 
 
 Another view is that of E. W. Hengstenberg. See Lecture 
 VI. pp. 242—247. This I have omitted here, because it is 
 seldom found in England ; though, indeed, a friend writes to 
 me thus: ‘‘ My present way of thinking is, that the observance 
 of the Lord’s Day depends not so much upon institution, 
 whether Ecclesiastical, Mosaic, or ante-Mosaic, as upon the in- 
 stinct of Christendom falling into the track of an ancient insti- 
 tution, and adopting of it merely the septimanal form.” 
 
 For notices of the views of Hooker and of Bp. Stillingfleet, 
 see Lecture VII. p. 280 and p. 289. 
 
 Joseph Mede, ‘‘Discourse XV. on Ezek. xx. 20,” supposes the 
 Sabbath to include two respects of time; first, the gwotum, one day 
 of seven, or the seventh day after six days’ labour ; secondly, the 
 designation, or pitching that seventh upon the day which we call 
 Saturday. In the former aspect the Israelites acknowledged 
 God as the Creator, and followed His example in their propor- 
 tions of work and rest, Exod. xxxi. 16, 17; in the latter, 
 
350 NOTES. 
 
 they had reference to God’s deliverance of them from Egypt, 
 which he conjectures took place upon that particular day of the 
 seven, Deut. v. 15. He says that it is possible that the Sabbath 
 of the guwotwm and the Sabbath of the designation may have 
 coincided—(z.e. that the day marked as the Jewish Sabbath in 
 the way he supposes may really have been the seventh in an 
 hebdomadal cycle, dating from the creation), but again that they 
 may not. All this he brings forward to show that Jews and 
 Christians may agree as to the qguotum, but differ as to the desig- 
 nation ; and that, as the former designated the Saturday as their 
 Sabbath, because they were on it delivered from temporal 
 bondage, so the latter designate the Sunday as their Sabbath, be- 
 cause on it they were delivered from sin by Christ’s resurrection 
 from the dead. He has, however, quite forgotten to quote any 
 passage for the Christian’s designation of Sunday in connexion 
 with a Sabbatical guotum, which is at all parallel to that in 
 Deut. v. 15. 
 
 Dr. Samuel Lee, late Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cam- 
 bridge, supposes (1) that the Patriarchs had a Sabbath-Day ; (2) 
 that the Heathen inherited it from them, but perverted it to Sun 
 worship, calling it “ Dies Solis ;” (3) that the Patriarchs and the 
 Heathen together represented the world; (4) that the Jewish 
 Sabbath, which falls on our Saturday, was chosen peculiarly for 
 a temporary covenant and a temporary dispensation ; and (5) that 
 on the annulling of such temporary covenant and dispensation, 
 the original Sabbath, z.e. the ‘‘ Dies Solis,” was restored to its 
 dignity. In other words, that the Christian Festival of the First 
 Day of the week is the primal Sabbath of God; and that in 
 keeping it holy Christians are, unconsciously, fulfilling the 
 Fourth Commandment in the very letter. I have mentioned 
 this collection of assumptions as a fiction, in Lecture V. p. 204; 
 and I have thought it right to state it at this length, in order to 
 justify that epithet. See Dr. Lee’s “Commencement Sermon,” 
 on “the Duty of observing the Christian Sabbath,” showing 
 “that the primitive Sabbath Day of the Patriarchs was modified 
 to suit the circumstances of the egress from Egypt ; and that it 
 resumed its universality and day of observance under the 
 Christian Dispensation.” Camb. 1834. Dr. Lee says that “The 
 opinion which supposes our Sunday to fall on the day once 
 celebrated as the patriarchal Sabbath Day is by no means new 
 
NOTES. 951 
 
 or singular.” He then quotes Capellus, Archbishop Ussher, 
 and Gale, and concludes a long note as follows :—“ As the 
 ancient Sabbath had been sacred from the beginning, and had 
 lost nothing of its primitive sanctions by having been accommo- 
 dated to the times of the egress, and as that system had come to 
 an end, that day would now necessarily recur, by virtue of the 
 precept which at first sanctified and set it apart. There would 
 consequently be no necessity for any new commandment, in the 
 New Testament, again to sanction it for the future observance of 
 the Church.” 
 
 Page 16, line penult. The word Sabbatarian is throughout these 
 Lectures employed not invidiously, but σαφηνείας ἕνεκεν καὶ τοῦ 
 εὐπαρακολουθήτου, to denote those who seek for the Lord’s Day 
 a directly Mosaic origin, or who find direct precepts for its 
 observance in the law of the Sabbath. The word Dominical is 
 intended to apply to those who make the Lord’s Day a purely 
 Christian institution, whether originated by the Apostolic or by 
 the post-Apostolic Church. 
 
 Page 19. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. x. ο. 1. 
 
 Page 19, line 14. ‘That the Lord’s Day,’ &c. \ See Lec- 
 
 Page 19, line 25. ‘That in the two centuries,’ &c.) ture II. 
 
 Page 20, line 4. ‘That after the first three centuries, ὅσο, 
 See Lecture ITT. 
 
 Page 20, line 11. ‘Afterwards they,’ &c. See Lecture III. 
 ad finem, and Lecture VI. init. 
 
 Page 20, line 21. ‘That Sabbatarianism, of every phase,’ &e. 
 See Lectures V. ad finem, VI. and VII. 
 
 Page 20, line 324. ‘By Knox himself, &c. See Lecture VII. 
 pp. 268—270. 
 
 Page 20, line 29. ‘That Sabbatarianism, as a dogma, ὅζο. 
 See Lecture VII. 
 
 Page 21, line 23. ‘That Sabbatarianism, as a practical tenet,’ 
 ἄς. See Lecture VII. 
 
 Page 22, line 9, ‘That meanwhile,’ &c. See Lectures V. ad 
 jinem, and VII. pp. 257—262., 
 
 Page 22, line 15. ‘That this assertion,’ ὅθ, See Lecture V. 
 ad finem. 
 
 Page 22, line 23. ‘That the position,’ ὅσο. See Lecture V. p. 175. 
 
 Page 22, line ult. ‘That Sabbatarianism, the strange va- 
 rieties,’ &c. See Lectures III. VI. VII, 
 
352 NOTES. 
 
 Page 23, line 4. ‘That the mention,’ &c. 
 
 Page 23, line 10. ‘That this assertion,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Page 23, line 13. ‘That it is strengthened,’ ὅσο 
 
 Page 23, line 19. ‘That the Sabbath, as it\ goo Lee- 
 appears,’ ὅσο. ture IV. 
 
 Page 23, line 28. ‘Yet, that the occurrence,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Page 24, line 8. ‘That the Sabbath, as it 
 appears,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Page 24, line 14. ‘Yet that the political and ceremonial 
 elements,’ &c. See Lectures IV. p. 170, V. pp. 182, 201. 
 
 Page 24, line 18. ‘That the Creation labour and rest,’ &c. 
 See Lectures IV. V. 
 
 Page 25, line 1. ‘That to state,” &c. See Lecture 11. 
 
 Page 25, line 9. ‘That though the Sabbath, &c. See Lec- 
 tures 11. and V. ad jfinem. 
 
 Page 25, line 17. ‘That the same analogy,’ &c. See Lecture 
 VIIL p. 320. 
 
 Page 25, line 22. ‘That on the Sabbath itself,’ &. See 
 Lectures IV. and VII. 
 
 Page 26, line 1. ‘That still, though the Lord’s Day,’ &c. 
 See Lectures III. pp. 103, 104, and VI. 
 
 Page 26, line 9. ‘That the origin and obligation,’ ὅθ. See 
 Lectures V. VII. and VIII. 
 
 Page 26, line 21. ‘That the Lord’s Day,’ &c. See Lectures 
 V. and VI. 
 
 Page 26, line 27. ‘That the civil power,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Page 27, line 3. ‘Yet that, even here,’ &e. 
 
 Page 27, line 6. ‘That the subject of prohibi- 
 tions,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Page 27, line 13. ‘That the exercise,’ &c. 
 
 Page 27, line 17. ‘That care should be taken,’ 
 &e. 
 
 Page 27, line 39. ‘That such an injunction as the following,’ 
 &c. See Lecture VIII. p. 334. 
 
 Page 28, line 5. ‘That since much will, &c. See Lecture 
 VIIL p. 339, 
 
 Page 28, line 10. ‘That the present state,’ ὅσο. See Lecture VIII. 
 
 Page 28, line 33. ‘That in reference,’ &c. See Lecture VIII. 
 
 Page 29, line 12. ‘The Sundays of man’s life,’ &c. George 
 Herbert, “ Sunday.” 
 
 See Lec- 
 ture VIII. 
 
NOTES. 353 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 Page 31, line 27. Dean Hook says, “ We prove the Divine 
 authority of Confirmation by precisely the same argument as 
 that by which we establish the Divine authority of the Lord’s 
 Day,—the ratification in Heaven of what has been done in 
 Christ’s name and by His authority upon earth,” (Zhe Lord’s 
 Day, p. 8). And he afterwards says, (p. 12), “It is an ordinance 
 of the Church.” But he does not, I think, distinguish, as I 
 have endeavoured to do in the text of this Lecture, between the 
 Apostolical and the post-Apostolical Church ; and accordingly> 
 his assertion would either raise all ordinances of the Church to 
 the rank of Confirmation and the Lord’s Day, and certain 
 others, which I have called Scriptural, Apostolical, and Divine ; 
 or lower Confirmation, and the Lord’s Day, ὅσο. to the rank of 
 ordinances Ecclesiastical in the common sense of that word. 
 
 Page 32, line penult. ‘They might say,’ &c. This point is 
 treated very ably by Dr. Thomas Young, in his “Dies Domi- 
 nica,” lib, 1. c 7. p, 30—33, &. He thus sums up his 
 argument: ‘Dies Dominicus itaque ab Apostolis tanquam a 
 fidelissimis Ecclesiz Christiane architectis, potestate extraor- 
 dinaria, quee jam non durat in Ecclesia, et Spirittis Sancti inspira- 
 tione, est institutus: ut Christiani, auctoritate non humana, sed 
 divina, ad convocationes sanctas, et ad privata pietatis exercitia 
 eo die celebranda obligarentur. <Apostolica gratia, inquit 
 Ambrosius, (Hexaemer, lib. iv. ὁ. 4), mortuos excitavit, quee quan- 
 quam non erat Apostolorum sed Christi gratia, ut ipsi fatentur 
 Apostoli, Actorum cap. IIL vv. 12, 16, vocatur Apostolica, 
 quia in ipsos erat effusa, ejusque ope illi mortuos resusci- 
 tarunt: ita hic Dominica institutio vocatur Apostolica, non 
 quod sit mera Apostolorum, qua erant Christiani, ordinatio, sed 
 quia a Christo per illos potestate extraordinarid instructos fuit 
 instituta.” 
 
 Richard Baxter’s opinion as to the Divine character of the 
 appointment of the Lord’s Day is given in the text of Lecture I. 
 p- 15. In the preface to his own work he speaks highly of 
 the treatise by Dr. Thomas Young, quoted above—and indeed 
 
 a ee 
 
904. NOTES. 
 
 himself issued a translation of it. (Little is known of that 
 writer. He chose to assume the disguise of ‘ Theophilus Lon- 
 cardiensis,” probably in allusion to his Scottish extraction, and 
 bitth at Loncarty.) Its full title is, “Dies Dominica, sive 
 succincta narratio ex 8. Scripturarum, et venerande antiquitatis 
 Patrum testimoniis concinmnata, et duobus libris distincta : quorum 
 priori, diet Dominicz obsérvationem ab ipsis Apostolis, Ecclesia 
 que Christiana continua serie solennem fuisse habitam, ejus insti- 
 tutionem fuisse divinam, et que ejus solemnitatem impediant, 
 declaratur : posteriori ver), in quibus ejus sanctificatio consistat 
 ostenditur, ὅσο." But see Lecture VII. p. 288. 
 
 Page 34, line 26. ‘They are therefore not merely Ecclesias- 
 tical,’ &e. 
 
 The remarks of Dr. Hawkins, “ Bampton Lectures for 1840,” 
 Sermon V. pp. 157—162, are well worth noting : 
 
 “We have absolutely no need of such an ample array of 
 Scriptural proof, to convince us of the Divine original of an 
 Ordinance, as we might have desired for our belief in a Revealed 
 Doctrine. Nay, we may not only acquiesce in a less amount 
 of proof, but even observe . . . in such a difference one of the 
 numerous instances of a merciful accommodation to our wants, 
 everywhere to be traced throughout the whole economy of 
 Revelation. 
 
 “The religious observance of the Lord’s Day, for instance, is 
 almost universally acknowledged as a Christian duty throughout 
 the Christian world. And a cheering thought it is, amidst our 
 manifold divisions, to observe scarcely a single sect, and not a 
 single Church, interrupting in this great article of belief the 
 general concord ; millions of our brethren offering at the same 
 hour their solemn protest against irreligion and idolatry, and 
 suspending their cares and toils to celebrate the Redemption of 
 the world, and adore with one consent the one true God, our 
 Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Is it even necessary that the 
 duty should be explcitly enjoined in the Christian Scriptures, 
 which even without a specific command can be distinctly per- 
 ceived, and this not only by the considerate Christian, but even 
 by the Statesman, the Moralist, the Philanthropist, to be at once 
 a duty and a blessing? To the poor, that is, to the great 
 majority of our race in every land, and under every condition in 
 society, this day of religious rest is simply a boon. If a seventh 
 
NOTES. 355 
 
 part were added to the amount of labour, although the number 
 of poor might be increased, their temporal condition would be 
 exactly what it is. But suppose the weekly rest abandoned, 
 a seventh part would not therefore be added to the produce of 
 our labour ; for the physician knows that this merciful provision 
 for a remission of human toil is absolutely necessary to the best 
 exertion of the strength of man, bodily or intellectual. And 
 how much more does every religious man feel it to be essential 
 to the well-being of our higher nature, to the health of the soul, 
 and to our preparation for that future existence, which is our 
 real life ! 
 
 “But then, assuredly the Statesman and the Philanthropist 
 would never of themselves have devised or enjoined the 
 ᾿ ordinance. Nor can even its external observance, greatly as it 
 may be promoted, be effectually secured by any efforts of theirs. 
 We must look to higher sources for the origin of the duty and 
 its obligation. We trace back, accordingly, the general religious 
 observance of the Lord’s Day to the very era of the promulgation 
 of the Gospel. We find the universality of the practice recog- 
 nised by the earliest extant writings, genuine or apocryphal, by 
 Tenatius, Justin, the Epistle attributed to Barnabas, the so-called 
 Apostolical Constitutions, as well as by various other works of the 
 second and third and succeeding centuries. And this universal 
 observance of the Lord’s Day is rendered especially striking, not 
 only by varieties of practice in other cases, but even in respect 
 of the Jewish Sabbath ; the observance of which we find re- 
 tained by many in early times together with that of the Lord’s 
 Day, then discontinued, then revived, and revived amidst so 
 much discrepancy of opinion, that the day was regarded as a 
 Fast in the Western Churches, in the Eastern as a Festival. 
 Why this difference, but because the universal observation of 
 the Lord’s Day was based upon apostolical authority, whilst the 
 same Apostles, wheresoever the continued observance of the 
 Jewish Sabbath did not appear to undermine, as in the Galatian 
 Church, the foundations of the Gospel, permitted the practice 
 gradually to disappear before the increasing light of Christianity. 
 Add then but a few recognitions in the Christian Scriptures 
 themselves of the actual observance of the Lord’s Day even in 
 the age of the Apostles, and with their sanction, nay, apparently, 
 with the implied sanction of our Lord Himself and of the Holy 
 
 AA 
 
356 NOTES. 
 
 Spirit, and we have all the proof which we really require of 
 its Divine authority. 
 
 ‘But can we not also support its Divine obligation by cogent 
 arguments derived from the Old Scriptures? Undoubtedly, I 
 conceive, we may. Yet these do not appear to be the proofs by 
 which the duty was at first established. They were not its 
 original authority and foundation. For very remarkable has 
 been in this respect the difference of views in later and in 
 primitive times ; all indeed agreeing in the same conclusion, but 
 reaching it by very different means. In modern times, it is not 
 uncommon to appeal directly to the Fourth Commandment in 
 the Decalogue as a decisive authority for the observance of the 
 Lord’s Day ; and again, to assert without hesitation the existence 
 of a Primitive Sabbath, commanded and observed from the era 
 of the Creation, and thence to infer the universal obligation 
 binding on all men in all ages to hallow one day in seven to the 
 service of their Maker. The Fathers, on the contrary, inter- 
 preted otherwise the apparent command to this effect in the 
 Book of Genesis, and denied the existence of a Patriarchal 
 Sabbath ; whilst, instead of appealing to the Fourth Command- 
 ment, or considering the Lord’s Day to be substituted for the 
 Jewish Sabbath, they endeavoured, some of them at least, to 
 prove the foreshown superiority of the eighth day, ὁ. 6. the Lord’s 
 Day, above the Sabbath of the Jews by weak and fanciful 
 arguments, drawn from the command to circumcise a child on 
 the eighth day, or the supply of manna vouchsafed for the first 
 time on the eighth day and not poured down at all upon the 
 seventh.” 
 
 I have quoted this interesting passage as strongly corroborative 
 of the view taken in the text of this Lecture, that the Lord’s 
 Day is possessed of a Divine sanction in right of its being of 
 Apostolical institution, or at least of Apostolical observance. I 
 do not follow the learned author in his subsequent remarks upon 
 the probable existence of a Patriarchal Sabbath ; indeed, it 
 almost seems to me that he employs alternately the Christian 
 Sabbath to prove the Patriarchal, and the Patriarchal to prove 
 the Christian Sabbath. But I cannot help subjoining a further 
 extract. I consider Dr. Hawkins’ testimony to be the more 
 valuable, because I was not acquainted with his Lectures until I 
 had composed, and in great part delivered, my own. 
 
NOTES. 357 
 
 “ With respect to the Mosaic Sabbath, the Fourth Command- 
 ment is not, I apprehend, the true foundation of our Christian 
 duty. Nay, I dare not appeal directly to that, as a commandment 
 obligatory upon Christian men, which no Christian Church has 
 ever yet enjoined or observed. Neither may any Christian 
 Church presume to teach as a Divine commandment one portion 
 of a positive precept, whilst of her own authority she abrogates 
 another. That is the privilege of inspiration alone. We say, 
 indeed, and we say justly, that not hallowing the seventh day, 
 yet hallowing one day in seven, we fulfil the spirit of the law. 
 But a positive institution, if obligatory at all, is to be obeyed also 
 in the letter ; and what now appears so slight a change, (to say 
 nothing here of the total abandonment in the Christian Church 
 of the awful strictness in the commanded observance of the 
 Mosaic rest,) the mere alteration of the day would scarcely, in the 
 first instance, have appeared a trivial change... It is to the 
 spirit of the commandment that we appeal, not to its letter. 
 The letter we believe to have been abrogated, but the spirit 
 survives. The spirit of that command was not to be abrogated, 
 which was distinguished in so marked a manner from the positive 
 institutions of the law ; pronounced by the awful voice of God, 
 placed alone among moral precepts, the authoritative declarations 
 of our natural duties, itself unconnected with shadowy and 
 typical rites, which were partial enactments temporary in their 
 very nature, whilst this rested upon the ground of universal 
 religion, applicable alike to all the sons of men. The spirit of this 
 great command survives, accordingly, in another ordinance equally 
 of Divine appointment, but more spiritual and more comprehen- 
 sive ; pointing to the doctrines of Redemption, yet still embracing 
 everything which pervaded the Mosaic precept, of glory to the 
 Creator and benefit to His creatures, even the lowest of His 
 creatures, those whom we too frequently oppress, but who are 
 never forgotten by Him. In this sense, and in this sense alone, 
 the Church of England, I believe, prays that we may observe the 
 Fourth Commandment, the spirit, namely, of the Mosaic Law, as 
 it still lives in the Christian ordinance of the Lord’s Day.— 
 (Pp. 163—165.) 
 
 * * * * 
 
 “‘ Nevertheless, the prime and independent proof of its Divine 
 
 original remains, as before, in the universal consent of the 
 
908 NOTES. 
 
 Christian Church, but, not resting there, traced up to Apostolic 
 practice, and implied Apostolic authority.—(P. 165.) 
 * * * * 
 
 “We may well esteem this sacred ordinance far above every 
 other, which can make no such appeal to Holy Scripture ; 
 valuing others, indeed, in proportion to their uses, and import- 
 ance, and universality, and antiquity, as ordinances of the Church, 
 but reverencing this, and this alone, among Christian festivals, 
 as of Divine authority.—(P. 166.) 
 
 * * 
 
 * * 
 
 “The recognition of an ordinance in Holy Scripture, even 
 without express record of a command for its observance, sets it 
 upon an eminence far above those upon which Holy Scripture has 
 been silent ; and thus the Ember days, for example, and the Friday 
 fast, are not to be compared with the Lord’s Day.”—(P. 182.) 
 
 The language of Dr. George Cook, author of “‘ The History of 
 the Reformation in Scotland,” is also very much to my purpose. 
 After speaking of the natural duty of worshipping God at some 
 time, and of the necessity of a stated time for performing such 
 worship, he lays down that stated times are a matter of positive 
 institution, and may vary where revelation does not interpose. 
 Under the religion of Moses, (and possibly before), revelation 
 did interpose. The Sabbath, or seventh day, was divinely 
 instituted, and continued obligatory so long as the dispensation 
 lasted to which it belonged. It was then abrogated. And 
 “mankind thus returned to what may be called their condition 
 by nature. It was their duty at set times to worship God, but 
 these times might have been differently appointed from what 
 they had been ; any day of the week might have been chosen, or 
 any other proportion might have been consecrated.” He then goes 
 through the New Testament evidence as to the selection of the 
 first day of the week, which he confirms by the testimony of 
 Pliny and of many early writers ; and concludes, that not merely 
 was that day the most likely one to have been selected under the 
 circumstances, but that it was, “from the commencement of the 
 Christian Church, the day marked out by Divine authority for 
 performing that duty of public worship, which is, from the con- 
 stitution of nature, always binding upon mankind.”—4A General 
 and Historical View of Christianity, by George Cook, D.D., vol. ii. 
 chap. x. pp. 284—290. ° 
 
NOTES. 359 
 
 And again, “The amount of this whole disquisition is; that 
 the observance of the first day of the week, as a day of worship, 
 is founded upon the law of nature, conjoined with the fact, that 
 it is plain, from Scripture, that this particular day was set apart 
 for that purpose by the Apostles, and that in so far it may be 
 considered of Divine appointment; but that it is not enforced 
 as was the Jewish Sabbath, to which, in primitive times, it was 
 uniformly set in opposition ; and that it is left very much to 
 the discretion of particular churches, or to the consciences of 
 individuals, to determine how large a portion of the day should 
 be devoted to religious services, and in what manner the 
 remainder of it is to be occupied.”—Pp. 319, 320. 
 
 Dr. George Cook was the leader of the Moderate party of 
 the Kirk of Scotland from 1854 till his death in 1845. He 
 was one of the most learned ministers of the Kirk, and suc- 
 ceeded Dr. Chalmers as Professor of Moral Philosophy at St. 
 Andrews. 
 
 But to come to older writers. 
 
 Bp. Prideaux says: “Nec tamen satisfacere videtur nuda 
 Ecclesie constitutio que rescindi potest efidem facilitate qua 
 coaluerit,” and then he goes on to say, “ Dicatur quippiam esse 
 jure divino duobus modis, vel quod institutum habet, idque vel 
 expresse vel certa deductione erutum, vel exemplum continuata 
 Ecclesiz praxi omni seculo commendatum. Institutum Diei 
 Dominice, sive expressum sive elicitum, ostendat in sacris Literis 
 qui invenerit. Exempla sunt satis obvia, quibus nitatur praxis 
 Eeclesie.” —De Sabbato, ὃ 7. 
 
 Bp. Cosin says in his letter to Dr. Collins: “You seem to 
 rank Dies Dominicus among other Ceremonies ; and so let it 
 be: but let it be a ceremony instituted by Christ and His 
 Apostles withal, and then there is not any power in the Church 
 to take it away.”— Works, Oxford Edition, vol. iv. p. 461. 
 
 Page 35, line 4. ‘Such things connected with the celebration of 
 matters contained under the two higher classes as do not actually 
 appear in Scripture, and so are not of the essence of those 
 matters.’ To the instances given in the text of the Lecture 
 might be added “the time of the day at which the Holy 
 Eucharist may be celebrated,” a point which is further discussed 
 in a note to Lecture VIIT. p. 330. 
 
 This, however, seems to be a good opportunity of giving 
 
360 NOTES. 
 
 Richard Baxter’s opinion. After asserting very strongly the 
 Divine origin of the Lord’s Day, through the practice and 
 authority of the Apostles, he supposes an objector to say : 
 
 “ That other things also were then taken for Apostolical Tradi- 
 tions, and were customs of the Universal Church, as well as this, 
 (the Lord’s Day); which things we now renounce as superstitious.” 
 
 And his answer is as follows :— 
 
 “1, It is but a few things that come under this charge, viz. 
 the Unction, white Garment, with the Taste of milk and honey 
 at Baptism; Adoration towards the East, and that standing; and 
 not kneeling on the Lord’s Day ; and the Anniversary observa- 
 tion of Easter and Whitsuntide. And the last is but the keeping 
 of one or two Lord’s Days in the year with some note of dis- 
 tinction from the rest, so far as there was any agreement in it. 
 
 “2. These are not usually by the ancients called Apostolical 
 Traditions, but Customs of the Universal Church. 
 
 “ 3. When they are called Traditions from the Apostles, it is 
 not with any assertion that the Apostles instituted them, but 
 that they are supposed to be from their times, because their 
 original is not known. 
 
 “4, The ancients joi not the Lord’s Day with these, but take 
 the Lord’s Day for an Apostolical Institution written in Scrip- 
 ture, though the universal practice of all Churches fullier deliver 
 the certain history of it. But the rest they take for unwritten 
 Customs, as distinct from Scripture Ordinances. (As Epiphanius 
 fully sheweth,) 
 
 “5. Most Christians are agreed, that if these later could be 
 proved Apostolical Institutions for the Church Universal, it 
 would be our duty to use them, though they were not in Scrip- 
 ture. So that we reject them only for want of such proof; but 
 the proof of the Lord’s Day separation being far better, (by con- 
 currence of Scripture and all ancient History), it followeth not 
 that we must doubt of that which hath full and certain proof, 
 because we must doubt of that which wants it. 
 
 “6, And if it were necessary that they stood or fell together, 
 (as it is not), it were necessary that we did receive those three or 
 four Ceremonies, for the sake of the Lord’s Day, which hath so 
 great evidence, rather than that we cast off the Lord’s Day, 
 because of these Ceremonies. Not only because there is more 
 good in the Lord’s Day than there is evil to be any way sus- 
 
NOTES. 361 
 
 pected by a doubter in these Ceremonies; but especially, because 
 the evidence for the day is so great, that if the said Ceremonies 
 had but the same, they were undoubtedly of Divine authority or 
 institution. In a word, I have showed you somewhat of the 
 evidence for the Lord’s Day. Do you now show me the like for 
 them, and then I will prove that both must be received. But if 
 you cannot, do not pretend a parity. 
 
 “7, And the same Churches laying by the Customs aforesaid, 
 or most of them, did show that they took them not indeed for 
 Apostolical Institutions, as they did the Lord’s Day, which they 
 continued to observe; not as a ceremony, but as a necessary 
 thing.” 
 
 Baxter then touches upon a point which I mention in p. 41— 
 that certain practices current in Apostolic days were, and were 
 intended to be, merely temporary. For he proceeds :— 
 
 “8, And the Ancient Churches did believe, that even in the 
 Apostles’ days some things were used as indifferent which were 
 mutable, and were not laws, but temporary customs. And some 
 things were necessary, settled by law for perpetuity. Of the 
 former kind they thought were, the ‘greeting one another with a 
 holy kiss,’ the women’s praying covered with a veil, of which the 
 Apostle saith that it was then and there so decent, that the con- 
 trary would have been unseemly, and the Churches of God had 
 no such custom, by which he answereth the contentious, yet in 
 other countries, where custom altereth the signification, it may 
 be otherwise. Also that a man wear not long hair; and that 
 they have a Love-Feast on the Lord’s Day, (which yet Paul 
 seemeth to begin to alter in his rebuke of the abuses of it, 1 Cor. 
 c. xi.).’—The Divine Appointment of the Lord’s Day, pp. 49—52. 
 
 Page 35, line 26. ‘I shall scarcely, I think, be misunder- 
 stood,’ ὅθ. Ina tract by Bp. Ironside, “Seven Questions of the 
 Sabbath,” &., pp. 172, seq. a distinction like that given in this 
 Lecture is laid down. He supposes the Apostles to have had a 
 three-fold inspiration—as Apostles, as Pastors, as individual 
 men. ‘Their inspiration as Apostles was peculiar to themselves, 
 and rendered them infallible. That which they had as Pastors 
 they share with Ecclesiastical Synods and later Pastors ; as pos- 
 sessing this, they were not infallible. They had also the same 
 spiritual aid which is vouchsafed to ordinary Christians. The 
 Bishop makes them establish the Lord’s Day, not in right of their 
 
902 NOTES. 
 
 chief or Apostolical inspiration, but in right of their secondary or 
 Ecclesiastical inspiration. This is not the view taken in these 
 Lectures. But I quote what he says as an evidence, that the 
 distinction between inspiration strictly Apostolical, and that 
 which is merely Ecclesiastical, has appeared in the Church. Of 
 course I should object to this secondary sort of inspiration being 
 attributed to them; or at any rate to the doctrine that in right of 
 ut they established the Lord’s Day. It would thus be made an 
 ordinance not Divine, not binding on the Church for ever, but 
 disciplinal and mutable. 
 
 Page 39, line 20. ‘Whether from accident,’ &e. 
 
 Richard Baxter writes thus :— 
 
 “The Lord’s Day seemeth to me to be as it were conceived on 
 the day of Christ’s Resurrection, but born on this day of the 
 Holy Ghost’s descent. But Dr, Heylin hath one poor reason 
 against it, viz. ‘ Because it was but an accidental thing that the 
 day fell out that year on the first day.’ Answ. 1. Was it not 
 according to the course of Nature? How, then, can that be 
 called accidental? 2. But, however, it was no contingent, acci- 
 dental thing in his sense that the Holy Ghost was sent down on 
 that day rather than on another. If a sparrow fall not to the 
 ground without God’s providence, did God choose that day He 
 knew not why? Or did it fall out hap-hazard, or by chance ?”— 
 The Divine Appointment, &e. p. 22. 
 
 Page 41, line ἃ. ‘The Holy Communion and the ἀγάπαι, 
 which at that time were invariably connected, though the latter 
 are now disused.’ 
 
 It would be foreign to my purpose to enter here upon the 
 various questions which have been raised as to the nature and 
 history of the ἀγάπη. That, as Bingham holds strongly, it was 
 at first invariably connected with the Holy Communion, as 
 asserted in the text, seems to me very probable, from the 
 authorities cited by him, from the scene at Troas, and from the 
 rebuke of the Corinthians. That it was preceded by the Holy 
 Communion, seems also to be established by the fact that the 
 assembly was primarily for religious and secondarily for social 
 purposes; and also by Pliny’s statement, that the “ Sacra- 
 mentum” came first, and afterwards the ‘‘cibus.” That it should 
 not be confounded with the Holy Communion, is clear from the 
 facts that the two were frequently separated, in point of time, 
 
NOTES. 363 
 
 because of abuses connected with the ἀγάπη ; and that these 
 abuses still continuing, the ἀγάπη was disused at length altogether, 
 A trace of it, indeed, still remains in the “ pain béni,” which is 
 distributed after the Mass in the Churches of France and Savoy. 
 And Dr. Asahel Grant in his WNestorians, p. 57, after giving an 
 ‘ account of the administration of the Holy Communion, says, 
 “In passing out of the Church, each person received at the 
 door a very thin leaf of bread, rolled together, and enclosing 
 a morsel of meat. This was the ‘ Love-Feast’ of the early 
 Christians of the first and second centuries.” Another and most 
 painful trace of it appears to exist in the Abyssinian Church. 
 It is thus described by Major W. Cornwallis Harris (ighlands 
 of Ethiopia, vol. ui. p. 204): “The Sacrament of the Christ’s 
 Supper was then administered, accompanied by rites and cere- 
 monies highly unbecoming the solemnity of this most sacred 
 of Christian institutes. The multitude next proceeded to devour 
 a pile of loaves, and to drain accumulated pitchers of beer, 
 supplied by the neighbouring governors. Here, too, the most 
 indecent excesses were committed. Declarmg themselves to 
 have swallowed a specific against intoxication, the clergy indulge 
 to any extent they please, and each priest, vying with his 
 brother in the quantities he shall quaff, avers that if ‘the whole 
 of the Lord’s bread and the Lord’s wine’ be not consumed on 
 the spot, a famine will arise throughout the land.” 
 
 Tertullian, Apol. ὁ. 39, describes an ἀγάπη and its circum- 
 stances very beautifully—‘“ Nihil vilitatis, nihil immodestiz 
 admittit. Non prius discumbitur, quam oratio ad Deum pregus- 
 tetur. Editur, quantum esurientes cupiunt: bibitur, quantum 
 pudicis est utile. Ita saturantur, ut qui meminerint etiam per 
 noctem adorandum Deum 5101 esse. Ita fabulantur, ut qui sciant 
 Dominum audire,” &c. St. Chrysostom also gives an account of 
 it and of its origin. 
 
 On the whole subject of ἀγάπαι, see Bingham, Christian An- 
 tiquities, B. VIII. c. 10 and B. XV. c. 7. Poole’s Synopsis, on 
 Matt. xxvi. 26. Thorndike, “The Church’s Right to Tithes,” 
 sect. 11. (Works, vol. vi. p. 8, Oxf. Edit.) Bunsen’s “ Hippolytus 
 and his Age,” vol. ii, p. 218. Dr. Stanley on 1 Cor. xiv. 26—40, 
 and two articles in the Christian Remembrancer, No. XCIL, April, 
 1857, pp. 457, 458, and No. CIX., July, 1860, pp. 194—197. 
 
 The definition of a Love-Feast in the current Wesleyan 
 
904. NOTES. 
 
 Catechism is, “ An occasional meeting of members of the Wes- 
 leyan Society, when each person partakes of bread and water in 
 token of brotherly love, and in imitation of the primitive Chris- 
 tians, (2 Pet. ii. 13; Jude 12), after which, narrations of Chris- 
 tian experience are given.”’—Compend. of the Hist. and Pol. of 
 Methodism. 
 
 Page 42, line 12. ‘This, (says Thorndike very pertinentlyy 
 &c. See his treatise, “The Right of the Christian State in 
 Church Matters,” sect. 5. (Works, vol. vi. p. 65, Oxf. Edit.) 
 
 Page 42, line 18. ‘The authorized Italian Catechism.” “ Dot- 
 trina Cristiana breve composta per ordine di Papa Clemente VIII. 
 Dal R. P. Roberto Bellarmino, &c., riveduta, ed approvata dalla 
 Congregazione della Riforma. In Roma, 1836.” This Cate- 
 chism is quoted again in Lecture VI. p. 253. 
 
 Page 43, line 8. ‘Upon the first day of the week,’ &c. Mac- 
 knight thus translates the passage : 
 
 “On the first day of the week, let each of you lay somewhat 
 by wtself, according as he may have prospered, putting it into the 
 treasury, that when I come, there may be then no collections.” 
 
 And he observes—“The common translation, ‘lay by him 
 in store, is inconsistent with the last part of the verse—for 
 according to that translation, the collections would still have 
 been to make at the Apostle’s coming.” 
 
 Θησαυρίζων he thinks refers to the church’s box or treasury. 
 
 Finally, he says—“ From this passage it is evident, that the 
 Corinthian brethren were in use to assemble on the first day of 
 the week for the purpose of worshipping God. And as the 
 Apostle gave the same order to the Galatians, they likewise 
 must have held their religious assemblies on the first day of the 
 week.” 
 
 Bishop Hacket has the same argument in his “ Fourth Sermon 
 upon the Resurrection,” “Century of Sermons,” p. 583. So 
 also Dean Owen: “Exercitations concerning the Name, &e. of 
 a Day of Sacred Rest,” p. 390. It is observable that in 1 Tim. 
 vi. 19, those who are ready to distribute, willing to communicate, 
 are described as ἀποθησαυρίζοντες, “laying up in store,” &e. 
 
 Page 44, line 2. ‘He inculcated it, &c. See Romans xv. 
 26, 27. 
 
 Page 44, line 16. ἐπισυναγωγὴ in Heb. x. 25, may be paral- 
 leled by συναγωγὴ in James ii. 2. With the ancient Church, 
 
NOTES. 365 
 
 σύναξις was used for conventus Ecclesiasticus—ot συναγόμενοι, 
 
 were Laici—the ἐπίσκοπος who held the σύναξις was said συνάγειν 
 —Conf. Franciscus Burmann, “Acad. Disp. p. posterior. Disp. 
 prima de Synagogis.” The phrase in 1 Cor. xi. 18, συνερχομένων 
 ὑμῶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, Which Dr. Stanley translates, “when you meet 
 assembly wise,” affords a presumption that assemblies were 
 usual and regular. (The word ἐπισυναγωγὴ occurs again in 
 2 Thess. ii. 1, but probably with reference to the gathering to 
 Christ of those who should be yet living at the day of 
 Judgment.) 
 
 Page 46, line 3. ‘He himself was engaged upon it,’ ὅσο. 
 Bp. Hacket, (ut supra). ‘‘ As the last day of the week, when God 
 rested from His works, was called the Sabbath of the Lord, so 
 it is of much moment to the point that the first day of the 
 week is called the Day of the Lord, or the Lord’s Day. ‘I was 
 in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, as it appears Rev. i. 13. 
 John was walking on the sea-shore, meditating on holy things, 
 in the Isle of Patmos. Very probable that there was no solemn 
 meeting to praise God, as it ought to have been, among those 
 pagan islanders, otherwise John had not betaken himself to soli- 
 tary meditations. But see how he was recompensed, (‘ Nactus est 
 Doctorem ipsum Deum, quando fortasse deessent quos ipse 
 doceret,’) when he was disconsolate, because he wanted auditors 
 to teach, God preached to him the mysteries of the age to come. 
 But to enforce the text forenamed for an argument ; we have but 
 two things in the New Testament called the Lord’s: the Sacra- 
 ment is called the Supper of the Lord, i Cor. xi. 20, and this 
 day of Christian assemblies is called the Lord’s Day ; (the Lord’s 
 Prayer and the Lord’s House are good phrases, but our own, not 
 the Scripture’s ;) but as we keep the feast of the Passover no 
 more, but instead thereof eat the Lord’s Supper, so neither do we 
 observe the Jews’ Sabbath any more, but instead thereof keep the 
 Lord’s Day.” 
 
 In addition to the interpretations of Κυριακὴ Ἡμέρα, given in 
 the text, the following fancy is mentioned in a work entitled, 
 « Effigiatio veri Sabbathismi; Authore Roberto Loeo, Exoniensis 
 Eccl. Thesaurario.” Lond. 1605. ‘Sed Domini usitate in 
 Scripturis is dicitur Dies, quo divine potentiz magnitudo, vel 
 in evertendis apparet improbis, vel in tuenda elucet bonorum 
 SLUG gs as ws Dies hic a Joanne Dominici Diei appellatione 
 
366 NOTES. 
 
 insignitus dicatur, quod in eo Deus quam admiranda pro 
 ecclesiz erat salute facturus declarabat.” 
 
 Bishop Beveridge, Thes. Theol. on John xx. 21, says very 
 well, “It is called Ἡμέρα Κυριακὴ, Rev. 1. 10, as Δεῖπνον 
 Κυριακὸν, 1 Cor. xi. 20, John supposing thereby the day to be 
 well known at the time of his writing.” 
 
 Page 46, line 22. ‘As to the prevalence of the Lord’s Day 
 being only gradual,’ ὅσο. Compare, on the subject of the modera- 
 tion of the Apostles, Puller, “ Mod. of Church of England,” p. 275. 
 “Somewhat the like apology was made at the beginning of the 
 Reformation ; It was said, that ‘as our Saviour did not reveal 
 all things to His disciples till they were able to bear them, and 
 as the Apostles did not of a sudden abolish all the rites of 
 Judaism, but for some time, to gain the Jews, complied with them, 
 and went to the Temple and offered sacrifices ; so the people 
 were not to be [over] driven in this change. The clergy must be 
 brought out of their ignorance by degrees; but to drive furiously, 
 and to do all at once, might have spoiled the whole design ;’ 
 therefore these slow steps were thought the surer and better 
 method.” And Dr. Routh, “ Rel. Sac.” in Melitonis Fragmenta, 
 vol. i. p. 137, writes thus on this point :—“[o περὶ Κυριακῆς] Hoc 
 nomine appellaérunt hebdomadale Dominic resurrectionis fes- 
 tum ante Melitonem Dionysiumve Corinthium zqualem ejus, 
 S. Joannes, Apoc. i. 10, discipulusque ejus Ignatius in Epist. 
 ad Magnesios, ὃ 9. Qui quidem dies Sacer, cum Apostolicis 
 temporibus institutus esset, atque exinde ab omnibus Christianis 
 observatus, Sabbatum, quod abrogatum fuisse testatur S. Paulus 
 in Epist. ad Col. 11. 16, prorsus exclusit, sed sensim grada- 
 timque. Quapropter Melito in libro suo ostendisse existimari 
 possit, quantum dies primus, seu, ut mysticdé ratione eum voca- 
 bant, dies octavus, septimum diem dignitate preestaret. Confer 
 Epist. S. Barnabe adscript. ὁ 15. & S. Basil. M. De. Spir. 5. ¢. 27.” 
 
 Page 47, line 4. ‘The regularity of a recognized or esta- 
 blished creed.’ Dr. Stanley, on 1 Cor. xiv. 26—40, after noticing 
 the simplicity of the primitive services, and enumerating certain 
 particulars, says, ‘‘ These points are all that we can clearly dis- 
 cern in the worship of apostolic times, with the addition perhaps 
 of the fact mentioned in Acts xx. 7, and confirmed by 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 2, that the first day of the week was specially devoted to 
 these meetings.” 
 
NOTES. 367 
 
 Page 47, line 8. ‘Jericho.’ See Joshua vi. 
 
 Page 47, line 10. ‘ Athaliah.’ See 1 Kings xi. 5, 9. 
 
 Page 49, line 16. ‘A Sabbath of more venerable antiquity,’ 
 &c. See Lecture IV. 
 
 Page 49, line 26. ‘The Sabbath virtually subsists,’ ὅσο. 
 See Lecture V. 
 
 Page 50, line 5. ‘All days, whether Christian or Jewish,’ ὅσο. 
 See Lecture V. 
 
 Page 50, line 16. ‘On the next Sabbath. Acts xiii. 42. 
 The Greek phrase for this, εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ σάββατον, has had its 
 meaning much disputed. It seems to be interpreted by verse 44, 
 τῷ ἐρχομένῳ, (corr. ἐχομένῳ) σαββάτῳ, as our version has it. Dr. 
 Burton refers, after Krebsius, to a passage in Josephus, Bell. Jud. 
 v. 4.2, τῶν μετάξὺ τούτων βασιλέων, the following kings, where it 15 
 obviously used for μετέπειτα, post. So, he adds, Erasmus, Capellus, 
 and L. de Dieu take it. Lightfoot, (ad Matt. iv. 23), understands it 
 of the second and fifth days of the week, upon which synagogues 
 were held, and so far confirms the marginal reading, “in the week 
 between, or in the Sabbath between.” If this is to be admitted, 
 meetings must have gone on both in the following week, and on 
 the following Sabbath. (Τὰ ἔθνη, in verse 42, has been obelized, 
 but as it may refer to the body of proselytes, it seems scarcely 
 worth while to disturb it.) 
 
 Page 50, line 22. ‘But why was the Sabbath selected,’ &e. 
 Baxter says, in answer to an objector, “ Appendix to Divine 
 Appointment,” &. p. 199, “None of the texts cited by you, 
 (viz. from Acts), do prove that the Apostles kept the Sabbath at 
 all as a Sabbath, that is, as a day on which it was their duty to 
 rest ; but only that they preached on that day in the synagogues 
 and to the people. For, when should they preach to them but 
 when they were congregated and capable of hearing? They 
 took it for no sin to preach on the Sabbath no more than I 
 should do to preach Christ on Friday, which is their Sabbath, to 
 the Turks, if they would hear me. But Sabbatizing, according 
 to the law, was something else than preaching.” 
 
 Morer, in his Dialogue called Ἡμέρα Κυριακὴ, p. 194, quotes, 
 much to the purpose, Chrysostom’s comment on St. Paul’s “ hast- 
 ing, if it were possible, to be at Jerusalem by the Day of Pente- 
 cost,” (Acts xx. 16). ‘ What means this haste? did he lie under 
 any obligation to keep that festival, that he showed so much zeal 
 
368 NOTES. 
 
 and earnestness to get timely to Jerusalem? No, it was not so 
 much because of the feast, as because of the multitudes of people 
 resorting thither, and for their sakes he hasted, that he might 
 be able to preach the word to them.”’—Chrys. Hom. xliii. 
 on Acts, 
 
 Page 52, line 5. ‘They will, I think, be proved to demon- 
 stration,’ ὅθ. Dean Hook, (Ch. Dicty, article Lord’s Day), quotes 
 for his purpose what Dr. Waterland said when speaking of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity: “If what appears probably to be taught 
 in Scripture, appears certainly to have been taught in the primi- 
 tive and Catholic Church, such probability, so strengthened, 
 carries with it the force of demonstration.” 
 
 Page 53, line 19. “ Whatever of this sort afterwards formally 
 belonged to it,’ &c. Compare Paley, “ Mor. Ph.” B. V. ο. 7. 
 “The assembling upon the first day of the week for the purpose 
 of public worship and religious instruction, is a law of Chris- 
 tianity of Divine appointment ; the resting on that day from our 
 employments longer than we are detained from them by attend- 
 ance on these assemblies, is to Christians an ordinance of human 
 institution : binding nevertheless upon the conscience of every 
 individual of a country in which a weekly Sabbath is established, 
 for the sake of the beneficial purposes which the public and 
 regular observance of it promotes, and recommended perhaps in 
 some degree to the Divine approbation, by the resemblance 
 which it bears to what God has pleased to make a solemn part 
 of the law which He delivered to the people of Israel, and by its 
 subserviency to many of the same uses.” 
 
 Page 54, line 7. ‘The first writer, &c. I do not quote, in argu- 
 ment, the well-known passage in Clemens Rom., Ist Ep. to Cor. 
 § 40, tom. i. p. 170, Coteler. fol. Amst. 1724, where he is speaking 
 of religious services, and says :—Ilavra τάξει ποιεῖν ὀφείλομεν ὅσα 
 ὃ Δεσπότης ἐπιτελεῖν ἐκέλευσεν. Kara καιροὺς τεταγμένους τάς τε 
 προσφορὰς καὶ λειτουργίας ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, καὶ οὐκ εἰκῇ ἢ ἀτάκτως 
 ἐκέλευσεν γίνεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὡρισμένοις καιροῖς καὶ ὥραις. Tod τε καὶ διὰ 
 τίνων ἐπιτελεῖσθαι θέλει, αὐτὸς ὥρισεν τῇ ὑπερτάτῃ αὐτοῦ βουλήσει" 
 ἵν᾿ ὁσίως πάντα γινόμενα ἐν εὐδοκήσει εὐπρόσδεκτα εἴη τῷ θελήματι 
 αὐτοῦ. Οἱ οὖν τοῖς προστεταγμένοις καιροῖς ποιοῦντες τὰς προσφορὰς 
 αὐτῶν, εὐπρόσδεκτοί τὲ καὶ μακάριοι" τοῖς γὰρ νομίμοις τοῦ Δεσπότου 
 ἀκολουθοῦντες οὐ διαμαρτάνουσιν. I think it indeed very probable 
 that he alludes here to the Lord’s Day: and this seems to be the 
 
NOTES. 369 
 
 opinion of the learned Bishop Fell, who comments thus :—“ Re 
 vera septimum diem humano generi a condito mundo, maximis, 
 hoe est, suis auspiciis sanctum voluit Deus. Unde, postquam 
 in ejusdem παλιγγενεσίᾳ novam reparati orbis Epocham institu- 
 isset, paribus eam privilegiis et quasi infulis donavit, et τῆς 
 κυριακῆς sacrosancta facta est religio.” If Clement is speaking of 
 the Lord’s Day, he seems to attribute its institution to our Lord 
 Himself; though His appointment of it, mediately, that is, by 
 His Apostles, may be covered by his expression. But as he does 
 not in so many words mention the Lord’s Day, I have forborne 
 to quote hin in the text. Of the Apostolical Constitutions, falsely 
 so called, and as falsely attributed to Clement, I shall speak 
 bye and bye. 
 
 Page 54, line 7, ‘Ignatius.’ The passage from Ignatius is 
 from the Epistle to the Magnesians, the shorter recension. 
 This document is not allowed by Dr. Cureton; but as his 
 palmary argument against it seems to be the fact of its not being 
 contained in a certain imperfect volume, I have thought it better, 
 with Professor Hussey, to await further discoveries and stronger 
 reasons for disallowing it. It is as follows :— 
 
 Μὴ πλανᾶσθε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις, μηδὲ μυθεύμασιν Tots παλαιοῖς ἀνω- 
 φελέσιν οὖσιν: εἰ γὰρ μέχρι νῦν κατὰ νόμον Ἰουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν, 
 δμολογοῦμεν χάριν μὴ εἰληφέναι" of γὰρ θειότατοι προφῆται κατὰ 
 Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἔζησαν" διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐδιώχθησαν, ἐμπνεόμενοι ὑπὸ 
 τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ πληροφορηθῆναι τοὺς ἀπειθοῦντας, ὅτι εἷς 
 θεός ἐστιν 6 φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, 
 ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος ἀΐδιος, οὐκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθὼν, ὃς κατὰ πάντα 
 εὐηρέστησεν τῷ πέμψαντι αὐτόν. 
 
 Ei οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστραφέντες εἰς καινότητα 
 ἐλπίδος ἤλυθον, μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν [ζωὴν] 
 ζῶντες, ἐν 7 καὶ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν Ou αὐτοῦ, καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, 
 ov τινες ἀρνοῦνται, ... πῶς ἡμεῖς δυνησόμεθα ζῆσαι χωρὶς αὐτοῦ; 
 οὗ καὶ οἱ προφῆται μαθηταὶ ὄντες τῷ πνεύματι ὡς διδάσκαλον αὐτὸν 
 προσεδόκουν᾽ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, ὃν δικαίως ἀνέμενον, παρὼν ἤγειρεν 
 αὐτοὺς ἐκ vexpov.—lgnat. ad Magnes. capp. 8, 9 ; Οοέεζογ. tom. ii. 
 pp. 19, 20, fol. Amst. 1724. 
 
 Page 55, line 7. ‘St. Barnabas,’ &e. 
 
 Πέρας γέ τοι λέγει αὐτοῖς Tas veounvias ὑμῶν καὶ ta σάββατα 
 ὑμῶν οὐκ ἀνέχομαι. Ὁρᾶτε, πῶς λέγει᾽ οὐ τὰ νῦν σάββατα ἐμοὶ 
 Sexta’ ἀλλ᾽ ἃ πεποίηκα, ἐν ᾧ καταπαύσας τὰ πάντα, ἀρχὴν ἡμέρας 
 
 BB 
 
370 NOTES. 
 
 ὀγδόης ποιήσω, ὅ ἐστιν ἄλλου κόσμου ἀρχήν. Διὸ καὶ ἄγομεν τὴν 
 ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ἣ καὶ ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ 
 νεκρῶν, kat φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς oipavo’s.—S. δαγπαῦω Epist. 
 ὁ 15 ; Coteler. tom. 1. p. 47. 
 
 The concluding words of this passage, or a translation of them, 
 may have been before Mr. J. J. Gurney, (Brief Remarks on the 
 History, &c. of the Sabbath), when he spoke, (p. 69 of his work), 
 of the Ascension Day being on Sunday. A denial of our 
 Lord’s Forty Days on earth after the Resurrection has been 
 found in it by others. But, with Neander, I think we cannot 
 necessarily infer from it either that St Barnabas thought 
 the Ascension occurred on Sunday, or what some have supposed, 
 that he imagined that Christ ascended immediately after mani- 
 festing himself to Mary Magdalene. (See Neander, p. 408, 
 vol. i. note.—Bohn’s Edition.) 
 
 Schram’s comment is much to the purpose :—“ In illis verbis, 
 καὶ φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, auctor videtur dicere, 
 Christum die Dominica in ccelum ascendisse, quod falsum est : 
 verum Menardus bene ita hee interpretatur: cum apparuisset, 
 per quadraginta dies videlicet, postea ascendit ad ccelos: quasi 
 hee dicta sint obiter extra suum locum, ut non necesse sit referri 
 ad diem octavum.”—Schram, Analys. Pat. vol. i. p. 14. 
 
 Page 55, line 23. ‘ Pliny.” Compare with Pliny, Tertullian’s 
 Apol. ὁ. 2, where Pliny’s letter and Trajan’s rescript are elo- 
 quently criticised. 
 
 Bohmer labours to prove the stated day of the Christians to 
 be the Jewish Sabbath. ‘“ De Stato Christian. Die,” S. 3, et seq., 
 quoted by Holden, p. 293, note. Gesner, in his note to Pliny, 
 agrees with him. 
 
 C. C. L. Franke supposes Pliny to have known so little about 
 the matter as to have used a phrase which may cover either the 
 Sabbath or the Lord’s Day. ‘De Diei Dominici apud Veteres 
 Christianos celebratione,” p. 29, Halle, 1826. 
 
 Mosheim, Bingham, and Augusti, without hesitation consider 
 the stated day to be the Lord’s Day. 
 
 The passage is as follows :— 
 
 “ Affirmabant autem, hance fuisse summam vel culpz sue, vel 
 erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, car- 
 menque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem: seque sacra- 
 mento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latro- 
 
NOTES. 371 
 
 cinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum 
 appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis, morem sibi discedendi 
 fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum 
 tamen et innoxium.”—Plin. lib. x. epist. 97. 
 
 Page 56, line ὁ. ‘Justin Martyr.’ 
 
 Kai τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάντων κατὰ πόλεις 7) ἄγρους 
 μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται... .. 
 
 τὴν δέ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμέραν κοινῇ πάντες τὴν συνέλευσιν ποιούμεθα, 
 ἐπειδὴ πρώτη ἐστὶν ἡμέρα, ἐν ἣ ὃ Θεὸς, τὸ σκότος καὶ τὴν ὕλην 
 τρέψας, κόσμον ἐποίησε, καὶ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὃ ἡμέτερος σωτὴρ τῇ 
 αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνέστη. τῇ γὰρ πρὸ τῆς Κρονικῆς ἐσταύρωσαν 
 αὐτὸν, καὶ τῇ μετὰ τὴν Kpovixny, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡλίου ἡμέρα, φανεὶς τοῖς 
 ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ μαθηταῖς ἐδίδαξε ταῦτα, ἅπερ εἰς ἐπίσκεψιν καὶ 
 ὑμῖν avedwoxapev.—Justin. Martyr, Apol. Prima. pp. 97, 98, 
 Lond. 1722. 
 
 Page 56, line 22. ‘In another passage,’ το. 
 
 Ἡ δὲ ἐντολὴ τῆς περιτομῆς, κελεύουσα τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ παντὸς 
 περιτέμνειν τὰ γεννώμενα, τύπος ἣν τῆς ἀληθινῆς περιτομῆς ἣν περι- 
 ετμήθημεν ἀπὸ τῆς πλάνης καὶ πονηρίας διὰ τοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν 
 ἀναστάντος τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἡμέρᾳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου 
 ἡμῶν. μία γὰρ τῶν σαββάτων, πρώτη μένουσα τῶν πασῶν ἡμερών, 
 κατὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν πάλιν τῶν πασῶν ἡμερῶν τῆς κυκλοφορίας ὀγδόη 
 καλεῖται, καὶ πρώτη οὖσα péve.—Dial. cum Tryph. § 41, p. 138 A. 
 
 Page 56, line ult. ‘As for σαββατίζειν, he constantly,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Kat σαββατίζειν οὖν ὑμῖν προστέταχεν, iva μνήμην λαμβάνητε τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. καὶ γὰρ ὃ λόγος αὐτοῦ τοῦτο σημαίνει λέγων, “ τοῦ γινώσκειν 
 ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι 6 Θεὸς ὃ λυτρωσάμενος bas.” —Ezech. xx. 12, 20. Dial. 
 cum Tryph. § 19, p. 119 C. 
 
 Μηδὲ ὅτι θερμὸν πίνομεν ἐν τοῖς σάββασι, δεινὸν jnyetoGe.—Dial. 
 cum Tryph. § 29, p. 127 B. 
 
 Page 57, line 6. ‘ He asserts,’ We. 
 
 Kai yap μὴ σαββατίσαντες οἱ προωνομασμένοι πάντες δίκαιοι τῷ 
 Θεῷ εὐηρέστησαν, καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοὺς ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ οἱ τούτου υἱοὶ ἅπαντες 
 μέχρι Μωὐσέως . . . . .—Dial. cum Tryph. § 19, p. 119 Β. 
 
 Ἢ καὶ τοὺς πρὸ Muiioéws καὶ ᾿Αβραὰμ ὠνομασμένους δικαίους Kat 
 εὐαρέστους αὐτῷ γενομένους, μήτε τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν περιτετμημένους, 
 μήτε τὰ σάββατα φυλαξαντας, διὰ τί οὐκ ἐδίδασκε ταῦτα ποιεῖν ;— 
 Dial. cum Tryph. § 27, p. 126 A. 
 
 Dial. cum Tryph. § 12, p. 113 A. σεσαββάτικε τὰ τρυφερὰ καὶ 
 ἀληθινὰ σάββατα τοῦ Θεοῦ, The allusion is to Isaiah, ο. [ν11], 
 
 BB2 
 
372 NOTES. 
 
 13, καλέσεις τὰ σάββατα tpvdepa.—LXX. Compare a similar 
 adaptation of the Scripture phrase by Macarius, quoted in 
 Lecture III. p. 93. 
 
 Page 57, line antep. ‘Dion Cassius.’ From Dion Cassius 
 we learn the fact given in the text that the hebdomadal division 
 of time had become prevalent ; “but (he adds) it is not long, so 
 to say, since it began.” Mistor. xxxvii. 18. He then proceeds 
 to explain the reasons why the days were named respectively 
 from the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and 
 Saturn. He says that Egyptians named them thus, and that the 
 eycle itself came from them. Compare Dr. Whewell’s “ Elements 
 of Morality,” &c. B. ΤΥ, ¢. 16. But see Lecture IV. pp. 139—142. 
 On the whole subject consult Selden, “De Jure Naturali et 
 Gentium ;” Greswell’s “Fasti Temporis Catholici;” and a 
 learned paper by Archdeacon Hare, ‘On the Names of the Days 
 of the Week,” in the first volume of the Philological Museum. 
 
 Page 58, line 14. ‘Dionysius.’ Valesius, whose version 
 Dr. Routh adopts, translates the passage thus: “ Hodie sacrum 
 diem Dominicum transegimus.” Iam not quite satisfied with this 
 rendering, but cannot suggest any other, except on the supposi- 
 tion that the sentence has lost its apodosis.—Lel. Sacre, vol. i. 
 p. 180, from Huseb. H. £. iv. 23. 
 
 Page 58, line 21.‘ Melito.’ 
 
 Τούτων (Melitonis et Apollinaris) εἰς ἡμετέραν γνῶσιν ἀφῖκται τὰ 
 ὑποτεταγμένα Μελίτωνος, τὰ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα δύο, καὶ τὰ περὶ πολιτείας 
 καὶ προφητῶν, καὶ ὁ περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ ὃ περὶ Κυριακῆς 
 Adyos—«.t.4.—Routh, “Relig. Sacre,” vol. i. p. 120, from 
 Euseb. H. E. iv, 26. 
 
 Page 58, line 25. ‘Treneus.’ After speaking of the sym- 
 bolical character of circumcision, he proceeds :-— 
 
 “Hoc idem de Sabbatis Ezechiel propheta ait: Zt Sabbata 
 mea dedi eis, ut sint in signo inter me et ipsos, ut sciant guoniam 
 ego Dominus, qui sanctifico eos. Et in Exodo Deus ait ad Moy- 
 sem: Ht Sabbata mea observabitis; erit enim signum apud me 
 vobis in generationes vestras. In signo ergo data sunt hee: non 
 autem sine symbolo erant signa, id est, sine argumento, neque 
 otiosa, tanquam que ἃ sapiente artifice darentur ; sed secundum 
 carnem circumcisio circumcisionem significabat spiritalem. Ete- 
 nim nos, ait Apostolus, circumcist sumus circumcisione non manu- 
 Jactd. Et Propheta ait, Circumcidite duritiam cordis vestri. 
 
NOTES. 373 
 
 Sabbata autem perseverantiam totius diei erga Deum deser- 
 vitionis edocebant.  Mstimate enim sumus, ait Apostolus 
 Paulus, totd die ut oves occisionis, scilicet consecrati, et minis- 
 trantes omni tempore fidei nostre, et perseverantes ei, et absti- 
 nentes ab omni avaritié, non acquirentes, nec possidentes the- 
 sauros in terra. Manifestabatur autem et tanquam de iis que 
 facta sunt, requietio Dei, hoc est, regnum, in quo requiescens homo 
 ille qui perseveraverit Deo adsistere, participabit de mensa Dei. 
 
 “Et quia non per hoc justificabatur homo, sed in signo data 
 sunt populo, ostendit, quod ipse Abraham sine circumcisione et 
 sine observatione sabbatorum, credidit Deo, et reputatum est le 
 ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est.”—Tren. Contr. Her, iv. 
 16, p. 246, ed. Ben. fol. Par. 1710. 
 
 Page 59, line 14. “ Fragments.’ 
 
 Καθώς φησιν ὃ μακάριος Ἐϊρηναῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ ἸΤάσχα λόγῳ, 
 ἐν ᾧ μέμνηται καὶ περὶ τῆς Ἰϊεντηκοστῆς, ἐν ἣ οὐ κλίνομεν γόνυ, 
 ἐπειδὴ ἰσοδυναμεῖ τῇ ἱμέρῳ τῆς Κυριακῆς, κατὰ τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν περὶ 
 αὐτῆς αἰτίαν.--- Pragmentum lib. de Pascha, apud Justin M. Resp. 
 ad Quest. 115 ad Orthod. p. 490 B., fol. Par. 1742. 
 
 Page 59, line 21. ‘Of Asia Miner, Syria, and Mesopotamia.’ 
 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. V. 23, says of dsia. But, as Bp. Kaye 
 observes, Asia Minor must be intended, for the orthodox list, 
 (Palestine, Rome, Pontus, Gaul, Osdroene, Corinth, Alexandria,) 
 has certain Asiatic Churches in it. 
 
 Page 59, line penult. ws ἂν μηδ᾽ κιτιλ. This passage is not 
 totidem verbis attributed by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. V. 23, to the 
 Churches of Gaul; but we are told there by the historian that 
 it was in substance the opos, or determination of the orthodox 
 Churches generaily of that day. - A little further on, he informs 
 us that an epistle on the subject from the παροικίαι of Gaul, of 
 which Irenzeus was bishop, was extant in his day, (φέρεται δ᾽ 
 εἰσέτι Viv... . γραφὴ - -- -- τῶν κατὰ Ταλλίαν παροικιῶν, ἃς Εἰρη- 
 ναῖος ἐπεσκόπει) ; and in V. 24, he says, that Irenzus, acting as 
 the representative of the brethren in Gaul, of whom he was the 
 ἡγούμενος, wrote to the same effect, (ἐκ προσώπου ὧν ἡγεῖτο κατὰ 
 τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστείλας, παρίσταται τὸ δεῖν ἐν μόνῃ τῇ τῆς 
 Κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι μυστή- 
 Ριον.) See Lecture IIT. p. 90, and compare Thorndike, “ Laws of 
 the Church,” ITI. xxi. 22. 
 
 Page 60, line 10. ‘Clement of Alexandria.” In Strom. V. 
 
914. NOTES. 
 
 Clement imagines that he discovers an allusion to the Lord’s 
 Day, under the title of the Eighth Day, in the Republic of 
 Plato, B. Χ. Τὴν δὲ Κυριακὴν ἡμέραν ev τῷ δεκάτῳ τῆς Πολιτείας ὃ 
 Πλάτων διὰ τούτων καταμαντεύεται. (Plato’s words are, ᾿Επειδηὴ δὲ 
 τοῖς ἐν τῷ λειμῶνι ἑκάστοις ἑπτὰ ἡμέραι γένοιντο, ἀναστάντας 
 ἐντεῦθεν δεῖν τῇ ὀγδόῃ πορεύεσθαι, καὶ ἀφικνεῖσθαι τεταρταίους.) Οἵ 
 course, this is a mere fancy, but it shows the hold that the 
 Κυριακὴ Ἡμέρα had upon Clement's mind. He next proceeds 
 to produce passages from Greek writers to show that the seventh 
 day was by them considered holy. All that can fairly be col- 
 lected from these passages is, that the Greeks .attached some 
 particular sanctity to the seventh day of the month, and some 
 peculiar virtue to the number seven; but this they did also to 
 other days and numbers. But see Lecture IV. p. 140. 
 
 Page 60, line 14. “ δὶ ἀποχῆς. This is Sylburgius’ reading for 
 ἀποδοχῆς, κακῶν. k.7.A. Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. §. 3, p. 566, ed. 
 Potter, fol. Oxon. 1715. See Bp. Kaye’s Clement of Alex. p. 416. 
 
 Page 60, line 16. ἡ ἑβδομὴ τοίνυν. x.7.X. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
 ΜΙ 16, Ὁ». 910 
 
 Page 60, line 22. ‘Clement takes occasion,’ &. ἀγαθὸς γὰρ 
 ὧν, εἰ παύσεταί ποτε ἀγαθοεργῶν, καὶ τοῦ Θεὸς εἶναι παύσεται. 
 Strom. VI. ὃ 16, p. 813. But see Bp. Kaye’s Clem. Alex. p. 418, 
 where his paraphrase of the passage about the true Gnostic 
 occurs. False Gnostics are represented as calling themselves 
 κύριοι σα) βάτου, and as perversely interpreting our Lord’s words 
 to denote freedom from all restraint.—Strom. IIT. ὃ 4. p. 525. 
 
 Page 60, line 27. ‘As for Christian days, &e. Bp. Kaye's 
 Clem. Alex. p. 451. 
 
 Page 61, line 6. οὗτος, κιτιλ. Clem. Alex. Strom. VII. § 12, 
 p. 877. 
 
 Page ΟἹ, line ult. ‘Qui contendit,’ &c. Tertull. adv. Judzos, 
 G2: 
 
 Page 62, line 18. ‘Diem solis, &e. The passage in full is, 
 “« que ac si diem solis letitize indulgemus, alia longé ratione 
 ac religione Solis ; secundo loco ab eis sumus, qui diem Saturni 
 otio et victui decernunt, exorbitantes et ipsi ab Judaico more 
 quem ignorant,”—Tertull. Apoll. ο. 16. 
 
 Page 62, line 26. ‘Nobis quibus,’ &c. Tertull. de Idolol. 
 ο. 14. 
 
 Page 63, line 4. ‘Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, vel 
 
NOTES. 375 
 
 de geniculis adorare. Eadem immunitate a die Pascha in Pen- 
 tecosten usque gaudemus.’ Tertull. de Cor. Mil. ο. 3. 
 
 Page 63, line 9. ‘Nos vero,’ ὅς. The passage from which it is 
 taken is in Tertullian de Orat. c. 23, Semler’s edit. vol. iv. 
 p. 22. 
 
 “De genu quoque ponendo varietatem observationis patitur 
 oratio per pauculos quosdam, qui Sabbato abstinent genibus. 
 Quz dissensio quum maximé apud Ecclesias causam dicat, 
 Dominus dabit gratiam suam, ut aut cedant, aut sine aliorum 
 scandalo sententia sua utantur. Nos verd sicut aceepimus, solo 
 die Dominico Resurrectionis non ab isto tantum, sed omni anxie- 
 tatis * habitu et officio cavere debemus, differentes etiam negotia, 
 ne quem diabolo locum demus. Tantundem et spatio Pente- 
 costes, quz eadem exultationis solemnitas est,f dispungimus. 
 Ceterum omni die quis dubitet prosternere se Deo vel prima 
 saltem oratione, qué lucem ingredimur? Jejuniis autem et 
 stationibus nulla oratio sine genu, et reliquo humilitatis more, 
 celebranda est. Non enim oramus tantum, sed et deprecamur, 
 et satisfacimus Deo Domino nostro. De temporibus orationis 
 nihil omnino prescriptum est, nisi plané omni in tempore et loco 
 orare.” 
 
 Tertullian has a curious passage in “ De Fuga in Persecu- 
 tione,” c. 14, in which he speaks of celebrating ‘ Dominica 
 Solennia.” I believe, from the contiguity of the word “ colli- 
 gemus,” which reminds one of the Christian συλλογαὶ, or συνάξεις, 
 that he refers to the Lord’s Day. If he refers to the Lord’s Supper, 
 he at any rate shows no hesitation about celebrating it at any 
 time. “Sed quomodo colligemus, inquis, quomodo Dominica 
 Solennia celebrabimus ? utique quomodo et Apostoli; fide, non 
 pecunia tuti: que fides si montem transferre potest, multo magis 
 militem.... Postremo si colligere interdiu non potes, habes 
 noctem, luce Christi luminosé adversus eam. Non potes dis- 
 currere per singulos, sit tibi et in tribus ecclesia.” “ 
 
 There is a good note in Semler’s edition on the word colligere. 
 
 Cyprian, ‘“‘ De Op. et Eleem.” ὃ 15, has a similar phrase. “ Locu- 
 ples es et dives, et Dominicum celebrare te credis, que Corbanam 
 
 * After habitu is sometimes inserted abstinemus, and for officio is read 
 oficia ; but with the reading officio, abstinemus is unnecessary. 
 
 + Solennitas est. Muratori’s conjecture for solennitatem. He also con- 
 jectures dispungimus for dispungimur. 
 
376 NOTES. 
 
 omnino non respicis? Que in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, 
 qu partem de sacrificio, quod pauper obtulit, sumis?” Here 
 the words Corbanam and Sacrifictwm show clearly that the 
 Lord’s Supper, not the Lord’s Day, was intended. In fact, Cyprian 
 uses Dominicum celebrare in that sense in Epist. ad Cecil. § 16. 
 
 In a work called “The Sabbath, by a Layman,” (Sir W. 
 Domville), vol. i. pp. 257 seq., there is a very curious discussion 
 of a misquotation by Bp. Andrewes, (Judgment on Traske,) 
 from ‘‘The Acts of the Martyrs,” of the phrase Dominicum 
 servdstt ? Dr. Heurtley, in his University sermon on “The Lord’s 
 Day,” Oxf. 1856, seems to have believed unsuspectingly, on 
 Bp. Andrewes’ authority, that the phrase existed, and that it 
 apphed to the Lord’s Day. 
 
 As to the title given to the day at this period, Bp. Kaye 
 writes thus, (Tertullian, p. 408), “Tertullian uses both names ; 
 that of Sunday, when addressing the heathens, Apol. c. 16. Ad 
 Nationes, Lib. I. ¢. 13: that of the Lord’s Day, when writing 
 to Christians. De Corona, ὁ. 3. De Jejuniis, ο. 15. De Idolo- 
 latrid, c. 14. De Anima, c. 9. De Fugé in Persecutione, c. 14. 
 We are not, however, certain that Tertullian uniformly observes 
 this distinction ; Bingham thinks that he does, B. XX. c. 2, § 1.” 
 
 Page 63, line 14. ‘Canon Robertson.’ “ History of the 
 Church,” vol. i. p. 458. - 
 
 Page 63, line 17. ‘Neander.’ “Church History,’ vol. i. 
 p. 408. Bohn’s edit. 
 
 Page 64, line 5. ‘Quod si,’ &c. “ Origen, Comm. in Exod.” 
 tom. 11. p. 154 A. After the words in the text occur the follow- 
 ing :—“Jam tune indicatum quod in sabbato ipsorum, gratia 
 Dei ad eos de ceelo nulla descenderit, panis ccelestis qui est 
 sermo Dei ad eos nullus venerit..... In nostra enim dominica 
 die semper Dominus pluit manna de ccelo.” 
 
 Page 64, line 9. ‘It is one of the marks,’ &e. Origen speaks 
 very* much after the manner of Tertullian. He argues, first, 
 against Jewish days, and times, and years, and then meets the 
 objection : ἐὰν δέ τις πρὸς ταῦτα ἀνθυποφέρῃ τὰ περὶ τῶν παῤ ἡμῖν 
 κυριακῶν, ἢ παρασκευῶν, ἢ τοῦ πάσχα, ἢ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς δὶ ἡμερῶν 
 γινόμενα" λεκτέον καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο, ὅτι ὁ μὲν τέλειος, ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις 
 dy καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις καὶ τοῖς διανοήμασι τοῦ τῇ φύσει Κυρίου Λόγου 
 Θεοῦ, ἀεί ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις, καὶ ἀεὶ ἄγει κυριακὰς ἡμέρας. --- 
 
 Origen, Contr. Cels. viii. § 22, tom. i. p. 758 F.. Then he goes 
 
NOTES. SF 
 
 on to say that the τέλειος, in like manner, is always keeping Para- 
 sceue, always, as passing over from the affairs of this life to God, 
 keeping Passover; and in like manner also, always keeping a 
 Pentecostal season. 
 
 Page 64, line 11. ‘As for the Sabbath,’ &e. 
 
 ‘Os γὰρ Κύριός ἐστι τοῦ σαββάτου ὃ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, Kai ov 
 δοῦλος τοῦ σαββάτου ὡς ὁ λαὸς, οὕτως Κύριός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν νόμον διδοὺς, 
 διδόναι μὲν ἄχρι χρόνου διορθώσεως, καὶ ἀλλάσσειν νόμον᾽ ἐπιστάν- 
 τος δὲ τοῦ χρόνου τῆς διορθώσεως, καὶ διδόναι μετὰ τὴν προτέραν ὁδὸν 
 καὶ μετὰ τὴν προτέραν καρδίαν, ὁδὸν ἑτέραν καὶ καρδίαν ἑτέραν καιρῷ 
 δεκτῷ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ cwrnpias.—Origen, Comm. in Matt. tom. iii. 
 p. 643 E. 
 
 ᾿Ἐγεννήθη 0 ᾿Ιωάννης ἑτοιμάζων Κυρίῳ λαὸν κατεσκευασμένον, ἐπὶ 
 τέλει τῆς παλαιᾶς γενόμενης διαθήκης, ἥ ἐστι σαββατισμοῦ κορωνίς᾽ 
 (extremitas). δι ὃ οὐ δύναται γεγενῆσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἑβδομάδος τοῦ θεοῦ 
 ἡμῶν τὴν μετὰ τὸ σάββατον ἀνάπαυσιν, τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν κατὰ τὴν 
 ἀνάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ ἐμποιοῦντος τοῖς συμμόρφοις τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ γεγενη- 
 μένοις καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τῆς avactacews.—Origen, Comm. in Joan. 
 tom. iv. p. 86 C. 
 
 Page 64, line 15. ‘A curious comment.’ The passage occurs 
 Contr. Cels. lib. viii. § 23, tom. 1. p. 759 Ὁ. 
 
 Page 64, line 20. ‘Minucius Felix.’ “ Et de convivio notum 
 est, passim omnes loquuntur. Id etiam Cirtensis nostri testatur 
 oratio. Ad epulas solemni die coeunt, cum omnibus liberis, 
 sororibus, matribus, sextis omnis homines, et omnis etatis.” 
 Then he goes on to misrepresent the Hpule.—Octavius, § 9, p. 99, 
 ed. Gronoy. 8vo. Lugd. Bat. 1709. 
 
 On this Rigaltius remarks, “Plinius Ceecilius quamvis ethnicus 
 ab omni de convivio calumnia Christianos liberavit apud Trajanum. 
 Etenim scripsit, morem illis fuisse coeundi ad capiendum cibum, 
 The true account of the Hpule 
 is given in section 31 of Minucius’ dialogue. 
 
 Dies solennis is a phrase used by the Fourth Council of Car- 
 thage, where it includes Sunday. See note to Lecture IIL. p. 109. 
 
 Page 65, line 5. ‘Nam quod,’ &e. Cyprian. Epist. LIX. p. 98, 
 ed. Ben. fol. Par. 1726. ‘The title of the Epistle runs thus, 
 “Cyprianus et ceteri collegee qui in concilio Ixvi affuerunt, 
 Fido fratri salutem.” (This is the third of Cyprian’s Councils of 
 Carthage, and is sometimes called Conc. Afric. I.) 
 
 Page 65, line 22. ‘Commodian.’ “ De Die Dominica quid 
 
 2 
 
 promiscuum hune et innoxium.’ 
 
378 NOTES. 
 
 dicis?” Instruct. adv. Gentium Deos, 985.— Bibl. Patr. apud 
 Galland. tom. iii. p. 644. 
 
 Page 65, line 206. ‘Victorinus.” “S. Victorini Martyris de 
 Fabricé Mundi.” Cave, Hist. Jit. tom. 1. p. 148, quoted by 
 Routh, vol. i. p. 457. 
 
 “ Hoc quoque die (he is speaking of Friday) ob passionem Do- 
 mini Jesu Christi aut stationem Deo, aut jejunium facimus. Die 
 septimo requievit ab omnibus operibus suis, et benedixit eum et 
 sanctificavit. Hoc die solemus superponere ; idcirco, ut Die 
 Dominico cum gratiarum actione ad panem exeamus. Εὖ para- 
 sceue superpositio fiat, ne quid cum Judzis Sabbatum observare 
 videamur, quod ipse Dominus sabbati Christus per prophetas suos 
 odisse animam suam dicit (Is. 1. 13, 14); quod sabbatum corpor2 
 suo resolvit (vid. Eph. 11. 14,15): prius autem, cum ipse Moysi 
 preciperet, ne circumcisio diem octavum preteriret, que die 
 Sabbati plerumque incurrit, sicut in Evangelio seriptum legimus 
 (vid. Joann. vii. 22) 
 
 Some curious matter follows in the original, how Joshua broke 
 the Sabbath at the siege of Jericho, and how Mattathias broke 
 it by killing the Prefect of Antiochus on that day. Victorinus 
 discovers an intimation of the eighth day in the heading of the 
 sixth Psalm. For further allusion to superpositio, or ὑπέρθεσις, see 
 Lecture 11. p. 75. And on the Dies stationarit, consult Dr. 
 Routh’s notes on this passage, Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 414, 
 and Neander’s Church Hist. vol. i. Bohn’s edit. p. 409, note. 
 Wednesday and Friday were Dies stationarw. A statio or semi- 
 jgunium concluded at the ninth hour. A jeywniwm lasted till the 
 evening. The word statio refers to the notion that on these days 
 of fasting accompanied with prayer, Christians were keeping watch 
 (stationem) as soldiers of Christ (milites Christi). The word statio 
 first occurs in this sense in Hermasg, 1. 111. Similitud. v. Coteler. 
 tom, i. p. 105, but is often met with in Tertullian. The word 
 superpositio appears in the 26th Canon of the Council of Eliberis, 
 A.D. 305. 
 
 Page 65, line 28. ‘Peter of Alexandria.’ 
 
 Οὐκ ἐγκαλέσει τις ἡμῖν παρατηρουμένοις τετράδα καὶ παρασκευὴν, 
 ἐν αἷς καὶ νηστεύειν ἡμῖν κατὰ παράδοσιν εὐλόγως προστέτακται" τὴν 
 μὲν τετράδα, διὰ τὸ γενόμενον συμβούλιον ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐπὶ τῇ 
 προδοσίᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου, τὴν δὲ παρασκευὴν, διὰ τὸ πεπονθέναι αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ 
 
 ὑμῶν. Τὴν γὰρ κυριακὴν, χαρμοσύνης ἡμέραν ἄγομεν, διὰ τὸν ἀνασ- 
 
NOTES. 379 
 
 TAVTO ἐν αὐτῇ, ἐν ἣ οὐδὲ γόνατα κλίνειν παρειλήφαμεν. Sancti Petri, 
 ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ εἰς τὸ TacXa.—Libl. Patr. apud Galland. tom. iv. 
 Ῥ: 107. 
 
 Dr. Routh has a note on the question of standing in prayer 
 on the Lord’s Day, vol. iv. p. 45. 
 
 Page 66, line 3. ‘We have now gone through,’ ὅσα. 
 
 Another second century authority has recently been brought 
 to light by Dr. Cureton, (Spicilegium Syriacum, pp. 31, 32,) 
 in the treatise by Bardesanes, the heretic, ‘‘on Fate,’ otherwise 
 called the “ Book of the Laws of Countries.’ The writer, who 
 calls himself a Christian, and no doubt was so in his own 
 estimation, is speaking of the customs of different nations. Of 
 the Jews he says; “All of them, wherever they are, abstain 
 from worshipping idols ; and one day in seven they and their 
 children abstain from all work, and from all building, and from 
 all travelling, and from buying and selling; neither do they 
 kill an animal on the Sabbath day, nor kindle fire, nor judge a 
 cause ; and there is not found amongst them a man whom Fortune 
 commands that on the Sabbath day he should either go to law 
 and gain his cause, or go to law and lose it, or should pull down 
 or build up, or do any one of those things which all such men 
 as have not received this law do.” ... Then he passes to 
 the Christians: ‘‘ What, then, shall we say respecting the new 
 race of ourselves who are Christians, whom, in every country, 
 and in every region the Messiah established at His coming ? 
 For, lo! wherever we be, all of us are called by the one name 
 of the Messiah—Christians ; and upon one day, which is the 
 first of the week, we assemble ourselves together, and on the 
 appointed days we abstain from food.” 
 
 Bardesanes composed his work about the middle of the second 
 century, probably soon after the conquest of Arabia by the 
 Romans, which took place under Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, 
 for, as Dr. Cureton observes, he speaks of it as a recent 
 conquest. The translation is given in Dr. Cureton’s words. 
 
 I have not thought it worth while to introduce into the text 
 a curious passage about Alexander Severus, which occurs in 
 félius Lampridius, (one of the Scriptores Histor. August., who 
 lived in the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine,) and is thus 
 commented upon and partially quoted by Selden, De Jur. 
 Nat. et Gentium juxta Disc. Ebreeor. Lib III. ¢. 18. (tom i. col. 
 
980 NOTES. 
 
 383. Opp. fol. Lond. 1726.) “Quod vero ex Lampridio affertur 
 de Alexandri Severi ascensu in Capitolium septimo quoque 
 (nam sic intelligendum) die, cum in urbe esset; dubitandum non 
 videtur quin id spectarit ad animum ejus sive in Judaismum sive 
 in Christianismum propensiorem, adeoque ad diei sive Judzeorum 
 sive Christianorum hebdomadici singularem cultum. Nam statim 
 sequitur apud Lampridium, Christo templum facere voluit, ewmque 
 inter Deos recipere. Et ante, Quodam tempore festo, ut solent, 
 Antiochenses, Lgyptii, Alecandrini lacessiverant cum convitiolis, 
 Syrum archisynagogum eum vocantes et archierea ; velut ritibus 
 Judzis utentem. In diis etiam, id est in lararii sui numinibus, 
 Abrahamum eum ac Christum habuisse seribit idem Lampridius. 
 Ita morem ejus septimo die in Capitolium ascendendi non 
 omnino refert ille perinde ac si ex publico aliquo ac veteri 
 Romanis instituto mos ille manasset.” Thus far Selden. But 
 see Gibbon, ὁ. xvi. vol. il. pp. 209-210, note. 
 
 Page 67, line 1. ‘The third, that,’ &c. This objection is 
 made in so many words by the late Mr. Baden Powell, “ Chris- 
 tianity without Judaism,” Essay III. ὃ 5, p. 161. 
 
 Page 67, line 11. ‘Compare them with those,’ &. See 
 Lecture VI. pp. 230—231. 
 
 Page 68, line 5. ‘The Sabbath is seldom, ὅθ. The only 
 places in which the Sabbath is mentioned in the historical books 
 between the Pentateuch and Nehemiah appear to be—2 Kings 
 iv. 23, “Itis neither new moon nor Sabbath,” in the time of 
 Elisha; 2 Kings xi. 5, 7, 9, and 2 Chron. xxiii. 8, which refer 
 to Athaliah’s deposition on that day; 2 Kings xvi. 18, which 
 speaks of the “covert for the Sabbath;” 1 Chron. ix. 32, 
 where the Kohathites are said to be “over the shewbread to 
 prepare it every Sabbath ;” 1 Chron. xxiii. 31, a similar passage ; 
 2 Chron. ii. 4 and villi. 13, where it occurs in connexion with 
 Solomon’s intention and use of the Temple; and 2 Chron. xxxi. 
 3, where Hezekiah’s reformation restores the Temple to its use. 
 The one remaining place is 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21, which records 
 the fulfilment of the prophecy in Leviticus xxvi. 34, 35, 43. 
 
 Bishop Beveridge has made a strange use of this unfrequent 
 notice of the Sabbath in the historical parts of the Old Testament. 
 He forgets that it is twice mentioned, as we have shown, in 
 Solomon’s time ; and supposes the first reappearance of it to be 
 in Elisha’s days: this, however, is of minor importance. But he 
 
NOTES. 381 
 
 writes :— Although there be no mention made of it in all that 
 time between Moses and Elisha, yet, notwithstanding, none ever 
 doubted but that the Sabbath was kept in those days.” This is 
 true enough ; but it is difficult to follow him as he goes on :— 
 “ There is as little reason to doubt but that the patriarchs before 
 Moses kept one day in seven, although we have no records left 
 of it, from whence we can be certain after what manner they kept 
 it, and whether it was the seventh day which the Jews were 
 afterwards commanded to observe, or that which we now keep, 
 as some have thought.” He ought to have said, rather, “although 
 we have no records at all of it.” In other words, his so-called 
 parallel is, an institution known to have been published by Moses, of 
 the observance of which a@ few notices are preserved, and an 
 institution not known to have been published before Moses, of the 
 observance of which no notice whatever is preserved.—“‘Church 
 Catechism Explained.’ Works, vol. viii. p. 80, Oxford edition. 
 On the question of the existence of a Patriarchal Sabbath, see 
 Lecture IV. 
 
 Page ΤΊ, line 1. ‘Like circles,’ ὅθ. Keble, Christmas Day. 
 
 Page 72, line 1. ‘And they speak variously of the Lord’s 
 Day,’ &c. See Lecture V. p. 208. 
 
 Page 72, line 8. ‘They are not critics,’ &c. As for instance, 
 we cannot agree with Chrysostom, Irenzeus, and Tertullian, when 
 they derive πάσχα from πάσχω, or patior, on account of Christ’s 
 having suffered at the time of this feast. It is impossible also to 
 follow them, especially those of the Alexandrine School, in many 
 of their mystical interpretations of Scripture, their discovery of 
 the implication of great truths in certain numbers, and the like. 
 “The number of persons saved in the Ark, (says Justin Martyr, 
 in his Apology), was a symbol of the Day on which Christ rose 
 from the dead, being the Eighth in number, but the First in 
 power ;” this will strike most readers as utterly fanciful. 
 
 Page 72, line 29. ‘That recognized buildings, ὅθ. Dean 
 Milman, speaking of the reign of Alexander Severus, a.p. 222— 
 235, to whose time Tillemont assigns the date of the earliest 
 Christian edifices for Christian worship, writes thus :— 
 
 “Christian bishops were admitted, even at the Court, in a 
 recognised official character: and Christian Churches began to 
 rise in different parts of the Empire, and to possess endowments 
 in land. To the astonishment of the heathen, their religion had 
 
982 NOTES. 
 
 as yet appeared without temple or altar ; their religious assemblies 
 had been held in privacy : it was yet a domestic worship. Even 
 the Jew had his public synagogue or his more secluded pro- 
 seucha ; but where the Christians met was indicated by no 
 separate and distinguished dwelling ; the cemetery of their dead, 
 the sequestered grove, the private chamber, contained their peace- 
 ful assemblies,” &¢.—History of Christranity, vol. 11. p. 232. 
 
 The heathen reproached the Christians, (see Minucius Felix,) 
 with being a ‘latebrosa et lucifuga natio,’ probably in consequence 
 of their meeting in cemeteries. Even these places are forbidden 
 to them in some imperial edicts which prosecute the followers 
 of “the new superstition.” See Northcote’s Roman Catacombs, 
 p. 22. 
 
 Gibbon observes that Mr. Moyle refers the first construction of 
 Christian Churches to the reign of Gallienus, a.p, 253—268. 
 Decline and Fall, &e. ὁ. xvi. vol. 11. p. 208, note. Lond. 1828. 
 
 Page 73, line 15. ‘Hooker.’ LEecl. Pol. iv. 11. 10. 
 
 Page 73, line 26. ‘Bishop Stillingfleet. Orig. Sac. I. 1 
 (p. 105, 8vo. Oxf. 1817). 
 
 Page 74, line 5. ‘The Jewish ceremonies,’ &c. Morer, 
 Κυριακὴ 'Πμέρα, p. 197, quotes Augustine for this, on the authority 
 of Cornelius ἃ Lapide. 
 
 Page 74, line 8. ‘The Nazarenes,’ ὅθ. Justin Martyr very 
 well distinguishes between the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. 
 
 Εἰσὶν, ἀπεκρινάμην, ὦ 'Γρύφων, καὶ μηδὲ κοινωνεῖν ὁμιλίας ἢ 
 ἑστίας τοῖς τοιούτοις τολμῶντες" οἷς ἐγὼ οὐ σύναινός εἰμι, ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἐὰν αὐτοὶ, διὰ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῆς γνώμης, καὶ τὰ ὅσα δύνανται νῦν 
 ἐκ τῶν Μωσέως ἃ διὰ τὸ σκληροκάρδιον τοῦ λαοῦ νοοῦμεν διατετάχ- 
 θαι, μετὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦτον τὸν Χριστὸν ἐλπίζειν, καὶ τὰς αἰωνίους καὶ 
 φύσει δικαιοπραξίας καὶ εὐσεβείας φυλάττειν βούλωνται, καὶ αἱρῶνται 
 συζῆν τοῖς Χριστιανοῖς καὶ πιστοῖς, ὡς προεῖπον, μὴ πείθοντες αὐτοὺς 
 μήτε περιτέμνεσθαι ὁμοίως αὐτοῖς, μήτε σαββατίζειν, μήτε ἄλλα ὅσα 
 τοιαῦτά ἐστι τηρεῖν, καὶ προσλαμβάνεσθαι, καὶ κοινωνεῖν ἁπάντων, 
 ὡς ὀμοσπλάγχνοις καὶ ἀδελφοῖς, δεῖν ἀποφαίνεσθαι. “Edy δὲ οἱ 
 ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους τοῦ ὑμετέρου πιστεύειν λέγοντες ἐπὶ τοῦτον τὸν 
 Χριστὸν, ὦ Τρύφων, ἔλεγον, ἐκ παντὸς κατὰ τὸν διὰ Μωσέως δια- 
 ταχθέντα νόμον ἀναγκάζωσι ζῆν τοὺς ἐξ ἐθνῶν πιστεύοντας ἐπὶ 
 τοῦτον τὸν Χριστὸν, ἢ μὴ κοινωνεῖν αὐτοῖς τῆς τοιαύτης συνδιαγωγῆς 
 αἱρῶνται, ὁμοίως καὶ τούτους οὐκ ἀποδέχομαι" τοὺς δὲ πειθομένους 
 αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τὴν ἔννομον πολιτείαν, μετὰ τοῦ φυλάττειν τὴν εἰς τὸν 
 
NOTES. 383 
 
 Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁμολογίαν, καὶ σωθήσεσθαι ἴσως ὑπολαμβάνω. 
 Dial. cum Tryph. § 47, p. 143 A. 
 
 Justin’s censure of the Ebionites is more gentle than that 
 which was uttered afterwards, when the Church was obliged to 
 declare them to be in formal heresy. But he is quite clear as 
 to the mistaken character of their views. 
 
 The Nazarenes were often confounded with the Ebionites, 
 who held many dangerous errors. Irenzus classes them to- 
 gether. Origen, (as Justin Martyr), distinguishes them, or at 
 any rate so subdivides the Ebionites, as to show that one 
 class of them held the views properly attributable to the Naza- 
 renes. The Ebionites proper denied the miraculous birth of 
 Christ. These he considers to be heretics against St. Paul, and 
 to ditfer very little from Jews. Τύπτουσι τὸν ᾿Απόστολον ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ λόγοις δυσφήμοις, In Jerem. Homil. xviii. ὁ. 12. tom. iii. 
 p. 254 E. Ὁλίγῳ διαφέροντες τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, In Matth. t. xi. § 12. 
 tom. 111. p. 494 D. The others, who were properly Nazarenes, 
 admitted the miraculous birth of Christ. 
 
 Page 74, line 23. ‘It is one argument,’ &e. 
 
 The passage alluded to in the larger edition of Ignatius is as 
 follows :— 
 
 “Exaoroe ὑμῶν σαββατιζέτω πνευματικῶς, μελέτῃ νόμου χαίρων, 
 οὗ σώματος ἀνέσει, δημιουργίαν Θεοῦ θαυμάζων, οὐκ ἔωλα ἐσθίων, 
 καὶ χλιαρὰ πίνων, καὶ μεμετρημένα βαδίζων, καὶ ὀρχήσει καὶ κρότοις 
 νοῦν οὐκ ἔχουσι χαίρων" καὶ μετὰ τὸ σαββατίσαι, ἑορταζέτω πᾶς 
 φιλόχριστος τὴν κυριακὴν, τὴν αναστάσιμον, τὴν [)ασιλίδα, τὴν 
 ὕπατον πασῶν τῶν ἡμερών.----Βθαα, Ignat. ad Magn. § 9, Coteler. 
 tom. ii. p. 57. 
 
 Great confusion has been caused by this version of the Epistle 
 being supposed to be genuine. The most absurd statements have 
 been founded upon it, and many of our own writers have been 
 led away by it. A very careful examination of the subject has 
 resulted in the statements made in the text of this Lecture, that 
 if the Sabbath was observed at all by Christians during the 
 first three centuries, it was observed in one of the following 
 ways :—1l. as the Apostles observed it, compassionately and 
 charitably, and in order to meet the Jews upon it, but not as of 
 obligation ; 2. as the Nazarenes observed it—as a remnant of 
 Judaism which, as Jews, they could not divest themselves of, 
 and were just allowed in by the forbearance of the Church, but 
 
984. NOTES. 
 
 not commended for retaining ; 3. as the Ebionites observed it— 
 as a mixture of Judaism with Christianity, which they were 
 considered heretics for enforcing upon all as necessary to 
 salvation; 4. as a Christian, not as a Jewish day 
 mere name for the day succeeding Friday and preceding Sunday. 
 There was, and there could have been, no date in the ante- 
 Nicene period, when the Christian Church observed two- 
 sevenths of time, a Jewish Sabbath and a Christian Sunday. 
 Hence, as I observe in Lecture III. pp. 102, 103, as well as in 
 this Lecture, the Apostolical Constitutions, which echo and even 
 develop the statements in the pseudo-Ignatian document, must 
 be assigned to the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth 
 century. For the manner in which the Eastern Church eventu- 
 ally treated the Sabbath I must refer the reader to that Lecture, 
 and to the notes upon the pages of it here quoted. It may be 
 observed in passing that the phrase μετὰ τὸ σαββατίσαι has 
 caused those who have attempted to translate it no small trouble. 
 Cawdrey, for instance, (Sabb. Rediv. vol. ii. p. 573), puzzled by 
 finding that it apparently makes the Christian institution inferior 
 to the Jewish, renders it “ setting aside the Sabbath.” 
 
 Page 76, line 15. ‘St. Peter fasted, &e. Conf. Augustin. 
 Epist. 36, ad Casulanum, (cap. ix. tom. 11. col..101, 4to. Bass. 
 1797-1807.) ‘Est quidem et hee opinio plarimorum, quamvis 
 eam esse falsam perhibeant plerique Romani, quod Apostolus 
 Petrus, cum Simone Mago die Dominico certaturus, propter 
 ipsum magne tentationis periculum, pridie cum ejusdem urbis 
 ecclesia jejunaverit et consecuto tam prospero gloriosoque suc- 
 cessu, eundem morem tenuerit, eumque imitate sint nonnulle 
 Occidentis ecclesiz.” 
 
 1.6 aS a 
 
NOTES. 3885 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 Page 77, line 10. ‘Omnes judices,’ &e. Cod. Justin, iii. 
 tit. 12, 1. 3. 
 
 Page 78, line 8. ‘ Daniel Cawdrey’ (ut supra). Part IV. ο. ii. 
 p- 068. (His coadjutor in the first part, Herbert Palmer, had 
 died before the last three parts were published.) He is obviously 
 answering Dr. Heylin. 
 
 Page 80, line 13. ‘It is worth noticing, too,’ &c. See Bp. 
 Kaye, “Account of the Early Church,” pp. 132, 133. Euseb. 
 “De νι Constantin.” 1. 12, and Proem to his “Oratio de 
 Laudib. Constantin.” 
 
 Page 80, line penult. ‘Edict of an unquestionably heathen 
 character.’ To please the adherents of the old religion, Constan- 
 tine decreed by an edict of the same year that the auspices 
 should be regularly consulted. Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. 10, 1. 1. 
 Compare also “Time and Faith,’ ὅσο. vol. 11. p. 571. London, 
 1857. 
 
 Page 81, line 10. ‘ Nundines.’ Gieseler, ‘“‘Compend. of Eccl. 
 Hist.” (Davidson’s translation), vol. i. p. 203, observes that even 
 after Constantine’s time Nundines as well as Weeks were in 
 use, and continued so until Theodosius the Great made the law 
 respecting the observance of Sunday strict. Cod. Theod. viii. 
 tit. 8,1. 3. He adds that both are found in a Kalendar composed 
 about a.p. 354, (in Greevil Thes. tom. viii. p. 97). 
 
 Page 81, line 20. ‘A still lower view,’ &c. “The mind of 
 Constantine might fluctuate between the pagan and Christian 
 religions. According to the loose and complying notions of 
 Polytheism, he might acknowledge the God of the Christians as 
 one of the many deities who composed the hierarchy of heaven.” 
 —Gibbon, “ Decline,” &c. c. xx. This view seems more suited 
 to the days of Alexander Severus. But the historian proceeds: 
 “ Or perhaps he might embrace the philosophic and pleasing idea, 
 that notwithstanding the variety of names, of rites, and of 
 opinions, all the sects and all the nations of mankind are united 
 in the worship of the common Father and Creator of the 
 universe.” This more agrees with Gieseler’s account: “ Con- 
 
 CC 
 
980 NOTES. 
 
 stantine’s first religious impressions, like those of his father, were 
 essentially the new platonic. He acknowledged one Supreme 
 God, who had revealed Himself in many ways among men, and 
 honoured Apollo in particular as the revealer of this Being. 
 As this idea of Apollo and the Christian idea of Christ were 
 obviously similar, Constantine may have thought that he found 
 in it very soon a point of union between Christianity and 
 heathenism.”—Gieseler, (ut supra) vol. 1. p. 199. He subjoins 
 some curious illustrations of the devotion of the Emperor to 
 Apollo. Tertullian’s words are: “Alii plané humanius et 
 verisimilius Solem credunt deum nostrum..... Denique inde 
 suspicio, quod innotuerit nos ad orientis regionem  precari. 
 Sed et plerique vestrum, affectatione aliquando ct ccelestia 
 adorandi, ad solis ortum labia vibratis. A%qué si diem solis 
 letitie indulgemus, alia longe ratione quam religione solis.”— 
 Apol. c. 16. 
 
 Page 83, line 4. ‘Hooker.’ “Eccl. Pol.” V. 71. 9. 
 
 Page 83, line 16. ‘Heylin” “History of the Sabbath,” 
 Part 11. ο. 11. § 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 
 Church of God, which tacitly approved the same; and finally 
 confirmed and ratified by Christian princes throughout their 
 empires.” 
 
 Page 84, line 9. ‘Edict of Milan.’ Lactantius, “de Morte 
 Persecutorum,” ὁ. 48, has preserved the Latin original of this 
 edict ; and Eusebius, “ Hist. Eccl.” lib. x. ὁ. 5, a translation of 
 it into Greek, 
 
 Page 84, line 27. ‘A day already as we believe regarded.’ 
 
 Compare the two following passages :— 
 
 “That the first Christian Emperor, finding all Christians 
 unanimous in the possession of the day, should make a law, (as 
 our kings do,) for the due observing of it ; and that the first 
 General Council should establish uniformity in the very gesture 
 of worship on that day, are strong confirmations of the matter of 
 fact, that the Churches unanimously agreed in the holy use of it 
 as a separated day even from and in the Apostles’ days.”— 
 Richard Baxter, “ The Div. Appt. of Lord’s Day,” p. 41. 
 
 “Amongst this long array of sacred seasons, legislative 
 enactment naturally selected for its first objects those regarded 
 
NOTES. 387 
 
 by the Christians with the deepest reverence. Accordingly we 
 find Constantine the Great providing that the Lord’s Day, which, 
 probably out of deference to the feelings of the still numerous 
 adherents to the old religion, he calls ‘the day of the Sun, so 
 famed for the reverence due to it,’ should not be occupied by 
 the ‘disputes of the forum, and the injurious contentions of 
 suitors.” And the first law respecting the abstinence from work 
 on days kept holy by the Church relates, like the first law ‘re- 
 specting the suspension of judicial proceedings at such seasons, to 
 the Lord’s Day.”—£. V. Neale, “ Feasts and Fasts,” pp. 17, 91. 
 
 Page 86, line 2. ἠρέμα, κιτιλ. Euseb. “de Vita Constantini,” 
 iv. 18, p. 635, ed. Reading. 
 
 Compare Prince Albert de Broglie, “ L’Eglise et l’ Empire,” 
 vol. 1. p. 306, “L’Eglise ἃ ce moment solennel aecepta de 
 Dieu et de Constantin la taéche d’émanciper le monde sans le 
 bouleverser.” 
 
 Page 87, line 3. ‘Eustbe affirme, &c. ‘“ De γιὰ Con- 
 stantin.” iv. 18, p. 635. Prince Albert de Broglie, (ut supra,) 
 vol. 1. p. 308, note. 
 
 Page 87, line 11. ‘Sozomen.’ “ Hist. Eccl.” i. 8; pp. 19, 20. 
 
 Page 88, line 26. ‘The Lord’s Day had, as a Festival,’ &e. 
 
 L’Estrange, “ Alliance of Divine Offices,” p. 85, says, “In 
 the Apostles’ time there is no constat of any other Christian 
 Festival observed than the weekly only.” 
 
 And, even in the third century, Origen only mentions three, 
 the Lord’s Day, Easter, and Pentecoste. See also Lardner, 
 “ Credibility,” ὅσο. vol. iv. p. 214, for a notice of the Festivals 
 of the first three centuries. 
 
 Page 90, line 4. Lactantius.’ 
 
 “ Quoniam perfectis operibus requievit die septimo, eumque 
 benedixit, mecesse est ut in fine sexti millesimi anni malitia 
 omnis aboleatur e terra, et regnet per annos mille justitia : sit- 
 que tranquillitas et requies a laboribus, quos mundus jamdiu 
 perfert.”—Zact. Inst. Div. lib. vii. cap. 14, tom. i. p. 557, Ato. 
 Par. 1748. 
 
 Page 90, line 9. ‘The Nicene Council.’ 
 
 ᾿Ἐπειδὴ τινές εἰσιν ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ γόνυ κλίνοντες, καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῆς 
 πεντηκοστῆς ἡμέραις, ὑπὲρ τοῦ πάντα ἐν πάσῃ παροικίᾳ φυλάττεσθαι, 
 ἑστῶτας ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ τὰς εὐχὰς ἀποδιδόναι τῷ Oe@.—Can. 
 xx. Cone. Nicen. Labbé, tom. ii. col. 677, fol. Flor. 1759. 
 
 cco2 
 
388 NOTES. 
 
 Compare Bp. Hacket’s remark :— 
 
 “The great Council of Nice doth not command the first day 
 of the week to be kept holy, but supposeth, in the twentieth 
 canon, all good Christians would admit that without scruple, 
 and then appoints other significant ceremonies to be kept upon 
 the Lord’s Day [and] from Easter to Whitsuntide.’—Century of 
 Sermons: Fourth Sermon on the Resurrection, Ὁ. 583. 
 
 Page 90, line 18. ‘Known even in Ireneus’ time.’ See note 
 on Lecture II. p. 59. 
 
 Page 90, line 20. ‘That the Apostles had an Easter Festival.’ 
 Kuseb. “ Hist. Eccl.” v. 23. 
 
 Page 90, line 22. ‘That Constantine appointed for prayer,’ 
 ἅτ. Καὶ ἡμέραν δὲ, κιτιλ. quoted already in Lecture III. p. 87. 
 
 Page 90, line 26. ‘In another place.’ “ De Laudibus Con- 
 stantin.” ο. 9. 
 
 Page 90, line 27. “ Again, he eulogises,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Τίς τοῖς τὸ μέγα στοιχεῖον τῆς γῆς οἰκοῦσι, τοῖς τε κατὰ γῆν καὶ 
 τοῖς κατὰ θάλατταν, ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστης ἑβδομάδος τὴν κυριακὴν χρηματί- 
 ζουσαν ἡμέραν, ἑορτὴν ἄγειν ἐπιταυτὸ συνιόντας παραδέδωκε, καὶ 
 αὐτὰ σώματα πιαίνειν " τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἐνθέοις παιδεύμασιν ἀναζω- 
 πυρεῖν παρεσκεύασε ;—De Laudibus Constantin. ce. 17. 
 
 Page 91, line 3. ‘It was part,’ &c. 
 
 ἽἝβραιοι δὲ πρεσβύτεροι Μωσέως γενόμενοι τοῖς χρόνοις, πάσης τῆς 
 διὰ Μωσέως νομοθεσίας ἀνεπήκοοι ὄντες, ἐλεύθερον καὶ ἀνειμένον 
 εὐσεβείας κατώρθουν tporov.—Prepar. Evangel. lib. vii. cap. 6, 
 p. 304 D. fol. Col. 1628, 
 
 Page 91, line 14. The passage from the “‘ De Sabbatis,” &c. of 
 Athanasius is too lengthy to be set down here, but will well repay 
 perusal. One of the phrases translated in the text is very remark- 
 able in the Greek. “The Sabbath was γνώσις τοῦ Ποιητοῦ, παῦλα 
 δὲ τοῦ σχήματος τῆς κτίσεως ταύτης. And again, because Sabbath 
 means, mystically, rest from sin, days not really Sabbaths are 
 called so in Scripture :---ὠἀμέλει καὶ τὰς μὴ ἡμέρας τῶν σαββάτων, 
 ὅμως διὰ τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ τὴν τῆς θεογνωσίας χάριν, 
 σάββατα ὀνομάζειν εἴωθεν ὁ νόμος. Among other points, 
 John v. 17, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” is 
 alleged as a Divine example against dpyia on the Sabbath. 
 “God is ever carrying on the work of renovation.” 
 
 Page 91, line penult. ‘The sixth Psalm. ‘Yzep τῆς ὀγδόης. 
 
 . ͵ - - " δ, 
 Καὶ τίς ἂν εἴη ἡ ὀγδόη, ἣ ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναστάσιμος ἡμέρα, καθ᾽ 
 
NOTES. 389 
 
 ἣν τῶν ἡμετέρων κόπων ἀποληψόμεθα κάρπους ;—tom. i. p. 9, 
 p. 808. 
 
 Page 91, line ult. ‘The hundred and eighteenth Psalm.’ 
 
 “ Αὕτη ἡμέρα ἣν ἐποίησεν ὁ Κύριος." Kat ric ἂν εἴη, ἢ ἡ ἀναστά- 
 σιμος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμέρα ; ποία δὲ αὕτη ἡμέρα, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ σωτήριος τῶν 
 ἐθνῶν ἁπάντων, καθ᾽ ἣν ὁ ἀποβληθεὶς λίθος γέγονεν εἰς κεφαλὴν 
 γωνίας ; σημαίνει δὲ ὁ λόγος τὴν ἀναστάσιμον τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, 
 τήν γε ἐπώνυμον αὐτοῦ γενομένην, δηλαδὴ, κυριακήν.---ἴοτη. i. 
 p. 957 C. 
 
 Page 92, line 9. ‘In his Encyclical Letter.’ 
 
 “Hee γὰρ αὐτους ag’ ὧν ἔπραξαν εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἐκκλησίαν κακῶν, 
 μηδὲν τῶν δεινῶν καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἄλλης παραιτουμένους᾽" ὅπουγε οὐδὲ 
 αὐτὴν τὴν κυριακὴν τῆς ἁγίας ἑορτῆς ἠδέθησαν. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ 
 τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀνθρώπους εἰς φυλακὴν κατεῖρξαν" ὅτε 6 μὲν 
 Κύριος τοὺς πάντας ἐκ τῶν τοῦ θανάτου δεσμῶν ἠλευθέρωσεν. ὁ δὲ 
 Τρηγύριος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ ὥσπερ ἀντιμαχόμενοι τῷ Σωτῆρι, καὶ 
 θαῤῥοῦντες τῇ τοῦ Ἡγεμόνος προστασίᾳ, τὴν ἐλευθέριον ἡμέραν τοῖς 
 τοῦ Χριστοῦ δούλοις πένθος πεποιήκασιν. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ Ἕλληνες 
 ηὐφραίνοντο δυσωπούμενοι τὴν ἡμέραν" ὁ δὲ Tpnyopuc...... 
 πενθεῖν ἠναγκαζε τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς τῇ κακώσει τῶν δεσμῶν.---- 
 iomni p. 91 C. 
 
 Page 93, line 3. μετέθηκε δὲ, κιτιλ. This is explained by 
 Cocceius, “ Testimonia Veterum,” p. 49; and by Bp. F. White, 
 (ut supra,) pp. 77, 78, much as I have explained it in the 
 text. 
 
 Page 93, line 11. ‘Juvencus.’ ‘Evang. Hist.” ii. 583, and 
 iv. 728. Migne, Patrol. tom. xix. coll. 195, 339. 
 
 Page 93, line 14. ‘Macarius.’ Homil. 35, ὁ. 1. 11. 111.---- 
 Apud Galland, Bibl. Patr. tom. vii. p. 126 A. 
 
 Page 93, line 25, ‘Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem.’ “ Catech.” 
 iv. § 37, p. 70, fol. Par. 1720. 
 
 Kal μήτε εἰς Σαμαρειτισμὸν, ἢ ἸἸουδαϊσμὸν ἐκπέσῃς" ἐλυτρώσατο 
 γάρ σε λοιπὸν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός. Πάσης Σαββάτων παρατηρήσεως 
 ἀπόστηθι" καὶ τοῦ κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον λέγειν τι εἶγαι τῶν ἀδια- 
 φόρων βρωμάτων. 
 
 Page 94, line 1. ‘Hilary.’ In Psalm. xcii. (xci.) tom. i. col. 
 270, fol. Veron. 1730; and also prolegom. in Psalmos, § 12, 
 tom. i. col. 8. What Hilary says about God working in Nature 
 is borrowed more or less by Herder, quoted in Lecture IV. 
 p- 163. 
 
390 NOTES. 
 
 Page 94, line 16. “ Epiphanius.’ 
 
 Συνάξεις δὲ ἐπιτελούμεναι ταχθεῖσαί εἰσιν ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων, 
 τετράδι (Wedn.) καὶ προσαββάτῳ (Frid.) καὶ κυριακῇ (Sund.). 
 —FExpos. Fid. Cathol. ο. xxii. tom. i. p. 1104 C, fol. Col. 1682. 
 And in ὁ. xxiv. he adds: ἔν τισι δὲ τόποις καὶ ἐν τοῖς σάββασι 
 (Saturd.), συνάξεις ἐπιτελοῦσιν. 
 
 Lardner, “ Credibility,” &c. vol. iv. p. 218, quotes Petavius to 
 the effect that the Lord’s Day is the only day of Apostolical 
 authority for its observance. 
 
 “ Denique quod Epiphanius monet, ‘triplicem illam synaxim 
 dierum totidem ab Apostolis esse traditam:’ haud scio an satis 
 constare queat. Nam primis ecclesiz temporibus unus duntaxat 
 Dominicus dies ad eam rem observatus videtur, ut ex Apostolo 1 
 ad Cor. cap. xvi. colligitur. Quinetiam Justinus, in Apol. Prima, 
 cum de Christianorum conventibus agit, solius Dominic memi- 
 nit: τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμέραν κοινῇ πάντες συνέλευσιν ποιούμεθα. 
 Quare magis id ex privato ecclesiz cujusque ritu, quam ex com- 
 muni Apostolorum prescripto derivatum existimo, ut quarta 
 sexta ve feria, aut etiam Sabbato, synaxes conventus ve fierent. 
 Quam in rem egregius est Augustini locus Ep. exviii. tom, iii. 
 col. 165. ‘Alia verd’ inquit, que per loca terrarum regionesque 
 variantur, sicuti est, quod alii jejunant Sabbato, alii non: alii 
 quotidie communicant corpori et sanguini dominico, alii certis 
 diebus accipiunt: alibi nullus dies preetermittitur, quo non 
 offeratur, alibi Sabbato tantum et Dominico: alibi tantum Do- 
 minico: et si quid aliud hujusmodi animadverti potest, totum hoc 
 genus liberas habet observationes.’—Petav. Animad. in Epiph. 
 p. 354, fin. 
 
 Page 94, line ‘24. ‘He is very clear,’ ὅθ. As where he 
 speaks of many Sabbaths, great and less.—Adv. Her. xxx. § 32, 
 tom. i. p. 158, 159. ‘Jericho’—‘ Sacrifices in the Temple.— 
 Adv. Her, \xvi. § 82, p. 702. ‘The Sabbath was made for 
 man.’ ἸΠροετίμησε τὸν ἄνθρωπον παρὰ τὸ σάββατον, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος 
 γινώσκῃ τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων τὴν avaravAar.—Adv. 
 Heer. \xvi. § 85, p. 708 C. ‘It was not ordained.’—<Adv. Her. 
 Ixvi. p. 704 D. And in Zupos. Fid. Cathol. c. xxii. p. 1105 B. 
 Τὰς κυριακὰς ἁπάσαις τρυφεράς ἡγεῖται ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. 
 
 Page 95, line 7. ‘Incidentally,’ &e. 
 
 Epiphanius says of Marcion :— 
 
 \ \ [9.4] ͵ \ ~ 
 Τὸ δὲ σάββατον νηστεύει duce τοιαύτην αἰτίαν" ἐπειδὴ, φησὶ, τοῦ 
 
NOTES. 391 
 
 Θεοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν ἡ ἀνάπαυσις τοῦ πεποιηκότος TOY κόσμον, 
 καὶ ἐν τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναπαυσαμένου, ἡμεῖς νηστεύσωμεν ταύτην, 
 ἵνα μὴ τὸ καθῆκον τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐργαζώμεθα..---- αὐ. Heer. 
 xlii. § 3, tom. i. p. 904 Β. 
 
 Page 95, line 15.‘ He frequently speaks.’ 
 
 “ Resurrectionis celebritas die Dominica celebratur. Dominica 
 autem jejunare non possumus, quia Manicheeos etiam ob istius 
 diei jejunia jure damnamus.”—<Ambros. Hpist. xxiii. § 11, tom. ii. 
 col. 883 C. 
 
 Page 95, line 20. “ Contrasts the living and evangelical 
 Lord’s Day,’ —as in Hnarrat. ad Psalm. xlii. where he says the 
 Lord’s Day has the “ Preerogativa,” tom. i. col. 887 E. 
 
 And again :— 
 
 “Ubi enim Dominica dies ccepit preecellere qué Dominus 
 resurrexit, sabbatum quod primum erat, secundum haberi ccepit 
 a primo. Prima enim requies cessavit, secunda successit.”—Jnr 
 Psalm. xlvii. § 1, tom. i. col. 936 D. 
 
 Page 95, line 22. ‘De Obitu Theodosii,’ ὃ. 29, tom. 11. col. 
 1206 B. } 
 
 Page 95, line 23. “ Occasionally.’ 
 
 “Die septimo ad sepulcrum redimus, qui dies symbolum 
 future quietis est.”—De Fid. Res. 11. 2, tom. 11. col. 1135 B. 
 
 Page 95, line 28. ‘Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa.’ The passage 
 ending with διδάσκεται occurs in his work, ‘ In Christ. Resurr.” 
 Orat. i. p. 826, tom. ii. fol. Par. 1615. The word αἰνιγματωδῶς 
 _is found in it, and may serve as an illustration of its employ- 
 ment by Chrysostom. See Lecture III. p. 105. 
 
 Page 96, ine 5. ‘In one place.’ 
 
 Πυίοις yap ὀφθαλμοῖς τὴν Κυριακὴν ὁρᾷς ὁ ἀτιμάσας τὸ Σύββατον ; 
 
 ΩΝ > τῷ ε 3 \ > \ e eh ly 3 ΩΝ > \ Oa 
 η ουκ olcacg ὡς ἀδελφαὶ αυταᾶι αἱ HEPA , καν εἰς Τὴν εἑτέρει} 
 
 ἐξυβρίσῃς, τῇ ἑτέρᾳ προσκρούεις ; ἔχων νοῦν καὶ λόγον οὐ προορᾷς 
 τὸ πρέπον καὶ συμφέρον" οὐδὲ ἐμμελῶς ποιῇ τῆς σαυτοῦ ἀθανασίας 
 τὴν éxipedecay.—lbid. p. 144. 
 
 The comment given in the text on this passage is that of 
 Cocceius. Dr. Thomas Young supposes Gregory to be alluding 
 to neglect of opportunities of public worship which were now 
 given on Saturday as a preparation for Sunday, and which, 
 though not of obligation as those on Sunday, might conveniently 
 and profitably be attended. See Dr. Young in “ Dies Dominica,” 
 p. 14, and Lecture 11, p. 75. 
 
992 NOTES. 
 
 Page 96, line 14. ‘Gregory of Nazianzus.’ For the discussion 
 on the number Seven, see Orat. xli. § 2, tom. i. pp. 732-3, fol. 
 Par. 1778. His works abound in allusions to the Lord’s Day. 
 In especial he has a curious passage in his 44th Oration, in which 
 he says thus: ἡ πρώτη κτίσις, or the Old Creation, began with 
 the First Day, that is, the Lord’s Day; and ἡ δευτέρα κτίσις, 
 or the New Creation, began with the Lord’s Day. That Day in 
 the New Creation is πρώτη τῶν μετ᾽ αὐτὴν, καὶ ὀγδοὰς ἀπὸ τῶν πρὸ 
 αὐτῆς, ὑψηλῆς ὑψηλοτέρα, καὶ θαυμασίας θαυμασιωτέρα᾽ πρὸς γὰρ 
 τὴν ἄνω φέρει κατάστασιν.---Ογαΐ. xliv. § 5, p. 838 C. 
 
 Page 96, line 23. παντὸς σοὶ, κιτιλ. Carm. Epitaph. \xvi. 
 tom. ii. p. 1132, fol. Par. 1840. 
 
 Page 96, line 26. ‘ Hypsistarii.” Orat. xl. § 2, tom. 1. ut 
 supra. 
 
 “Their religion is made up of Ἑλληνικὴ πλάνη, and νομικὴ 
 τερατεία. In right of the former, though they reject idols and 
 sacrifices, they honor fire, ἅς. In right of the, latter, they 
 reverence the Sabbath, and are scrupulous about meats, though 
 they reject circumcision.” 
 
 Page 96, line penult. ‘ Basil.’ In “ Libro de Spiritu Sancto,” 
 6. Xxvil. tom. 111. Ὁ. ὅθ, fol. Par. 1730. The passage is a very 
 interesting one, but is too long for quotation here. 
 
 Page 97, line 20. ‘Gandentius.’ In “ Primo Tractatu in Exod.” 
 
 “ Nam sexta feria qué hominem fecerat, pro eodem passus est ; 
 et die Dominica, que dicitur in Scripturis prima Sabbati, in qua 
 sumserat mundus exordium, resurrexit; ut qui prima die 
 creavit coelum et terram, (unde postea hominem faciens figuravit), 
 prima etiam die omnem repararet hominem propter quem fecerat 
 mundum.’—Apud Migne, Patrol. tom. xx. col. 848, 8vo. Par. 
 1845. 
 
 Page 97, line 28. ‘Theophilus.’ “ Edictum S. Theophili,” 
 Apud Galland, Bibl. Patr. tom. vii. p. 603. 
 
 Page 98, line 4. ‘Jerom.... contrasts Jewish and Christian 
 ordinances.’ “ Heec est dies quam fecit Dominus, exsultemus et 
 letemur in ed: omnes dies quidem fecit Dominus ; sed ceeteri 
 dies possunt esse Judzeorum, possunt esse Hereticorum, possunt 
 esse Gentilium: dies Dominica, dies Resurrectionis, dies 
 Christianorum, dies nostra est. Unde et Dominica  dicitur : 
 quia in e& Dominus victor ascendit ad Patrem. Quod si a 
 Gentilibus dies Solis vocatur, et hoc nos libentissimé confitemur. 
 
NOTES. 393 
 
 Hodie enim Lux mundi orta est, hodie Sol justitiz ortus est.” 
 Expl. Psalm. cxviii. (cxvii.) tom. xi. part 2, col. 276 E. 
 
 Page 98, line 7. ‘He is at great pains.’ In Epist. ad Galat. 
 c. iv. tom. vii. col. 456, 4to. Ven. 1766-71. 
 
 Page 98, line 23. ‘ Egyptian cenobite.’ Epist. xxii. tom. 1. col. 
 120 D. 
 
 Page 98, line 28. ‘Paula and her companions.’ Epist. eviil. 
 tom. i. col. 712 C. See also an interesting account of Paula in 
 Isaac Taylor’s “ Logic in Theology.” Essay iv. 
 
 Page 99, line 26. ‘On a passage of Scripture.’ Scil. in 
 Ezechiel. c. xl. tom. v. col. 468. 
 
 Page 100, line 13. ‘The law to be understood spiritually.’ 
 See for this “Ady. Jovinianum,” lib. ii. tom. ii. col. 366; 
 “Comm. in Amos,” c. v. et vi. tom. v. col. 282, 313. 
 
 Page 100, line 15. ‘We are not to be of the “sex diebus,’”’ 
 ὅσο. “In Esaiam,” cap. lvi, tom. iv. p. 656. ‘The precept not to 
 move out of our place,’ &c. “In Esaiam,” ο. lviii. tom. iv. p. 699. 
 Curiously enough this is a comment on the passage, “If thou 
 turn away thy foot from the Sabbath,” and a reference is made in 
 it to the Sabbatismus from sin mentioned in the Hebrews. 
 Jerome anticipates Gregory the Great in his figurative interpreta- 
 tion of “bearing no burthen on the Sabbath.” 
 
 Page 100, line 28. ‘The Lord’s Day and certain,’ ὅθ. ‘Nos 
 quoque Dominicum diem et pascha solenniter observamus, et 
 quaslibet alias Christianas dierum festivitates—sed quia intelli- 
 gimus quo pertineant, non tempora observamus (to guard himself 
 against Judaizing) sed quee illis significantur temporibus... Repu- 
 diamus ergo eam carnalem cum Apostolo, et approbamus eam 
 spiritalem cum Apostolo, et Sabbati quietem non observamus in , 
 tempore, sed signum temporale intelligimus, et ad eternam 
 quietem, que 1110. signo significatur, aciem mentis intendimus. 
 Repudiamus itaque temporum observantiam cum Apostolo, et 
 temporalium signorum intelligentiam tenemus cum Apostolo ; 
 duorumque testamentorum differentiam sic probamus, ut in illo 
 sint onera servorum, in isto gloria liberorum. Interpretatur 
 Apostolus Sabbatum ad Hebreeos cum dicit: Remanet ergo 
 Sabbatismus populo Dei.” —Augustin. c. Adim, tom. x. col. 162. 
 4to. Bass. 1797—1807. 
 
 Page 101, line 11. ‘Dies tamen Dominicus.’ Ep. lv. cap. 
 xxii. tom 11. col, 181. 
 
994. NOTES. 
 
 Page 101, line 14. ‘To fast on the Sabbath, (he says).’ 
 
 “Et de die quidem Sabbati facilior causa est, quia et Romana 
 jejunat ecclesia, et aliz nonnull, etiamsi pauce, sive ili 
 proximee sive longinque : die autem Dominico jejunare scanda- 
 lum est magnum, maximé posteaquam innotuit detestabilis 
 multumque Fidei Catholice Scripturisque Divinis apertissim¢ 
 contraria heresis Manicheorum, qui suis auditoribus ad jeju- 
 nandum istum tanquam constituerunt legitimum diem ; per 
 quod factum est ut jejunium illius die horribilius haberetur.”— 
 Augustin. Epist. 36, ad Casulanum, cap. 12, tom. 11. col. 105. 
 
 The Manichees denied that Christ had a real body. He was 
 a mere phantom. Hence the weekly joy of the Lord’s Day, by 
 which men showed their belief that He rose and took again His 
 body, with everything appertaining to man’s nature, was offensive 
 to them. They showed their dissent by fasting upon it. 
 
 Page 102, line 1. ‘The genuineness of the treatise, ‘ De 
 Tempore,” from which, ὅθ. On this Dr, Pusey remarks :— 
 “<The Sermon, formerly attributed to St. Augustine (Serm. 280, 
 App.), which says, ‘The holy doctors of the Church decreed to 
 transfer all the glory of the Jewish rest (Sabbatismi) to the 
 Lord’s Day,’ is later than the eighth century, since it incorporates 
 a passage of Alcuin.” Note A, on p. 391, n.e by the Editor of 
 Morris’ “ Ephrem Syrus.” 
 
 Page 102, line 9. ‘The Apostolical Constitutions.’ 
 
 On the subject of the genuineness of the Apostolical Constitu- 
 tions, see Lardner, ‘Credibility, &c.” vol. iv. pp. 194, seg. His 
 own opinion is most strongly against their being an ante-Nicene 
 collection, and he assigns as their probable date that which I 
 have given in the text. In p. 215, he writes as follows :-— 
 
 “ Daillé, having summarily enumerated the fasts and feasts of 
 the ‘ Constitutions,’ and put down the assertion, that ‘every one 
 is guilty of sin, who fasts on the Lord’s Day, or on the 
 Pentecoste, or, ἴῃ a word, on any festival of the Lord,’ says 
 very well, that the ‘Constitutions’ which have distinguished 
 almost every day of the year, either as a fast or as a feast, 
 could not have come from the Apostles of Christ.” 
 
 And in p. 232, note, he gives an equally unfavorable opinion of 
 another pretentious document, the so-called Apostolical ‘ Canons.’ 
 “These,” he says, ‘‘ which among other absurdities attribute the 
 ‘Constitutions’ to Clemens Romanus, and consider them to be a 
 
NOTES. 395 
 
 part of Canonical Scripture, are a gross imposture: the greater 
 part of them belong probably to the seventh century. Archbishop 
 Ussher calls their compiler or author, ‘ bipedum nequissimus, qui 
 Clementis personam, (quinto post excessum ipsius  szculo,) 
 induit. (Usser Prol. seu Diss. Ign. ὁ. vi. fin.)” 
 
 Dr. Pusey, indeed, (Answers 444 and 459, Commission on 
 the Law of Marriage), considers the Apostolic ‘Canons’ to be an 
 ante-Nicene collection; and whatever can be urged in their 
 favor is found in a work on the subject by Otto Carsten Krabbe, 
 of Hamburg. I believe, however, that the very utmost that can 
 be said of them, and indeed of the ‘ Constitutions,’ is, that here 
 and there an ancient ὅρος or determination can be detected in 
 them. Bunsen’s reconstruction of the ‘Constitutions,’ as the 
 “Church and House-Book of the early Christians,” and of 
 the ‘Canons,’ as the “ Law-Book of the ante-Nicene Church,” 
 may be consulted by those who are dissatisfied with Lardner’s 
 decision, (Zippolytus and his Age, vol. ii.) 
 
 Page 102, line ult. ‘ Here are some of its expressions :— 
 
 ‘ He that fasts,’ &c. 
 
 "Evoxoc γὰρ ἁμαρτίας ἔσται ὃ τὴν κυριακὴν νηστεύων, ἢ THY 
 πεντηκόστην. Lib. v. ὁ. xx. fin. Coteler. tom. i. p. 331. 
 
 ‘Keep as festivals,’ &e. 
 
 To σάββατον μέντοι καὶ τὴν κυριακὴν ἑορτάζετε. Lib. vii. c. xxiii. 
 p. 372. 
 
 ‘Every Sabbath, except,’ &e. 
 
 Πᾶν μέντοι σάββατον. ἄνευ τοῦ ἑνὸς, καὶ πᾶσαν κυριακὴν ἐπιτε- 
 λοῦντες συνύζους εὐφροίνεσθε. Lib. v. c. xx.) p. 331. 
 
 ‘Let the servants work five days,’ &e. 
 
 ᾿Εγὼ Πέτρος καὶ ἐγὼ Παῦλος διατασσόμεθα' ἐργα ζέσθωσαν οἱ δοῦλοι 
 πέντε ἡμέρας" σάββατον δὲ καὶ κυριακὴν σχολαζέτωσαν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, 
 διὰ τὴν διδασκαλία» τῆς εὐσεβείας. Lib. viii. c. xxxiii. p. 419. 
 
 ‘ Assemble yourselves,’ &e. 
 
 Μάλιστα δὲ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου, καὶ ἐν τῇ τοῦ Κυρίου 
 ἐναστασίμῳ τῇ κυριακῇ, σπουδαιοτέρως ἀπαντᾶτε. Lib. ii. ο. 59. 
 p. 270. 
 
 How the straitness of some of these injunctions and the very 
 existence of others can be reconciled with anything in the ante- 
 Nicene Church, of the West, or even of the East, I leave to the 
 judgment of the reader. The ‘ Constitutions,’ however, are a 
 document belonging especially to the post-Nicene Eastern Church, 
 
396 NOTES. 
 
 in parts of which, at any rate, the spurious honor paid to the 
 Sabbath has resulted in a strange combination of Judaism and 
 Christianity. Here are a few illustrations of this statement, 
 showing how the delusion spread into Ethiopia : 
 
 “Scaliger tells us,” says Dr. Heylin (“ History of the Sabbath,” 
 Ῥ. 472), “that the Habassines, or Ethiopian Christians, call both 
 Saturday and Sunday Sabbaths ; the one the Jews’ Sabbath, the 
 other Christ’s Sabbath.” 
 
 Thorndike’s Oxford Editor annotates on “The Laws of the 
 Church,” B. III. ὁ. xxi. ὃ 26: ‘The Ethiopians observed 
 both Sabbath and Lord’s Day simultaneously up to (at least) 
 A.D. 1534: according to Ζαρα Zabo, an Ethiopian bishop, in his 
 ‘ Declar. Fidei et Relig. Authiop.’ addressed to Damian and Goes, 
 ‘De Aithiop. Moribus,’ pp. 494, 495; in fin. P. Martyr, ‘De 
 Rebus Oceanicis,’ 8vo. Col. 1574 ; and so also Scaliger, ‘Computus 
 Eccles. Aithiop.’; ap. Joseph. Scalig. ‘De Emend. Temp.’ lib. vii. 
 p. 629. Lug. Bat. 1598.” 
 
 Dr. Heylin adds: “Bellarmine thinks that they derived this 
 observation of the Saturday or Sabbath from the ‘ Constitutions ἡ 
 ascribed to Clemens, which, indeed, do frequently press the 
 observation of that day with no less fervour than the Sunday.” 
 
 But we get down to the present day in Harris’ “ Highlands of 
 Ethiopia.” He has mentioned in various places the observance 
 of Sunday, but in vol. 11. pp. 150, 151, he writes thus: “The 
 Jewish Sabbath is strictly observed throughout the kingdom. 
 The ox and the ass are at rest. Agricultural pursuits are sus- 
 pended. Household avocations must be laid aside, and the 
 spirit of idleness reigns throughout the day. By order of the 
 (Great) Council of Laodicea, the Oriental Churches were freed 
 from this burden ; and the industrious gladly availed themselves 
 of the ecclesiastical licence to work on the Saturday. Here, 
 however, the ancient usage agreed too well with a people syste- 
 matically indolent ; and when, a few years ago, one daring spirit 
 presumed, in advance of the age, to burst the fetters of super- 
 stition, his Majesty the King of Shoa, stimulated by the advice 
 of besotted monks, issued a proclamation, that whoso violated 
 the Jewish Sabbath should forfeit his property to the royal 
 treasury, and be consigned to the state dungeon.” Major Harris 
 mentions many more instances of Judaism. 
 
 Another curious exemplification of the intrusion of Judaism 
 
NOTES. 397 
 
 into Christianity is supplied by Dr. Grant, in a work of his 
 already quoted, (Vestorians, p. 171,) “The Sabbath,” he says, 
 “js regarded with a sacredness among the mountain tribes which 
 I have seen among no other Christians in the East. I have 
 repeatedly been told by Nestorians of the plain that their brethren 
 in the mountains would immediately kill a man for travelling 
 or labouring on the Sabbath; and there is abundant reason to 
 believe that this was formerly done, though it has ceased since 
 the people have become acquainted with the practice of 
 Christendom on the subject. While in the mountains, I made 
 repeated inquiries concerning the observance of that remark- 
 able statute of the Jews, which required that ‘ whosoever 
 doeth any work on the Sabbath-day, he shall surely be put 
 to death ;’ and I was everywhere told that this statute had 
 formerly been literally executed. Nor does there appear to be 
 any motive for deception, since the practice is now disapproved 
 of by all. There are said to be Nestorians now in Tiyary who 
 will not kindle a fire on the Sabbath to cook their food ; but 
 their cold winters oblige them to do it for necessary warmth. 
 On the plain there is much desecration of the Lord’s Day ; 
 but can the execution of the Mosaic ritual regarding the 
 Sabbath, by the mdependent Nestorians, be accounted for in 
 any other way than as a remnant of Judaism? Where, except 
 among God’s people, to whom this pecular law was immediately 
 promulgated, can we find a parallel case? The Nestorians 
 have also the ‘preparation before the Sabbath,’ commencing 
 about three hours before sunset on Saturday, when all labour 
 should cease, except what is necessary to prepare for spending 
 a quiet Sabbath. But the rule has in a measure fallen into 
 disuse.” 
 
 These Nestorians, as pictured by Dr. Grant, agree with the 
 Nazarenes in observing the Jewish law in its strictness with 
 regard to the Sabbath, but differ from them, (at least so I gather 
 from the language), in having their Sabbath on the Lord’s Day, 
 or Sunday, instead of on Saturday. In this respect, supposing 
 their practice to be ancient, they anticipate the Sunday Sabba- 
 tarian view of modern times. ‘‘ They also have,” says Dr. Grant, 
 “ the preparation before the Sabbath”’ ; this is the Jewish parasceue, 
 shifted from Friday. Their preparation begins at three o’clock 
 on Saturday, This reminds us of that piece of Ecclesiastical Sab- 
 
398 NOTES. 
 
 batarianism in the Church of Rome, which appears in the law of 
 Edgar, ‘that the Lord’s Day is to commence at three o’clock in 
 the afternoon on Saturday, and to last until the dawn of Monday.’ 
 See Lecture III. p. 119. As to the Jewish severities transferred 
 from the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day, Dr. Grant might have found 
 a parallel in the draft of the laws of the colony of Massachusetts. 
 See Lecture VII. p. 285. > 
 
 Page 104, line 10.‘ Augustine.” “Sabbatum, in presenti 
 tempore, otio quodam corporaliter languido et fluxo et luxurioso 
 celebrant Judei: vacant enim ad nugas; et quum Deus pre- 
 ceperit Sabbatum, illi in his que Deus prohibet, exercent 
 Sabbatum. Vacatio nostra ἃ malis operibus; vacatio illorum 
 ἃ bonis operibus est. Melius est enim arare quam saltare. 
 Illi a bono opere vacant; ab opere nugatorio non vacant.” 
 In Psalm, xci. tom. vi. col. 235 D. 
 
 ‘Chrysostom.’ Οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι τῶν βιωτικῶν ἀπαλλαγέντες πραγ- 
 μάτων, τοῖς πνευματικοῖς οὐ προσεῖχον, σωφροσύνῃ, καὶ ἐπιεικείᾳ, 
 καὶ ἀκροίσει θείων λογίων" ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἐποίουν, γαστριζόμενοι, 
 μεθύοντες, διαῤῥηγνύμενοι, Tpyporvrec.—Hom. i. de Lazaro, tom. i. 
 pawl? sce 
 
 ‘Cyril of Alexandria,’ and ‘Theodoret,’ says Bingham, ‘ Chris- 
 tian Antiq.” B. XX. 2. 4, apply to the Jews of their day those 
 words in Amos Vi. 3, ἐφαπτόμενοι σαββάτων ψευδῶν (ΠΧ Χ. Vers.), 
 and charge them with keeping false Sabbaths; and he quotes 
 from Chrysostom a similar application of the same passage. 
 
 ‘Prudentius’ writes severely against the Jews. ‘“ Apotheos.” 
 verse 420, seq. In Sharpe’s “ History of Egypt,” p. 533, men- 
 tion is made of its bemg a common custom of the Jews in the 
 time of Cyril of Alexandria to frequent the theatres on the 
 Sabbath to see the dancing. See for his authority, Socrates, 
 Keel. Hist. B. VII. ¢. xiii. 
 
 Page 104, line 14. See Hosea ii. 11. Amos vi. 3—6, 
 (according to LXX.) ; viii, 4—6. Isaiah*lvi. 1—8 ; and, by impli- 
 cation, lviii. 13. Ezekiel xx. 10—26; xxii. 8, 26; and, by 
 implication, xliv. 24. 
 
 Page 104, line 18. ‘The proverbial expression, “ Luxus 
 Sabbatarius,” which, &.’ “De luxu autem illo Sabbatario, 
 narrationi nec supersedendum est, qui nec latentes potest latere 
 personas.” Sidon. Apollin. lib. i. Epist. 2, apud Galland. 
 Bibl. Patr. tom. x. p. 465 A. : 
 
NOTES. 399 
 
 Page 104, line 21. ‘Sabbat.’ 
 
 The account of the meanings of Sabbat in Le Dictionnaire de 
 V Académie Frangaise is curious, as showing how a word origi- 
 nally denoting repose and peacefulness of body and soul, has 
 become a bye-word and a reproach. The Article stands thus, 
 only slightly abbreviated. 
 
 ‘““Sappat. Nom donné chez les Juifs au dernier jour de la 
 semaine. Sabbat signifie aussi, L’assemblée nocturne que, sui- 
 vant l’opinion populaire, les sorciers tiennent pour adorer le 
 diable. Le bruit était que les sorciers tenaient leur sabbat dans 
 cette forét. Il se dit, figurément et familiégrement, d’Un grand 
 bruit qui se fait avec désordre, avec confusion, tel que Von 
 simagine celui du Sabbat des sorciers. Quel sabbut fait-on la 
 haut ? 11 se dit aussi, figurément et populairement, Des cri- 
 ailleries d’une femme contre son mari, ou d’un maitre contre ses 
 valets. Leur maitre leur fit un beau sabbat quand ils revinrent. 
 Il ma fait un sabbat du diable, un sabbat enragé.” 
 
 I have little doubt that this change of the meaning of Sabbat 
 from rest to unrest was mainly owing to the Jews’ employment 
 of their holy day in the riotous manner described in the Fathers. 
 Their Sabbaths were considered a mockery of religion—and a 
 noisy mockery. From the idea of mockery the word was used 
 to denote the rites of sorcerers, who were supposed to travesty 
 religious offices, and defile holy things; and from the idea of 
 noise, it was transferred ironically to describe a noisy scene, 
 whether abroad or at home, where quiet might have been expected. 
 
 Something, however, may be attributable to the animus 
 towards the Jews which was visible even in the times of the 
 Roman satirists. If so, that judgment is strongly confirmed, 
 “They please not God, and are contrary to all men.” (1 Thess. 
 ii. 15.) The fierce antipathy which they inspired may have 
 crystallized in this desecration of the word “ Sabbath.” 
 
 In the same way in German, I find in Dr. Hilpert’s Dictionary 
 as a figurative sense of the word Sabbat, “The meeting and 
 rejoicings of fabled assemblies of witches, devils, imps, hob- 
 goblins, upon the Blocksberg,” &c. “ Hier hielten bose Greister 
 thren Sabbat.” Here malignant spirits have held their Sabbath 
 or hellish revelries. 
 
 The change from “keeping holy-day” into “ holiday-making,” 
 ὦ. 6. merry-making, is somewhat of the same character. 
 
400 NOTES. 
 
 Page 104, line penult. ‘Chrysostom extracts a spiritual 
 meaning.’ 
 
 Κύριος yap, φησιν, ἐστὶ τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, περὶ 
 ἑαυτοῦ λέγων. ‘O δὲ Μάρκος καὶ περὶ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως αὐτὸν 
 τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι φησίν. "Ἔλεγε yao" τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον 
 ἐγένετο, οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν 
 ἐκολάζετο ὃ τὰ ξύλα συνάγων ; ὅτι εἰ ἔμελλον καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ κατα- 
 φρονεῖσθαι οἱ νύμοι, σχολῇ γ᾽ ἂν ὕστερον ἐφυλάχθησαν. Καὶ γὰρ 
 πολλὰ ὠφέλει παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν τὸ σάββατον καὶ μεγάλα" οἷον, ἡμέ- 
 ρους ἐποίει πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους εἶναι καὶ φιλανθρώπους" ἐξίδασκεν 
 αὐτοὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν πρόνοιαν καὶ τὴν Onpovpyiay.—Chrysost. in 
 Matt. xii. 8. Hom. xxxix. ὃ 3, tom. vil. p. 434. 
 
 And, again— 
 
 Τί τοίνυν σαββάτον χρεία τῷ διὰ παντὸς ἑορτάζοντι, τῷ TONTEVO- 
 μένῳ ἐν οὐμανῷ ; ἑορτάζωμεν τοίνυν διηνεκῶς, καὶ μηδὲν πονηρὸν 
 πράττωμεν" τοῦτο γὰρ ἑορτή. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐπιτεινέσθω μὲν τὰ πνευματικὰ, 
 καὶ παραχωρείτω τὰ ἐπίγεια, καὶ ἀργῶμεν ἀργίαν πνευματικὴν, τὰς 
 χεῖρας ἐκ πλεονεξίας ἀφιστῶντες, τὸ σῶμα τῶν περίττων καὶ ἀνονή- 
 των ἀπαλλάττοντες καμάτων, καὶ ὧν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τότε ὑπέμενεν ὁ 
 τῶν Ἑβραίων cjuoc.—Lbid. p. 435. 
 
 Page 105, line 2.‘ He refers to 1 Cor.’ 
 
 Kara piay σαββάτου, τουτέστι κυριακὴν, ἕκαστος ὑμῶν παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ 
 τιθέτω θησαυρίζων ὅ, τι ἂν εὐοδῶται' ὅρα πῶς καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ 
 προτρέπει. Καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἡμέρα ἱκανὴ ἦν ἀγαγεῖν εἰς ἐλεημοσύνην" 
 ἀναμνήσθητε γάρ, φησι, τίνων ἐτύχετε ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ. ---1(, in 
 1 Cor. xvi. 2, tom. x. p. 400. 
 
 Page 105, line 3. ‘In his own eloquent manner.’ 
 
 “Opa πῶς πάντα πάρεργα ἣν TOU κηρύγματος" πεντηκοστὴ τότε 
 ἦν, καὶ κυριακὴ ἦν, ὁ δὲ καὶ μέχρι μεσονυκτίου διδασκαλίαν ἐκτείγει" 
 οὕτω τῆς μαθητῶν σωτηρίας ἐφίετο, ὅτι οὐδὲ τὴν νύκτα ἐσίγα" ἀλλὰ 
 τότε μᾶλλον διελέγετο, ἅτε ἡσυχίας οὔσης. ὅρα πῶς καὶ πολλὰ 
 διελέγετο, καὶ περὶ αὑτὸν τοῦ δείπνου τὸν καιρόν. ᾿Αλλὰ συνετάραξε 
 τὴν ἑορτὴν 6 διάβολος, οὐ μὴν ἴσχυσε, βαπτίσας τὸν ἀκροατὴν 
 ὕπνῳ, καὶ κατενεγκών.---[ἃ. im Act. xx. 7, tom. ix. p. 325, 
 
 Page 105, lines 4, 5. ‘He desires some of his hearers.’ See 
 the title to Hom. x. on Genesis, tom. iv. p. 71. In the body of 
 the Homily he calls the refection ἡ αἰσθητὴ τράπεζα, and the 
 σύναξις, ἡ πνευματικὴ ἑστίασις. 
 
 Page 105, line 11. ‘He has a very remarkable passage.’ 
 Hom. x. on Genesis, tom iv. p. 80, 
 
NOTES. 401 
 
 Page 106, line 1. ‘ Cyril of Alexandria.’ 
 Οὐκοῦν ἀνάπαυσις μὲν ἡ πρώτη τῆς ἑβδομάζος ἡμέ ov ἐ 
 cH 1 TewWTH τῆς μάςος ἡμέρα, Tov ἐν 
 
 ἀρχαῖς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καιρὸν ὑποφαίνουσα" ἀνάπαυσις δὲ ὁμοίως καὶ 
 J ᾽ ΕΥ ϑ. Ὁ ᾽ ,ὔ δ ΄ με, “Ὁ -- \ 
 ἡ ὀγδόη Kal? ἣν aveBiw Χριστὸς, προσηλώσας τῷ ἰδίῳ σταυρῷ τὸ 
 καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον, καὶ εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, ἵνα ἡμᾶς 
 θανάτου καὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἐξελὼν, ποινῆς ἀπαλλάξῃ καὶ πόνων, καὶ τὴν 
 ἐν ἀρχαῖς ἀνάπαυσιν δι’ αὐτοῦ κερδάνωμεν.---Ογγὶϊ. Alex. de 
 Adorat. in Spir. et Verit. lib. xvii. tom. i. p. 620 B. 
 
 And, again— 
 
 Τοῖς φυλάττουσι τὰ σάββατα αὑτοῦ, Χριστοῦ δηλονότι" ἕτερα δ᾽ 
 ὡς ἔφην, τὰ αὐτοῦ σάββατα παρὰ τοῦ νόμον. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν ἐν 
 τύποις, τὰ δὲ τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας καταφαιδρύνεται κάλλει. Καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς 
 ἐπιλεξαμένοις ἃ αὐτὸς βούλεται, καὶ ἀντεχομένοις τῆς διαθήκης 
 αὐτοῦ" βούλεται δὲ Χριστὸς οὐ τὰ ἐν σκιαῖς καὶ γράμμασι νομικῶς, 
 > . A 5 ᾽ - Ul ~ ΕἸ ᾽ ~. UA \ ef ~ , 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ ra ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ τῇ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ" δήλον δὲ ὅτι TH νέᾳ TE 
 καὶ evayyedun.—Ld. in Esaiam, lib. v. tom. ii. p. 790. 
 
 Page 106, line 4. ‘The Jews were prone.’ 
 
 3 , \ ~ ͵ ? ~ ‘ \ \ ᾽ , 
 
 Ἐπιλαθόμενοι δὲ τῶν πατρίων ἐθῶν, καὶ τὴν προγονικὴν εὐσέβειαν 
 ἀρνησάμενοι, πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἐπιχωρίων ψευξολατρείας ἐτράποντο... 
 ἡλίῳ μὲν χρῆναι προσκυνεῖν ὑπελάμβανον, οὐρανῷ δὲ καὶ γῇ, 
 σελήνῃ καὶ ἄστροις, καὶ τίνι γὰρ οὐχὶ τῶν στοιχείων τὴν Θεῷ πρέ- 
 
 δ, » , af δ - ? Ne NOL 2 ~ \ 
 πουσαν δόξαν ἀπονέμειν ῴοντο δεῖν; . . . ἐπειδὴ CE πως ἐχρῆν Kal 
 διὰ πράγματος ἐναργοῦς ἐπαναγκάζειν ὥσπερ καὶ οὐχ ἑκόντας 
 ὁμολογεῖν, ὡς πεποίηται μὲν οὐρανὸς, ἥλιος δὲ καὶ σελήνη, καὶ 
 ἄστρα, καὶ γῆ, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη δὲ σύμπασα κτίσις ταῖς τοῦ δημιουργή- 
 σαντος τέχναις εἰς τὸ εἶναι κεκίνηται, συσχηματίζεσθαι κελεύει τῷ 
 δημιουργῷ, καὶ καταλύοντας ἐν σαββάτῳ, τῆς ἑορτῆς τὴν αἰτίαν 
 
 ς , ‘ , ‘ x e ‘ > \ A ~ 
 εἰδέναι βούλεται: κατέλυσε γὰρ, φησὶν ὁ Θεὸς, ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν 
 ἔργων αὐτοῦ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ. Οἱ γὰρ καταλύοντι τῷ δημι- 
 ουργῷ συγκαταλύειν σπουδάζοντες, πῶς οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσαιεν, καὶ 
 μάλιστα σαφῶς, ὡς πεποίηται μὲν τὰ σύμπαντα, εἷς δὲ ἁπάντων 
 δημιουργὸς, καὶ τεχνίτης ἐστί; Συμβέβηκε τοίνυν, διὰ τῆς κατὰ 
 τὸ σάββατον ἀργίας, καὶ τὸ ὶ τῆς θεό ἰσφέρεσθαι λόγ 
 
 ογίας, καὶ τὸν περὶ τῆς θεότητος εἰσφέρεσθαι λόγον 
 τοῖς ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ, καὶ τὸν ἁπάντων τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν ἐπιγινώσ- 
 κεσθαι φύσιν, καὶ τὴν τῶν ὁρωμένων στοιχείων οὐκ ἀγνοεῖσθαι 
 dovieiav.— Cyril. Alex. Hom. vi. de Fest. Paschal. tom. v. 
 part. 2, p. 76. 
 
 Page 106, line 12. ‘Theodoret condemns the Ebionites.’ 
 He says τὸ μὲν σάββατον κατὰ τὸν Ἰουδαίων τιμῶσι νόμον, 
 τὴν δὲ κυριακὴν καθιεροῦσι παραπλησίως tpiv.—De Fabulis Her. 
 ii. 1, tom. iv. p. 828. Hal. 1769—1774. 
 
 Page 106, line 22. ‘The Sabbath was not’ ὅς. Τῆς δὲ τοῦ 
 
 DED 
 
402 ΟΝΟΤΈΝ. 
 
 σαββάτου φυλακῆς, οὐχ ἡ φύσις διδάσκαλος, ἄλλ᾽ ἡ θέσις τοῦ νόμου. 
 —and again, τὴν δὲ τοῦ σαββάτου φυλακὴν μόνον τὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων 
 ἐφύλαττεν ἔθνος. In Ezech. c. xx. tom. il. p. 826. 
 
 Page 106, line 24. ‘It had its moral and political uses.’ — 
 Διὰ τί τὸ σάββατον τῇ ἀργίᾳ τετίμηκεν ; φιλανθρωπίαν τὸν λαὸν 
 ἐξεπαίδευσεν.---- Theodoret. in Exod. Quest. 42, tom. i. p. 153. 
 
 “Ὥσπερ τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ τὴν περιτομὴν διδοὺς ἔφη" καὶ ἔσται εἰς 
 σημεῖον ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ὑμῶν" οὕτω καὶ περὶ σαββάτου γομο- 
 θετῶν ἔφη" ἔστι γὰρ σημεῖον ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραὴλ εἰς τὰς 
 γενεὰς ὑμῶν. τὸ γὰρ καινὸν τῆς πολιτείας ἀεὶ τοῦ νομοθέτου τὴν 
 μνήμην ἀνθεῖν παρεσκεύαζεν. καὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν ἄλλων ἐχώριζε" 
 καθάπερ γὰρ τὰς ποίμνας καὶ τὰς ἀγελὰς αἱ σφραγίδες δηλοῦσιν, 
 οὕτω τὰ τῆς τῶν Ἑβραίων πολιτείας ἐξαίρετα, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων 
 αὑτοὺς διεῖργε, καὶ τὸν νομοθέτην προσεδρεύειν ἐδίδασκεν.-- Quest. 
 65, in Exod. tom. i. p. 170. 
 
 Page 106, line penult. ‘ Socrates.’ Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. viii. 
 
 Page 107, line 6. ‘Anda third continuator, Sozomen.’ See 
 Lecture III. p. 87. 
 
 Page 107, line 10. Suiceri Thesaurus, in voce Κυριακή. 
 
 Page 107, line 34. “ Various other writers.’ Ephrem Syrus, 
 for instance, the author of Rhythms, or Poetical Discourses, 
 which he probably composed on finding that the Hymns of 
 Bardesanes, the heretic, had great influence on the minds of the 
 people. My learned friend, the Rev. R. Payne Smith, of the 
 Bodleian, informs me that in the two passages of Ephrem’s 
 commentaries where he mentions the Sabbath he is thinking of 
 anything but the Lord’s Day. On Gen. ¢. ii. 3, he says, “ by 
 the temporal Sabbath granted to the temporal people, God 
 depicts the mystery granted to the eternal people in the eternal 
 world.” On Exod. c. xvi. he takes another view. “The Sab- 
 bath was granted for the sake of slaves, of hirelings, the oxen, 
 and the asses.” In other works he speaks of its temporary, 
 ceremonial, remedial, and typical character. The Lord’s Day 
 he does not mention except by implication ; as where he calls 
 Palm Sunday, “ One (¢.e. Day One) in the week of Hosannahs.” 
 See the title of the “Rhythm against the Jews, delivered upon 
 Palm Sunday,” in Morris’ “Translation of Select Works of 
 8. Ephrem the Syrian.” Oxford, 1847. 
 
 Page 107, line penult. ‘Cceperat,’ &c. Ccel. Sedul. Car- 
 men Paschal. v. 315—322; Migne Patrol. vol. xiv. p. 738. 
 
 Page 108, line 14. ‘The Council of Eliberis.’ “Si quis in 
 
NOTES. 403 
 
 civitate positus tres Dominicas ad ecclesiam non accesserit, tanto 
 tempore abstineat, ut correptus esse videatur.”—Cone. Elib. 
 canon xxi. Labbé, tom. 11. col. 9. 
 
 Page 108, line 19. ‘The Council of Gangyra.’ 
 
 Εἰ τις διὰ νομιζομένην ἄσκησιν ἐν τῇ Κυριακῇ νηστεύοι, ἀνάθεμα 
 éotw.—Cone. Gangr. canon xviii. Labbé, tom. ii. col. 1104. 
 
 Εἰ τις παρὰ τὴν ἐκελησίαν ἰδίᾳ ἐκκλησιάζοι, καὶ καταφρονῶν τῆς 
 ἐκκλησίας, τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐθέλοι πράττειν, μὴ συνόντος τοῦ πρεσ- 
 βυτέρου κατὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισκύπου, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.-- (ΠΟΙ Vi. 
 col. 1101. 
 
 ΕἸ τις διδάσκοι τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐκαταφρόνητον εἶναι, καὶ Tac 
 ἐν αὐτῷ συνάξεις, ἀνάθεμα éotw.—Canon v. col. 1101. 
 
 Page 108, line 26. ‘The Council of Sardica.’ 
 
 Μέμνησθε δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ προάγοντι χρόνῳ Tove πατέρας ἡμῶν 
 κεκρικέναι, ἵνα εἴ τις λαϊκὸς ἐν πόλει διάγων, τρεῖς κυριακὰς ἡμέρας 
 ἐν τρισὶν ἑβδομώσι μὴ συνέρχοιτο, ἀποκινοῖτο τῆς KoWwriac.—Cone. 
 Sardiec. canon xi. Labbé, tom. iii. col. 20. 
 
 Page 108, line 28. ‘The Council of Antioch.’ 
 
 Ildvrac τοὺς εἰσιόντας εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Kal τῶν 
 ἱερῶν γραφῶν dkovorrac, μὴ κοινωνοῦντας δὲ εὐχῆς ἅμα τῷ λαῷ, 
 ἢ ἀποστρεφομένους τὴν μετάληψιν τῆς εὐχαριστίας κατά τινα ἀταξίαν" 
 τούτους ἀποβλήτους γίνεσθαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἕως ἂν ἐξομολογησά- 
 μενοι καὶ δείξαντες κάρπους μετανοίας, καὶ παρακαλέσαντες, τι χεῖν 
 δυνηθῶσι ovyyvwpne.—Cone. Antioch. canon 11. Labbé, tom. i. 
 col. 1309. 
 
 Page 109, line 4. ‘The First Council of Toledo.’ 
 
 “De his qui intrant in ecclesiam, et deprehenduntur nunquam 
 communicare, admoneantur, quod si non communicant, ad poeni- 
 tentiam accedant; si communicant, non super abstineantur ; 
 si non fecerint, abstineantur.”—Cone. Tolet. I. can. xiii. Labbe, 
 tom. 111. col. 1000. 
 
 Page 109, lines 6, 25, and 28. ‘The Fourth Council of 
 Carthage.’ 
 
 “Sacerdote verbum faciente in ecclesia, qui egressus de audito- 
 rio fuerit, excommunicetur.’”—Cone. Carthag. IV. canon xxiv. 
 Labbé, tom. 111. col. 953. 
 
 “Qui die solenni, preetermisso solenni ecclesiz conventu ad 
 spectacula vadit, excommunicetur.”—Canon Ixxxviil. col. 958. 
 
 “Qui Dominico die studiosé jejunat, non credatur catholicus.” 
 —Canon lxiy. col. 956, 
 
 DD2 
 
404. NOTES. 
 
 The Fourth Council of Carthage is sometimes called “The 
 Code of the African Church.” Mansi holds that it is more 
 properly so designated, and he considers it to be a compilation 
 from the decrees of various synods. The whole subject of the 
 Councils of Carthage is very intricate. Three at least were held 
 under Cyprian. Vide note to Lecture 11. p. 65, 1. 5. Then 
 sundry others intervened which were called conciliabula. Then 
 came the four usually called Councils of Carthage, a.p. 348, 
 390, 397, 436, respectively. But the dates of each, and the very 
 existence of the last, are matters of dispute. No two authorities 
 agree together. 
 
 Page 109, lime 9. ‘The Council of Laodicea.”’ Can. xxix. 
 Labbé, ii. col. 570. 
 
 Dr. Heurtley, in commenting on εἴγε δύναιντο, observes that 
 probably the early Christians were not masters of their own 
 time. Univ. Serm. on Lord’s Day, p. 15. 
 
 Page 110, line ἃ. ‘ Eusebius mentions a law, &e. De Vit. 
 Const. iv. 18. 
 
 Page 110, line 6. ‘By another law.’ Jbid. iv. 19, 20. 
 
 Page 110, line 11. “ Negotiorum intentio.’ Cod. Theod. xi. 
 ,..1.3: 
 
 Page 110, line 14.‘ Abolished the spectacles.’ 
 
 “ Nullus Solis die populo spectaculum prebeat, nec divinam 
 venerationem confecta solennitate confundat.”—Cod. T'heod. xv. 
 by 2. ᾿ 
 
 See Canon Robertson, “ History of the Church,” vol. i. 
 p. 321. 
 
 Page 110, line 17. ‘Theodosius the younger.’ 
 
 “Dominico, qui Septimanze totius primus est Dies, (€c. de. 
 specifying various other holy days and seasons) omni Theatrorum 
 atque Circensium voluptate, per universas urbes, earundem po- 
 pulis denegata, tote Christianorum ac fidelium mentes Dei 
 cultibus occupentur. Si qui etiam nunc vel Jude impietatis 
 amentia, vel stolid Paganitatis errore atque insanid detinentur, 
 aliud esse supplicationum noverint tempus, aliud voluptatum. 
 Ac ne quis existimet, in honorem Numinis Nostri, veluti majore 
 quadam imperialis officii necessitate compelli, et nisi divina 
 religione contempta spectaculis operam prestat, subeundam 
 forsitan sibi nostre serenitatis offensam, si minus circa nos 
 devotionis ostenderit, quam solebat, nemo ambigat, quod tunc 
 
NOTES. 4.05 
 
 maximé Mansuetudini Nostre ab humano genere defertur, cum 
 virtutibus Dei Omnipotentis ac meritis universi obsequium orbis 
 impenditur.”—Cod. Theod. xv. 5. 5. 
 
 Page 110, line 21. ‘Leo and Anthemius.’ 
 
 “Dies festos Majestati altissimee dedicatos, nullis volumus 
 voluptatibus occupari, nec ullis exactionum vexationibus pro- 
 fanari. Dominicum itaque diem ita semper honorabilem decerni- 
 mus et venerandum, ut a cunctis executionibus excusetur ; nulla 
 quemquam urgeat admonitio: nulla fidejussionis flagitetur 
 exactio : tacent apparitio: advocatio delitescat: sit ille dies a 
 cognitionibus alienus: preeconis horrida vox silescat : respirent 
 a controversiis litigantes, et habeant foederis intervallum : ad 
 sese simul veniant adversarii non timentes : subeat animos vicaria 
 peenitudo : pacta conferant : transactiones loquantur. Nec hujus 
 tamen religiosi diei otia relaxantes, obsccenis quemquam patimur 
 voluptatibus detineri. Nihil eodem die 5101 vindicet scena thea- 
 tralis, aut Circense spectaculum, aut ferarum lacrimosa specta- 
 cula: et si in nostrum ortum aut natalem celebranda solennitas 
 inciderit, differatur. Amissionem militiz, proscriptionemque 
 patrimonii sustinebit, si quis unquam hoc die festo spectaculis 
 interesse [ausus fuerit], vel cujuscunque judicio apparitor pre- 
 textu negotii publici, seu privati, heec, que hac lege statuta sunt, 
 crediderit temeranda.”—Cod. Justin. i. 12, 11. 
 
 Tertullian wrote a Treatise, “ De Spectaculis,” to prove that a 
 Christian could not without a certain degree of guilt attend 
 public games. This renders it clear that it was not attending 
 the games on Sunday, but attending them at all, that the 
 Ancients objected to. See Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 384. 
 
 And compare for the sentiment, Tertullian, Apol. c. xxxv. 
 “Heeccine dies solennes principum decent, que alios dies non 
 decent Τ᾽ 
 
 Page 111, lines 18 and 19. ‘Manumissio—emancipatio.’ 
 
 “Sicut indignissimum videbatur, diem Solis venerationis suz 
 celebrem, altercantibus jurgiis et noxiis partium contentionibus 
 oceupari, ita gratum ac jocundum est, eo die que sunt maximé 
 votiva compleri. Atque ideo emancipandi et manumittendi die 
 festo cuncti licentiam habeant, et super his rebus actus non pro- 
 hibeantur.”—Cod. Theod. ii. 8. 1. 
 
 Page 111, line 20. “ This law was followed.’ 
 
 “Tie Solis, (qui dudum faustus habetur), neminem Christianum 
 
4.06 NOTES. 
 
 ab exactoribus volumus conveniri ; contra eos, qui id facere ausi 
 sint, hoc nostri statuti interdicto periculum sancientes.—Cod. 
 Theod. viii. 8. 1. 
 
 Page 111, Vine 23, ‘And both enactments.’ 
 
 “Solis die, quem Dominicum rite dixere majores, omnium 
 omnino litium, negotiorum, conventionumque quiescat intentio : 
 debitum publicum privatumque nullus efflagitet: ne apud ipsos 
 quidem Arbitros, (vel in Judiciis flagitatos vel sponte delectos,) 
 ulla sit agnitio jurgiorum. Et non modo notabilis, verum etiam 
 sacrilegus judicetur, qui a sanctz religionis instituto ritu ve 
 deflexerit.” —Cod. Theod. viii. 8. 1. 
 
 Page 112, line 1. ‘Theodosius the Great confirmed all this.’ 
 Cod. Theod. ii. 8. 2 
 
 Page 113, line 16. ‘Place it above all purely Ecclesiastical 
 ordinances.’ 
 
 “ But this few Christians would deny, except some Papists, 
 who would bring down Apostolical Constitutions to a lower rank 
 and rate, that the Pope and his General Council may be capable 
 of laying claim to the like themselves; and so may make as 
 many more laws for the Church as they please, and pretend such 
 an authority for it as the Apostles had for them. By which 
 pretence many would make too little distinction between God’s 
 Laws, given by His Spirit, and the Laws of a Pope and Popish 
 Council ; and call them all but the Laws of the Church. Whereas 
 there is no Universal Head of the Church but Christ, who hath 
 reserved Universal Legislation to Himself alone, to be performed 
 by Himself personally, and by His Advocate the Holy Ghost, in 
 His authorized and infallibly-inspired Apostles, who were the 
 Promulgators and Recorders of them; all following Pastors 
 being but, (as the Jewish priests were to Moses and the Prophets,) 
 the preservers, the expositors and appliers of that Law.”— 
 Baxter, “ The Divine Appointment,” dc. pp. 70, 71. 
 
 Page 116, line 24. ‘Councils condescend,’ eg. The Third 
 Council of Orleans, ap. 538. Cone. Aurelian. III. canon 28. 
 (Labbé ix. 19.) 
 
 Page 116, line 26. ‘And not unfrequently contradict.’ e. g. 
 The Council of Auxerre, 4.p. 578. Cone. Autissiodor. canon 15. 
 (Labbé ix. 911.) 
 
 Page 116, line 27. ‘The second Council of Macon.’ Cone. 
 Matiscon. 17. canon 1. (Labbé ix. 947.) 
 
NOTES. 407 
 
 Page 117, line 17. ‘Clothaire, King of France.’ See Dr. 
 Heylin, “ History of the Sabbath,” part 11. ὁ. 6. p. 469. 
 
 Page 117, line21. ‘A Synod held at Friuli.’ Cone. Forojuliens. 
 Canon 13, (Labbé xiii. 851.) See Dr. Heylin, (ut supra,) part ii. 
 ὁ. v. pp. 447—448, and Dr. T. Young, “ Dies Dominica,” Prooem. 
 p. penult. 
 
 Page 117, line 22, to page 118, line 16. This passage is from 
 Neale, “ Feasts and Fasts,” page 98. He observes in a note that 
 the capitularies were heads of instruction given by the Emperors 
 to the officers called Missi dominici, whom they sent out to 
 administer justice, and reform abuses in the several provinces ; 
 somewhat as in England the original justices in eyre. 
 
 Page \17, line 7. ‘Mayence.’? Cone. Moecuntiac. canon 37. 
 (Labbé xiv. 68.) 
 
 ‘Rheims.’ Conc. Rhemens, canon 35, (Labbé xiv. 78.) 
 
 Page 118, line 24. ‘Leo Philosophus.’ See Neale, “Feasts 
 and Fasts,” pp. 91—92 ; and Lecture III. pp. 83 and 125. 
 
 Page 118, line penult. ‘Ina, King of the West Saxons.’ 
 Enactment 3. (Johnson, Collect. vol. 1. p. 132.) 
 
 Page 118, line ult. ‘The Council of Berkhampstead.’ Cone. 
 Berghamstedense, canones 10, 11, 12. (Canones, &c. selecti 
 ἘΠῚ D. Bruns, p. 312.) 
 
 Page 119, line ὃ, ‘The Constitutions of Egbert, Abp. of 
 York,’ constit. 36. (Spelman, Cone. i. 264.) 
 
 Page 119, line 4. ‘The Convention between.’ ὅθ. ch. 10,11. 
 (Spelman, Cone. i. 391.) 
 
 Page 119, line 6. ‘The Council of Cloveshoff.’ can. 14. 
 (Spelman, Cone. i. 299.) 
 
 Page 119, ime 7. ‘A law of Athelstane.” Law 24. (John- 
 
 son’s Collect. vol. i. p. 344.) 
 Page 119, line ὃ, ‘Ina law of Edgar the Peaceable.’ 
 
 I found this law given in a very strange form in Selden’s 
 “ Analecton Anglo-Britannicon,” p. 99. ‘ Dies Sabbati ab ipsa 
 diei Saturni hora pomeridiana tertié usque in Lunaris diei 
 diluculum festus agitator.” The employment of Sabbatum for 
 Sunday struck me as unusual at this period, and on looking 
 at Heylin, (Hy. of Sabbath, p. 475), I found that he quoted the 
 law in the same form, but thought it necessary to apologise for it 
 thus : “‘ Where, by the way, though it be Dies Sabbati in the Latin, 
 yet in the Saxon copy, it is only Healde, the Holy Day.” Not 
 
408 NOTES. 
 
 feeling satisfied with this explanation, I referred to Johnson, 
 (Collection, vol. i. p. 244), and found that he rendered the law, 
 “Let every Sunday be kept in a festival manner from the noon- 
 tide on Saturday till Monday morning light,” &c. On the word 
 noon-tide he annotated, “That is, three in the afternoon accord- 
 ing to our present account,” adding, “Three in the afternoon 
 was hora nona in the Latin account, and therefore called noon. 
 How it came afterwards to signify mid-day I can but guess.” 
 
 In this difficulty I referred the matter to my friend the 
 Rev. John Earle, late Anglo-Saxon Professor at Oxford, and 
 with his permission give his reply to my questions. 
 
 “ Heylin’s remark was made in the dark. True, the law 
 begins with Healde, but this is the imperative of the verb to 
 hold. ‘Healde man elces Sunnan-deges freols. Z'eneat unus- 
 quisque omni Solis die festum. ‘Let all observe Sunday as 
 a feast, or literally, let men keep holyday every Sunday, 
 from,’ ὅζο. 
 
 “ As for Dies Sabbati, of Selden and Heylin, I do not know 
 where it originated. Wilkins’ Latin version runs thus : “ Quod- 
 libet diei Solis festum celebretur ab hora pomeridiana diei Saturni, 
 usque ad diluculum diei Lune, &c.” This, though it does not 
 exactly represent the construction of the Anglo-Saxon, is nearly 
 right as to the several words. I append as much of the law as 
 bears upon the subject, with an English translation, and a Latin 
 version which is at least as old as the thirteenth century. All 
 other Latin versions are by modern editors. 
 
 “¢Healde man elces Sunnan-deeges freols, fram non-tide bzes 
 Seeternes-deges οὔ pees Monan-deges lihtinge, be pam wite 
 be seo dom-boc tec’, and elcne oSerne meesse-deg swa he 
 beboden beo ; and man ele beboden feesten healde mid elcere 
 geornfulnesse, and elces Frige-deges feesten, buton hit freols sy,’ 
 &e, 
 
 ““« Keep holy day every Sunday from ‘ noon-tide’ of Saturday to 
 Monday’s dawn; under the penalty which the doom-book 
 directs—and every other mass-day as proclaimed—and every 
 published fast is to be kept with all diligence, and every Friday’s 
 fast, except it (happen to) be a festival. . . .’ 
 
 “Vetus Versio] ‘Et solenne diei Dominic conservetur ab 
 horé non& Sabbati usque ad lucidum diei Lune super foris- 
 facturé quam liber judiciorum docet; et omnis alia festivitas, 
 
NOTES. 4.09 
 
 sicut a sacerdote nunciabitur ; et omne indictum jejunium cum 
 omni devotione servetur.’ 
 
 “This version has Dies Dominica. So Dies Sabbati must be 
 Selden’s own rendering, or that of some editor whom he has 
 followed with a carelessness very unusual in him, for swnrnan- 
 deeges. 
 
 “ἐ Non-tide in the original is not correctly expressed by hora 
 pomeridiana, unless that phrase be taken to mean hora pome- 
 ridiana tertia, 1. 6. the nona or ninth hour, the first canonical 
 hour for a religious office post meridiem. When the observance 
 of the howrs was usual, the phrase hora pomeridiana might at 
 once point to the hour of nones or three o’clock, and not require 
 the qualification tertia which appears in Selden and Heylin. 
 
 “‘ Non-tede may have come to mean mid-day bythe process 
 suggested by Johnson, namely, from a practice growing prevalent 
 of saying the office of nones immediately after the mid-day office, 
 and so hastening the time of refection, which was not due till 
 nones had been said. Thus the nones were brought very close 
 to mid-day, and eventually gave mid-day the name of noon.” 
 
 Page 119, line 19. ‘It was a greater crime,’ &e. 
 
 This is asserted (says Neale, ‘‘ Feasts and Fasts,” p. 110) in a 
 law of Canute, re-enacting with some extensions a law of Alfred. 
 He refers to Spelman, Cone. i. 41, (2d collection of Canute’s 
 laws, 1. 14.) The law of Alfred is, “He that stealeth on a 
 Sunday night, or on Christmas, &c., our will is, that he make 
 satisfaction twofold.’—Johnson’s Coll. part i. p. 321. 
 
 Page 119, line 28. “ Alcuin.’ 
 
 “Sure I am that Alcuinus, one of principal credit with 
 Charles the Great, who lived about the end of the eighth 
 century, saith clearly, that the observation of the former Sabbath 
 had been translated very fitly to the Lord’s Day by the custom 
 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 give themselves 
 only to meditation and to fasting, he adds,—‘cujus observa- 
 tionem mos Christianus ad diem Dominicum competentius 
 transtulit.’” Thus Dr. Heylin, “History of the Sabbath,” 
 part 11. ὁ. 5, pp. 449, 450. Whence Alcuin obtained his notion 
 that the Jews at any time made the Sabbath a day of fasting, it 
 is difficult to ascertain. But the passage is an instructive one, 
 
410 NOTES. 
 
 as showing the growth of an Ecclesiastical Sabbatarianism of 
 more than Jewish strictness. 
 
 Page 119, line 28. ‘Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaulx.’ See 
 Dr. Heylin, “ History of the Sabbath,” part 11. α. 5, p. 457. 
 
 Page 120, line 2. ‘Petrus Alphonsus.’ See Dr. Heylin, 
 ibid. part i. ¢. 7, p. 479. 
 
 Page 120, line 9. ‘Eustace, Abbot of Flay.’ For the whole 
 story, see Spelman, Conc. i. 128. The pretended letter demanded 
 that the Lord’s Day should last ‘ab hora nond Sabbati (Satur- 
 day) usque ad solem surgentem die Lune.” This, it will be 
 remembered, was the time enjoined in Edgar’s law. It is the 
 time also enjoined in a law of Canute, a.p. 1017. (Johnson’s 
 Coll. part i. p. 507.) The following is Johnson’s abridgment of 
 the judgments. “A woman weaving after three o'clock on 
 Saturday afternoon was struck with the dead palsy. A man 
 that made a cake at the same time, when he came to eat it on 
 the Lord’s Day morning, blood flowed from it. Corn grinded by 
 a miller was turned into blood, and the wheel of the mill stood 
 immovable against the force of the waters. A woman put her 
 paste into the heated oven at this time, and when she thought 
 it baked, found it paste still. Another woman, by the advice 
 of her husband, kept her paste till Monday morning wrapped 
 up in a linen cloth, and then found it ready baked. I wish,” 
 concludes Johnson (Coll. p. ii. p. 95), “that no Protestants had 
 vended the like tales.” 
 
 Neale, ‘Feasts and Fasts,’ pp. 114, seg. mentions a some- 
 what similar message in Henry the Second’s time, together with 
 some strange instances of Sabbatarian superstition in reference 
 to the Lord’s Day. 
 
 Page 120, line 29. ‘Thomas Aquinas.’ See Dr. Heylin’s 
 “ History of the Sabbath,” part ii. ο. 6, p. 463. 
 
 Page 121, line 5. “ Bellarmine.” See Mr. Baden Powell, 
 “ Christianity without Judaism,” p. 164. 
 
 Page 121, line 11. ‘Abp. Chichele.’ The mistake is one of 
 so extraordinary a character, that I subjoin the very words of the 
 Archbishop :-— 
 
 “Cum nuper... delatum exstitit quod barbitonsores contra 
 legem Dei, sanctiones ecclesiasticas, et publicam honestatem, 
 die Dominico, videlicet die Septimo, cui Dominus benedixit, quem 
 sanctificavit, et in quo post opera sex dierum ab omni opere 
 
NOTES. 411 
 
 requievit, a cunctis suis fidelibus illum instituit ejus exemplo 
 ab omnibus servilibus operibus abstinere, domos et shoppas suas 
 pro exercitio artis sue apertas tenent, nec institutioni divine, 
 nec diei reverentiz in aliquo deferentes,’ &¢.— Wilkins, Cone. 
 M. B. tom. ui. p. 368. 
 
 Page 121, line 23. ‘Tostatus, Bishop of Avila.” In Exod. 
 6. xl. pp. 82-—84, fol. Venet. 1596. See Dr. Heylin, part ii. 
 ce. 6, p. 463. 
 
 Page 123, line 21. ‘Gregory the First.’ Epist. lib. xi. ο. ὃ. 
 _ Page 124, line 21. ‘Theodulphus, Bishop of Orleans.’ The 
 document quoted in the text was originally drawn up by this 
 Bishop for his own diocese; but it obtained a very general 
 reputation, even where the name of the author was unknown. 
 Spelm. Cone. 1. 585, can. 41, calls its regulations the capitula of 
 an unknown bishop. But see Johnson’s Collection, part 1. 
 p. 466, canon 24 :—“ Dies vero Dominicus, quia in eo Deus lucem 
 condidit, in eo Mannam eremo pluit, in eo Redemptor humani 
 generis sponte pro salute nostra mortuus resurrexit, in eo Spi- 
 ritum Sanctum super discipulos infudit ; tanta esse debet obser- 
 vantia, ut preter orationes, et Missarum Solennia, et ea que ad 
 vescendum pertinent, nihil alind fiat,” &e. 
 
 Page 125, line 12. ‘ Pope Nicholas the First.’ Neale, p. 99 ; 
 Labbé xv. 414. 
 
 Page 126, line 3. ‘Archbishop Islip.’ a.p. 1362. Spelm. 
 Cone, ii. 599 ; Johnson’s Collections, part 1]. p. 417 ; and Neale, 
 “ Feasts and Fasts,” p. 125. There is a curious phrase in this 
 document, referring to the evil employment of holydays, which is 
 the more remarkable, considering the warning against Judaism 
 which follows: “Nor do they sabbatize in honor to God, but 
 to the scandal of Him and hoty Church.” 
 
 Page 126, line 10. ‘Archbishop Nevile.’ Spelm. Cone. ii. 
 702, quoted by Neale, ‘ Feasts and Fasts,” p. 125. 
 
 Page 127, line 9. ‘Peter de Bruys.’ He was burnt, Α. Ὁ. 
 1130, by the populace at the instigation of the Clergy. 
 
 Page 127, line 16. ‘The Waldenses. See Hardwick, 
 “ Middle Ages,” p. 314, note 5. 
 
 Page 127, line 19. ‘The Lollards.” See Hardwick, “ Middle 
 Ages,” p. 418. 
 
 Page 128, line 6. ‘On the Continent.’ Compare Hamon 
 L’Estrange, “ Alliance of Divine Offices,” p. 86: “To proceed ; 
 
412 NOTES. 
 
 they have not only laid aside these holydays above specified, but 
 even the Lord’s Day itself, which our great adversaries themselves 
 repute to be a day of Divine institution. True it is they make it 
 a day of public assembling, but not for sacred concernments 
 alone ; no, for civil also, having their markets kept upon those 
 days. ΤῊ] these obstacles be removed, we hold it not just that 
 they pretend to the title of ‘the best reformed Churches.’ ” 
 
NOTES. 413 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 Page 129, line 11. ‘ Primarily.’ Compare the statement of 
 Dr. Hawkins in note to Lecture II. p. 34. 
 
 Page 131, line ll. On the two senses of ‘The law of Nature,’ 
 see Abp. Bramhall, “On the Sabbath and Lord’s Day,” p. 79. 
 
 “The law of nature is sometimes taken properly and strictly 
 for the principles of moral honesty, dictated expressly to all 
 intellectual creatures by natural reason ; and in this sense the 
 setting out a sufficient time for God’s solemn worship is ‘juris 
 Divini naturalis,’ a principle of the law of nature, but so is not 
 the setting out a whole day for God’s solemn worship. At 
 other times the law of nature is taken more largely, so as to 
 comprehend not only such express principles of moral honesty 
 as nature dictateth to all intellectual creatures, but also such 
 conclusions as are consentaneous and agreeable to those prin- 
 ciples ; and in this sense it is true that the setting apart a whole 
 day for God’s worship is ‘juris Divini naturalis,’ or dictated by 
 reason to all intellectual creatures to be agreeable and consen- 
 taneous to the principles of moral honesty. The law of nature 
 doth prescribe that a sufficient time be set apart for God’s ser- 
 vice ; and whatsoever time be set apart, more or less, so it be 
 sufficient, it is agreeable to this law, and made in pursuance of 
 it. So this contradiction is vanished. 
 
 “The third difference hath less ground than the second ; for 
 I myself do readily acknowledge that the setting apart one day 
 in seven for the solemn worship of God was ‘juris Divini 
 positivi,” a branch of Divine law, and that this law was not 
 changeable by ‘man or angel,’ which is all that our Lord 
 Primate, (Abp. Ussher), saith. But it was both changeable and 
 actually changed by the same Divine authority that first gave it. 
 And though it was changed from one seventh day to another, 
 yet this was not by virtue of the Fourth Commandment, an old 
 Mosaical law, which (so far as it was Mosaical) is abrogated, but 
 by virtue of a new evangelical law, as hath been declared.” 
 
 See also Bishop Francis White, “ A Treatise,” &c. p. 26, on 
 the senses of the word “Moral,” and Archbishop Bramhall, 
 
4114. NOTES. 
 
 p- 13 of the work just quoted. For exemplification of the dif- 
 ference between “moral” and “positive” laws or precepts, see 
 Bishop Butler, “Analogy,” Part 11. ο. 1. 
 
 Dr. Isaac Barrow, “ An Exposition of the Decalogue,” Works, 
 vol. vi. p. 494, writes thus: “In fine, divers of the Fathers 
 say, that all the commands in the Decalogue, excepting the 
 Sabbath, do continue in force as naturally obligatory, and as 
 confirmed by the Christian law.” And he goes on to quote 
 Augustine to the point. 
 
 And Cocceius, “De Sabbato,” observes :—‘ Preceptum de 
 Sabbato distinguitur a preceptis, quee qui facit in eis vivet,” 
 alluding, of course, to Ezekiel, chap. xx. 11—13, 16—20, 21— 
 24. These passages clearly intimate a distinction between God’s 
 “statutes and judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live 
 in them,” and “the Sabbaths which He gave them, to be a 
 sign,” &ec. 
 
 Page 134, line 11. ‘Archbishop Bramhall.’ ‘On the Sab- 
 bath and Lord’s Day,” p. 20. 
 
 Page 135, line 1ὅ. ‘Do we not read in Genesis 11. 3,’ &e. 
 
 Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, “Occasional Sermons,” Serm. 
 xliv. p. 37, compares the primeval institution of marriage to a sup- 
 posed primeval institution of Sabbath ; but he forgets that while 
 Genesis tells us in the former case of something like a revelation 
 to man on the subject, there is no hint of such a revelation in the 
 latter case. He says, ‘ The law of the Sabbath dates from the same 
 time as the law of marriage ; both were given by God, both have 
 been violated by man ; but man’s violations of the law, though 
 they were universal, would never prove that the law was not given 
 by God, or be any bar to the punishment of our violation of it.” 
 Here he has begged the question, that God did enjoin the Sab- 
 bath upon man at the same time that He instituted marriage. 
 And he has also assumed that the non-mention of the Sabbath 
 being observed by the Patriarchs, is as clear an evidence of their 
 breaking that supposed commandment, as the mention of their 
 polygamy is of their breaking the original law of marriage. 
 
 Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, in his ‘“ Lectures on the Cate- 
 chism,” pp. 63, seq., quite sees the difficulties in the way of 
 allowing a patriarchal Sabbath. His testimony is useful as 
 showing that Dr. Dwight’s view is not universal in America. 
 
 Bishop Seabury, of Connecticut, appears to agree very much 
 
NOTES. 415 
 
 with Dr. Dwight. See his “Discourses on various Subjects,” 
 Dise. VII. Obs. on History of the Sabbath, vol. i. p. 162. 1815. 
 
 Page 135, line 25. ‘In Paradise.’ Bishop Francis White 
 (ut supra), pp. 42, 43, has an eloquent passage on the state of 
 man before the Fall. 
 
 Page 136, line 7. ‘ Bede,’ quoted by Bp. Fr. White, (ut supra,) 
 p. 41. 
 
 Page 136, line 22. ‘ Archbishop Bramhall.’ “On the Sab- 
 bath and Lord’s Day,” p. 20. 
 
 Page 137, line 6. ‘Archdeacon Paley.’ “ἍΜ. and P. Phil.” 
 B. V. c. vi. Compare, on the question of the proleptical theory, 
 Thorndike, “Of the Laws of the Church,” ο. xxi. ὃ 13, Works, 
 vol. iv. p. 493. In the next section he is strongly opposed to 
 the assertion that traces of an hebdomadal division of time neces- 
 sarily imply knowledge of the Sabbath. 
 
 Dr. Isaac Barrow, (ut supra,) p. 509, referring to the mention 
 of the creation-rest in the Fourth Commandment, says, “ In all 
 ceremonial institutions we may observe, that some significant 
 circumstance is selected on purpose to instruct or excite us to 
 practice, by representing to our fancy the nature and intention 
 of the main duty required ; as in circumcision, in the passover, 
 in baptism, and other ritual constitutions, it is not hard to per- 
 ceive: so, it being God’s design to enforce the performance of 
 that excellent duty, by appropriating a time thereto, we may 
 conceive that He therefore especially selected that day as most 
 apt to mind them, to whom this law was given, of the history of 
 the creation, the reflecting upon and celebrating which was the 
 main duty intended.” 
 
 Page 140, line penult. Selden, “De Jur. Nat. et Gentium,” 
 Lib. IL. ¢. xvi, xvii. Bishop Kaye, “ Justin Martyr,” p. 95, note, 
 refers, apparently with approval, to Selden. And he recommends 
 his work to all who shall engage in the controversies relating 
 to the Sabbath. Morer, in his Ἡ μέρα Κυριακὴ, quoted already, 
 shows, with some ingenuity, that almost any number up to 
 twelve, so far as heathen testimony goes, might be made out 
 to be sacred, pp. 150, seq. Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, 
 “ Occasional Sermons,” Ser. xliv. p. 37, restates from Grotius, 
 De Verit. i. 16, the argument overthrown by Selden; and he 
 has overlooked a note of Le Clere on the passage, in which he 
 refers to Selden, and warns against confusion of the seventh of 
 
410 NOTES. 
 
 the month and the seventh of the week. There is some curious 
 matter on the subject of the origin of divisions of time, in ‘Time 
 and Faith,” vol. i. ὁ. i. Compare Bishop Ironside, “Seven 
 Questions on the Sabbath,” pp. 85, seq., and Sam. Frisius, “ De 
 Sabb. Gentil.” 
 
 Page 141, line 20. ‘Before the time of Moses. Of course, 
 I mean before the time of the promise of the manna, and the ces- 
 sation of it on the seventh day. One other trace of sevens occurs 
 anterior to that date, in Exod. xii. 15—19. It is there said, 
 that on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation, and 
 that no manner of work shall be done on it; and hence it is 
 argued that the Sabbath was known then: but on more closely 
 inspecting the passage, it appears that the same thing is said of 
 the first day as of the seventh. Compare Leviticus xxii. 7, 8, 
 with Gen. xxix. 27, where the marriage week is mentioned with- 
 out reference to the Sabbath ; and Judges xiv. 12, which speaks 
 of the seven days of the feast at Samson’s marriage. 
 
 Page 141, line 23. ‘Lights in the firmament,’ Gen. i. 14. Heng 
 stenberg, “ Lord’s Day,” p. 77, states this argument in outline. 
 
 Page 143, line 24. ‘It is mentioned in the tables of the Ten 
 Commandments.’ Bp. Sanderson determines “that no part of 
 the law delivered by Moses to the Jews doth bind Christians 
 under the Gospel by virtue of that delivery ; no, not the Ten 
 Commandments themselves, but least of all the Fourth, which 
 all confess to be, at least, in some part ceremonial.” 
 
 Baxter, “ Divine Appointment,” &c. Appendix, ὁ. iv. is at some 
 pains to prove—l. That the Decalogue written in stone hath 
 more than the law of nature. 
 
 2. That all the law of nature was not in the tables of stone. 
 
 3. That there is more of the law of nature in other parts of 
 Moses’ law, conjunct with the Decalogue, than is in the Deca- 
 logue alone. 
 
 And in the body of his work, ὁ. vii. he says, “The whole Law 
 of Moses, formally as such, is ceased or abrogated by Christ. I 
 say, as such, because materially the same things that are in that 
 Law may be the matter of the Law of Nature and of the Law of 
 Christ.” 
 
 Bp. Jer. Taylor says, in reference to the Second Command- 
 ment :— 
 
 «ς God was pleased to appoint such temporary instruments of a 
 
NOTES. 417 
 
 moral duty as were fitted to the necessities of that people, (the 
 Jews) ; but such instruments were but like temporary supporters, 
 placed there but till the building could stand alone.” See his 
 “ Ductor Dubit.” B. 11. ο. ii, Rule 6, in which he is occupied 
 with proving that “Not every thing in the Decalogue is obli- 
 gatory on Christians.”—Vol. xii. p. 368, Heber’s Edit. 
 
 Page 144, line 23. ‘Tfaccording to his own admission,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Bp. Francis White, “Treatise of the Sabbath Day,” pp. 57 
 and 58, puts the argument the other way :— 
 
 “Tf God’s speaking or writing the Decalogue makes it exclu- 
 sively moral, then all other commandments not so spoken or 
 written are exclusively temporary (or positive).” 
 
 “‘ This, as he shows by an induction of many instances, is not 
 the case,” as Deut. xv. 7, 8; Lev. xix. 17; Deut. x. 19; Lev. 
 xix. 14. “Therefore, God’s writing or speaking some laws does 
 not make them exclusively moral.” 
 
 Page 145, line penult. ‘Bp. Beveridge.’ ‘On the Catechism,” 
 Fourth Commandment. Works, Vol. II. viii. p. 80. 
 
 Thorndike, “ Of the Laws of the Church,” B. III. ο. xxi. ὃ 14, 
 supposes the word ‘‘remember” to have been used ‘“ because the 
 Israelites forgot God’s first command at the giving of manna ; 
 therefore it is reason they should be charged to remember it for the 
 future.” He utterly repudiates the notion of there having been 
 a Patriarchal Sabbath. 
 
 Abp. Whately, “ Thoughts,” ὅσο. p. 10, says that “The 
 expression does not necessarily imply that the precept had been 
 before observed, but merely that it was one liable to be violated 
 through negligence and forgetfulness.” 
 
 Page 147, line 6. ‘This point of time.’ 
 
 Selden, ‘De Jure, ὅσο." III. 9, says that the Talmudists 
 placed the origin of the Sabbath at Marah, grounding their 
 supposition on Exodus xv. 2 : ‘‘ There He made them a statute 
 and an ordinance, and there He proved them.” 
 
 Page 149, line 9. ‘Hengstenhberg. “On the Lord’s Day,” 
 pp. 7,seq. (Martin’s translation.) 
 
 It is a curious fact that, whereas the Hebrew, and the Vulgate, 
 and our last translation have im the concluding clause of the 
 Fourth Commandment, “The Lord blessed the Sabbath Day, and 
 hallowed it,” our Prayer-Book version, has (following the LXX. 
 τὴν ἑβδόμην), “The Lord blessed the Seventh Day, and hallowed 
 
 EE 
 
418 NOTES. 
 
 it.” The Presbyterians at the Savoy Conference noticed this dis- 
 crepancy, and observed very pertinently, that ‘“‘King James 
 had caused the Bible to be new translated to little purpose,” if the 
 word Sabbath was not restored: They had evidently reason on 
 their side; and it is difficult to see why the concession demanded 
 was not made. Nothing, except accuracy, is gained on either side 
 by one word or the other, for the Sabbath and the Seventh are so 
 completely identified throughout the commandment that it is 
 impossible to distinguish them. The Hebrew says, ‘‘ Remember 
 the Sabbath Day,” &c. in Exod. xx. 8. “ But the Seventh Day is 
 a Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” 10. ‘And rested the Seventh 
 Day ; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day,” &c. v. 11. 
 The text of the Lecture, p. 148, observes upon a similar delicacy 
 in the use of the article, which has escaped our translators. In the 
 Book of Genesis it is said that God rested nav on the Seventh 
 Day, but the Seventh is not called the Sabbath. (The supposed 
 connexion of the Hebrew words denoting Sabbath and Seventh 
 respectively is quite fanciful.) 
 
 Page 150, line 21. ‘No doubt remains then,’ Kurtz, “ His- 
 tory of the Old Covenant,” vol. ii. pp. 109, 110, (Martin’s transl.) 
 writes thus on the question of the existence of an ante-Mosaic 
 Sabbath :— 
 
 “There are still two points, however, about which a great 
 deal has been written on both sides, and on which we must 
 give our opinion as briefly as possible, viz. on the observance of 
 the Sabbath, and the existence of any priestly institution in the 
 ante-Mosaic times. With reference to the Sabbath, see Iken, 
 pp. 26 sqq. The week of seven days is the earliest measure of 
 time among all nations, (v. G. H. Schubert Lehrb. d. Sternkunde, 
 Erlangen, 1847, pp. 294 seq.), and Philo justly designates the 
 weekly cycle as πάνδημον καὶ τοῦ κόσμου γενέσιον. (De opif. mundi). 
 We need not discuss the question here, whether the universal 
 agreement in this respect is to be explained on the ground of 
 agreement between such a division and the four phases of the 
 moon, or from the number of the planets, or from the symbolical 
 dignity of the number seven, or whether it should rather be 
 referred to a universal revelation made before the dispersion of 
 the people, in which case we should have to seek the record of 
 it in Genesis 11. 2. At any rate the division by weeks was 
 known in the patriarchal age: we find it, in fact, as early as the 
 
NOTES. 419 
 
 history of the Flood, and we have a proof of its symbolical or 
 religious meaning in its connexion with the marriage festival, 
 chap. xxix. 27, 28, and also with the rite of circumcision, chap. 
 xvii. 12, Hence it is not in itself an improbable thing, that 
 there may have been some kind of festival connected with the 
 seventh day, as early as the days of the patriarchs.” He con- 
 cludes, however, with this candid admission: ‘At the same 
 time, it must be confessed that we cannot bring any proof of the 
 existence of a Sabbatic festival in the ante-Sinaitic period. 
 Neither the Divine determination in Gen. 11. 3, to sanctify 
 the seventh day, nor the peculiar form in which this is first 
 enjoined in the law, ‘ remember the seventh day to keep it holy,’ 
 nor the event which prepared the way for the legal proclama- 
 tion of the Sabbath, viz. the fact that no manna fell upon the 
 seventh day, (Exod. xvi. 22 sqq.), can be appealed to as yielding 
 decisive testimony in the affirmative. But on the other hand, 
 we cannot quote these passages as proofs to the contrary, as 
 Hengstenberg has done.-—The Lord’s Day, p. 7 sqq. (Martin’s 
 translation).” 
 
 Various statements in this passage seem questionable ; as for 
 instance that with regard to an hebdomadal division being the 
 earliest that was known, and that which involves an interpreta- 
 tion of a passage in Philo. But, as the former of these has 
 been discussed earlier in this Lecture, and the latter has been 
 generally controverted by Selden, it is not worth while to enter 
 upon them here. 
 
 Page 150, line 27. ‘A sign.... between God and His peo- 
 ple’ See Exod. xxxi. 13—17 ; xxxv. 1—3; Lev. xix. 3, 30; 
 Isaiah lvi. 2, 4; viii. 14; Ezek. xx. 12, 13, 20; xxu. 8, 26; 
 xxiii. 38 ; xliv. 24; Nehem. ix. 14; xiii. 18. 
 
 Page 151, line 17. ‘He fainteth not, ὅθ. Isaiah xl. 28. 
 
 Page 151, line 320. ‘ Was refreshed.’ Exod. xxxi. 17. 
 
 Page 152, line 28. ‘The peculiarity of their climate.’ 
 Michaélis, “Comm. on Laws of Moses,” Art. 195, notices that 
 the rest was to be observed “in seed-time and in harvest,” and 
 considers that the climate of Palestine was such as to be favor- 
 able to keeping this command. This he confirms by the excep- 
 tional case mentioned in 1 Sam. xii. 17, and compares Jeremiah 
 y. 24, “Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the 
 Lord our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, 
 
 EE2 
 
420 NOTES. 
 
 in his season: He reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the 
 harvest.” See also Leviticus xxvi. 4. 
 
 Page 153, line 4. ‘For subsistence in the seventh year,’ &c. 
 It is not quite clear how the Israelites were provided for in the 
 seventh-year Sabbath. At first sight the statement in the text 
 of the Lecture seems at variance with what is said in Levit. 
 xxv. 5, “That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest 
 shalt thou not reap,” &c. But then verse 6 of the same chapter 
 says, ‘The sabbath of the land,” ὦ. 6. what the Sabbatical year 
 produced spontaneously, ‘‘ shall be meat for you,” &c. Hence, 
 especially on comparing the double supply of manna on the 
 sixth day, and the express promise connected with the seven- 
 times-seven-year Sabbath, it has been conjectured, either that 
 sufficient produce grew on the sixth year to last through the 
 seventh ; or that the expression in verse 5 only took away 
 such peculiarity of ownership as is implied in sowing, pruning, 
 and gathering in, every one being allowed free range to supply 
 himself with food wherever he pleased. Jennings has discussed 
 the question in his “ Jewish Antiquities,” B. IIT. ο. ix. vol. ii. 
 
 Page 153, line 9. ‘The wilful breaker.’ Exod. xxxi. 15 ; 
 xxxv. 2; Numbers xv. 32—36. 
 
 Page 153, line 10, ‘And if a national neglect.’ Lev. xxvi. 
 34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. 
 
 Page 154, line 12. ‘Deuteronomy.’ v. 12. 
 
 Page 154, line 20. ‘ Bishop Warburton.’ “ Divine Legation.” 
 B, IV. p. 203, note RRRR. 
 
 Page 155, line 12. ‘Surely not total inactivity, ἀργία in the 
 worst sense of the word.’ 
 
 Jennings, “Jewish Antiquities,’ p. 158, says that Le Clerc 
 contends for the opinion that the Sabbath consisted only in 
 cessation from work, (quoting Jer. xvii. 22, 24,) and fancies 
 that the ‘holy convocation’ means merely what the Greeks 
 call πανήγυρις, an assembly for feasting and pleasure. (Clerici 
 Comm. in Exod. xx. 8.) Vitringa espouses the same sentiment. 
 (De Synag. vet. lib. i. part ii. ὁ. i. especially pp. 289—294.) “The 
 Jewish Doctors,” continues Jennings, “are of a contrary opinion : 
 they make the sanctification of the Sabbath to consist not merely 
 in rest and idleness, but in meditation on the wonderful works of 
 God, in the study of the law, and in instruction of those who 
 are under them.” 
 
NOTES. 421 
 
 Spencer, de Leg. Hebr. Book I. ὁ. v. ὃ 8—10, was, says 
 Hengstenberg, the originator of the opinion that the Sabbath 
 enjoined an absolute ἀργία. Vitringa, he adds, adopted it and 
 refers to Spencer. (See Hengst. pp. 13, 67, Martin’s transl.) 
 Michaélis (Commentary on Laws of Moses, Art. 195) condemns 
 it strongly. It is, however, much older; in Chrysostom, Hom. 
 xxxix, on St. Matthew, we read: εἰ εἶπε, rd μὲν ἀγαθὰ πράττετε 
 ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ, τὰ δὲ κακὰ μὴ ποιεῖτε, οὐκ ἂν ἠνέσχοντο' ἁπάντων 
 ὁμοίως ἀπεῖργε. μηδὲν γὰρ ποιήσητε, φησί. καὶ οὐδὲ οὕτως 
 κατείχοντο.---κιτιὰ. In other words, that Father supposes that the 
 Jews were commanded to do nothing at all, because they were 
 likely to do evil if allowed to do anything. And yet, he con- 
 fesses, they were not even thus kept within bounds. 
 
 Very recently, Dr. Reichel has maintained that ‘‘the Jewish 
 Sabbath was simply a day of bodily inaction.” (‘The Lord’s 
 Day not the Sabbath,” pref. p. xii. note. Dublin, 1859.) 
 
 Page 155, line 23, ἄο. ‘They were to do no servile work, 
 &c.’ I think it most reasonable to consider the permission “ to 
 prepare what every man must eat,’ as a relaxation of the pro- 
 hibitions of “doing servile work” and of ‘kindling a fire,” on 
 the Sabbath Day. They have, I know, been taken separately and 
 applied to days of different degrees of obligation. For these 
 points and those which follow, see Exod. xii. 16; Exod. xxxv. 
 2, 9; Isaiah lvii. 13 ; Nehem. x. 31, xiii. 15, 16, 18, 19, 21. 
 
 Page 156, line 2. ‘The Day of Atonement.’ Leviticus 
 xx. 27. 
 
 Page 156, line 9. ‘It was marked publicly by double sacri- 
 fices.’ Numbers xxviii. 9. ‘By the change of the shew-bread.’ 
 Leviticus xxiv. 8. ‘By the receiving of instruction.’ Deut. 
 xx FOS Ley. x. VT; Deut. xxxu 11, “12:3 2) Kings ἵν 29. 
 Compare Acts xv. 21, “Moses is read in the Synagogues ἀπὸ 
 γενεῶν dpxaiwy”’—and Acts xii. 15, 27. 
 
 Page 156, line 18. ‘It was further marked by . . . convoca- 
 tions.’ Leviticus xxiii. 3; Isaiah iv. 5. Convocations took place 
 on other days than the actual seventh: see Exod. xii. 16. 
 
 Page 156, line 31. “ Singing praises to God.’ Ps. xcii, title. 
 The contents of the Psalm seem to point to meditation on God’s 
 works. 
 
 Page 157, line ὃ. ‘Gathered not from the Fourth Command- 
 ment merely.’ 
 
422 NOTES. , 
 
 Jer. Taylor says :— 
 
 “There is nothing more reasonable, than that the commentaries 
 or additional explications of their own prophets and holy men, 
 and the usages of their nation, be taken into the sacredness of 
 the text and the limits of the commandment.”—Duct. Dub. vol. 
 xii. p. 358. 
 
 Page 157, line 29. «What Philo says.’ Ἔθος yap ἦν, ἀεὶ μὲν 
 κατὰ τὸ παρεῖκον, προηγουμένως δὲ ταῖς ἑβδόμαις, ὡς ἐδήλωσα Kal 
 πρόσθεν, φιλοσοφεῖν' τοῦ μὲν ἡγεμόνος ὑφηγουμένου, καὶ διδάσκοντος 
 ἅ τε χρὴ πράττειν καὶ λέγειν, τῶν δ᾽ εἰς καλοκαγαθίαν ἐπιδιδόντων, 
 καὶ βελτιουμένων, τά τε ἔθη καὶ τὸν βίον. ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ εἰσέτι νῦν 
 φιλοσοφοῦσι ταῖς ἑβδόμαις Ἰουδαῖοι τὴν πάτριον φιλοσοφίαν, τὸν 
 χρόνον ἐκεῖνον ἀναθέντες ἐπιστῆμῃ, καὶ θεωρίᾳ τῶν περὶ φύσιν---τὰ 
 γὰρ κατὰ πόλεις προσευκτήρια, τί ἕτερόν ἐστιν» ἢ διδασκαλεῖα φρονή- 
 cewc;—Philon. Opp. p. 685. Paris, 1640. Compare also his 
 book, “ De Decalogo,” p. 758. 
 
 See Bishop Jer. Taylor, “Duct. Dub.” vol. xi. p, 425, and 
 Thorndike, “on Relig. Assemblies,’ Works, vol.i. p. 3, Oxf. edit. 
 
 Page 158, line 4. ‘For what are men, ὅθ. Tennyson, Vorte 
 @ Arthur. Compare Bp. Nicholson, Lxpos. of the Catech. Fourth 
 Commandment ; “Sanctification of the day by the exercise of 
 religious duties [is necessary]: for to rest and not to sanctify, 
 is to keep the Sabbath of an ox or an ass.” 
 
 Cowper says something of the same sort in his Retirement: 
 
 “‘ Absence of occupation is not at rest : 
 A mind quite vacant is a mind distressed.” 
 
 Augustine, in speaking of the eternal Sabbath-keeping of the 
 faithful (Epist. lv. ὁ. 9,) says, “ Inest autem in illa requie non 
 desidiosa segnitia, sed queedam ineffabilis tranquillitas actionis 
 otiose. Sic enim ab hujus vitee operibus in fine requiescitur, ut 
 in alterius vite actione gaudeatur.” Tom. ii. col. 178. 
 
 Page 159, line 11. ‘In Josephus and in the Apocrypha.’ 
 
 Agatharchides apud Joseph. Contr. Apion. lib. i. ὁ. xxii. 
 1 Mace. ii. 38, 41. Compare Hooker, Eccl. Pol. V. 71. 8. For 
 the policy of Pompey, see Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. xiv. ο. 4, § 3. 
 
 Page 160, line 16. ‘A Sabbath-day’s journey.’ 
 
 Michaélis writes thus, “Commentary on Laws of Moses,” Art. 
 195, vol. iii, p. 162, note: “ Moses, in Exodus xvi. 29, com- 
 manded the Israelites thus: ‘See, for that the Lord hath given 
 you the Sabbath, therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the 
 
NOTES. 423 
 
 bread of two days ; abide ye every man in his place, let no man 
 go out of his place on the seventh day.’ This meant that the 
 Israelites were to stay at home on the Sabbath, and not go out, 
 as on other days, to gather manna. Now the Rabbins, detaching 
 the clause, ‘abide ye every man in his place,’ or, as it strictly 
 means, ‘sit every one in his place,’ from its connexion with the 
 rest of the passage, insisted that it was a general prohibition 
 against going out of the camp, and that when the Israelites were 
 no longer in a camp, it held in like manner with respect to 
 the city, out of which, of course, no one durst then go; but 
 that as the space of 2,000 cubits round the city belonged thereto, 
 if a person went only that distance from it, he did not go out of 
 it: and his going thus far was lawful, and constituted what they 
 called a Sabbath-day’s journey.” He refers also to Lightfoot’s 
 “ Hore Hebraice,” on Acts 1. 12, Selden discusses the subject, 
 and the somewhat varying statements of Origen, Jerom, and 
 others, respecting the exact distance. 
 
 The breaking in upon the supposed precept in any degree 
 seems to have been allowed by the Rabbins because the Jews 
 would have to attend “ the holy convocation” at the tabernacle 
 in the midst of the camp. The exact distance is said to have 
 been suggested, partly by Joshua’s appointing the space of 2,000 
 cubits between the ark and the people when they marched into 
 Canaan, Josh. iii. 4 ; partly by 2,000 cubits being assigned for 
 the suburbs of the cities of the Levites on every side, Numb. 
 xxxv. 5. This, in all probability, was the distance from Mount 
 Olivet to Jerusalem, it being said to be “a Sabbath-day’s jour- 
 ney.’ —Jennings, “ Jewish Antig.” vol. 11. p. 154. 
 
 Page 160, line 19. ‘Things not to be done on that day.’ 
 The instances in the text of the Lecture are given by Jen- 
 nings, vol. 11. p. 157. More may be seen in that place; in 
 Bingham, Antiq. of Christ. Ch. book xx. ὁ. i. § 3; and in Bp. 
 Jeremy Taylor, “ Ductor Dub.” vol. xii. p. 415. A very curious 
 description of the Sabbath of the modern Jews is quoted in 
 “Time and Faith,” vol. i. p. 101, from a work called “The 
 British Jews,” by the Rey. John Mills. 
 
 Page 161, line 1. ‘The Great Day of Atonement... ἃ Sab- 
 bath.’ Lev. xvi. 31. 
 
 Page 161, ine 7. ‘Tacitus.’ Hist. v. c. 4, 5. 
 
 Page 161, line 17. ‘Suetonius.’ In Vita Octav. ο. )xxvi. 
 
424. NOTES. 
 
 Page 161, line 20. ‘Justin.’ Lib. xxxvi. ὁ: ii. § 14. 
 Page 161, line 24. ‘Juvenal.’ Sat. xiv. 105. 
 Page 161, line 27. ‘ Martial.’ Epigr. iv. 4. 
 
 “ Quod sicce redolet palus lacune, 
 Quod jejunia Sabbatariorum,” το. 
 ‘Persius.’ Sat. v. 184. “ Recutitaque Sabbata palles.” 
 ‘Ovid.’ Rem. Am. lib. i. 219. 
 ‘“‘ Nec te peregrina morentur 
 
 Sabbata.”’ 
 
 ‘ Petronius, xxxv. 6. “Εὖ non jejund Sabbata lege premet.” 
 
 Page 161, line penult. ‘The Sabbath was made,’ ὅσο. ; Mark 
 ii. 27. I have purposely omitted to make references to the nume- 
 rous places where the Sabbath is touched upon in our Lord’s 
 history, considering them to be familiar to all. 
 
 Page 162, line 10. ‘My Father worketh,’ &c. John v. 17. 
 
 Page 162, line 14. ‘Dean Trench” “On Miracles.” The 
 healing at Bethesda, p. 257. 
 
 Page 163, line 6. ‘Stier. On John v. 17. Braune and 
 Herder are quoted by him. 
 
 Page 163, line 11. ‘Bengel.’ Gnomon N. T. in Joan. v. 17. 
 
 Page 164, line 8. ‘The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath,’ 
 Mark ii. 28 ; Luke vi. 5. 
 
 Page 166, line 22. ‘The law of the Sabbath fulfilled by 
 Christ.’ Abp. Whately seems to think that Christ broke the 
 law of the Sabbath by desiring the impotent man at Bethesda 
 to take up his bed, in contravention of what is at first sight 
 apparently enjoined by Jeremiah (xvii. 22, 24), and enforced by 
 Nehemiah (xii. 19). But surely He did no more than show His 
 contempt for the Pharisaical gloss upon those passages, which, 
 though originally intended to prevent operations of business, 
 had been strained to apply to such trivial and domestic matters 
 as these. See “Thoughts on the Sabbath,” pp. 15, 16. In John 
 v. 1, the miracle at Bethesda is said to have taken place simply 
 on an ἑορτή ; but in verse 9 it appears that ἦν σάββατον ἐν ἐκείνῃ 
 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. 
 
 Page 167, line 10, ‘The Jewish .. . system by no means 
 evangelical.’ 
 
 Compare Cecil’s “ Remains,” p. 301. 
 
NOTES. 425 
 
 “The old dispensation was a dispensation of limits, way- 
 marks, forms, and fashions: everything was weighed and 
 measured. If a man did but gather sticks upon the Sabbath, 
 he was to be stoned without mercy. If a Jew brought an 
 offering, it was of no avail if not presented at the door of the 
 tabernacle. The manner, the time, the circumstances, were all 
 minutely instituted ; and no devotion or piety of spirit could 
 exempt a man from the yoke of all these observances, for God 
 had appointed these as the way in which He chose that a devout 
 Jew should express his state of mind.” 
 
 Of the punishment of the man who was gathering sticks on 
 the Sabbath Day, Chrysostom says, “ He was put to death, we 
 ἀδικήσας ἐν τύπῳ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ᾽" (in Joan.) 
 
 Page 168, line 11. ‘The Apostles, after the Resurrection.’ 
 
 Compare Bengel on Col. ii. 16. “Non obscuré Christus, 
 postquam ipse, Sabbati Dominus, venerat, vel ante passionem 
 docuerat libertatem Sabbati: apertius verd, post resurrectionem, 
 per Paulum eam asseruit.” 
 
426 NOTES. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 Page 173, line 6. ‘So is the continuance of the new-moon 
 Festival.’ Bengel on Coloss. ii. 16, says, “Sabbatum est typus 
 rerum etiam eternarum, (Heb. iv. 3, seq.) nec tamen ideo in 
 N. T. durat: alias etiam Novilunia forent retinenda. (Is. xvi. 
 22, 23.) 
 
 Page 173, line 19. ‘Ezekiel xlvi. 3, 4.’ 
 
 ‘Likewise the people of the Lord shall worship at the door 
 of this gate before the Lord, in the Sabbaths and in the new 
 moons. And the burnt offerings that the prince shall offer unto 
 the Lord in the Sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish, 
 and a ram without blemish.” 
 
 Page 173, line 24. ‘ Pray that your flight,’ &e. 
 
 Compare Chrysostom on St. Matt. xxiv. 20 (tom vii. p. 732). 
 
 Ὁρᾷς ὅτι πρὸς Ἰουδαίους ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐκείνους 
 καταληψομένων κακῶν διαλέγεται ; οὐ γὰρ δὴ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἔμελλον 
 σάββατον τηρεῖν, ἢ ἐκεῖ ἔσεσθαι, ἡνίκα Οὐεσπασιανὸς ταῦτα ἔπραξε, 
 καὶ γὰρ ἔφθασαν προαπελθόντες οἱ πλείους" εἰ δέ τις ἀπελείφθη, ἐν 
 ἄλλοις τῆς οἰκουμένης διέτριβε μέρεσι τότε. διὰ τί δὲ, μὴ χειμῶνος, 
 μηδὲ σαβιθάτου ; χειμῶνος μὲν, διὰ τὴν δυσκολίαν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ 
 καιροῦ" σαββάτου δὲ, διὰ τὴν αὐθεντίαν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου. ἐπειδὴ 
 yap φυγῆς χρεία καὶ φυγῆς ταχίστης, οὔτε δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι 
 τότε φεύγειν ἐτόλμων διὰ τὸν νόμον" οὔτε δὲ ἐν χειμῶνι τὸ τοιοῦτον 
 εὔκολον ἦν, διὰ τοῦτο προσεύχεσθέ φησιν. ἔσται γὰρ τότε θλίψις, 
 RT Ne 
 
 Then he goes on to refer his hearers to Josephus, as an unques- 
 tionable witness of the tragic scenes that occurred. 
 
 Hengstenberg observes very well, that if “ Pray that your 
 flight be not on the Sabbath Day,” is to be taken as in favor 
 of Sabbatical observance, “the Saviour is but helping to build 
 up, what He always aimed to overthrow, the scruples of the 
 Pharisees with regard to the outward observance of the 
 Sabbath.”—On the Lord’s Day (Martin’s trans.), p. 106. 
 
 Page 174, line 22, ‘Non monstrare,’ &c. Juvenal xiv. 104. 
 
 Page 175, line 16. ‘I have only quoted these passages,’ ὅσο. 
 
 The text from Matt. xxiv. 20, was actually brought forward 
 by Brabourne in support of his Saturday-Sabbatarian view, and 
 
 ΄ 
 
NOTES. ADT 
 
 Bishop Francis White, (Z’vreatise, dc. p. 124, seq.), takes the 
 trouble to refute him. The latter quotes very appositely the 
 following passage from Abulensis, (q. 121 in Matt. xxiv.) 
 
 “Sabbatum obstabat ad fugiendum, non quasi conversi ad 
 Christum putarent esse peccatum; quia, etiamsi putarent 
 manere obligationem legis, sicut in lege Mosis, non erat pecca- 
 tum fugere in tali necessitate: tamen licet constaret de hac 
 necessitate credentibus, non constabat Judzeis inter quos vivebant 
 credentes, nesciebant enim talia pericula instare, et ideo putarent 
 eos violatores Sabbati, quasi sine causa itinerantes, et sic lapi- 
 darent eos.” 
 
 The employment of Matt. xxiv. 20, to support the Sunday- 
 Sabbatarian view is not uncommon in the present day. 
 
 Page 178, line 5. ‘ Now it is said very confidently.’ 
 
 “Notice, (says Dean Alford on Gal. iv. 10), how utterly such 
 a verse is at variance with any and every theory of a Christian 
 Sabbath, cutting at the root, as it does, of all obligatory observ- 
 ance of times as such: see notes on Rom. xiy. 5, 6, Col. 11. 
 16.” On these passages, particularly on the former, he speaks 
 yet more strongly, against the doctrine that the observance of 
 any day is of obligation under Christianity, as Scriptural and 
 Apostolical, and so Divine. “If any one day in the week were 
 invested with the sacred character of the Sabbath, it would have 
 been wholly impossible for the Apostle to commend or uphold 
 the man who judged all days worthy of equal honour—who, as in 
 verse 6, paid no regard to the (any) day. He must have visited 
 him with his strongest disapprobation, as violating a command of 
 God. I therefore infer, that Sabbatical obligation to keep any day, 
 whether seventh or first, was not required in Apostolic times.” 
 Then he goes on to enunciate his own view, which is what I 
 have called the purely Ecclesiastical one. “It must be carefully 
 remembered that this inference does not concern the question of 
 the observance of the Lord’s Day as an institution of the 
 Christian Church, analogous to the Sabbath, binding on us 
 from considerations of humanity and religious expediency, and 
 by the rules of that branch of the Church in which Providence 
 has placed us, but not in any way inheriting the divinely ap- 
 pointed obligation of the other, or the strict prohibitions by 
 which its sanctity was defended.” Thus far Dean Alford. IT 
 have given my reasons for disagreeing with him, in various parts 
 
428 NOTES. 
 
 of these Lectures. I wish to state here, that though the Eccle- 
 slastical view seems to me logically to conduct those who hold it 
 to the results which I mention, I believe that men in general 
 stop short of those results. And so in reference to those who 
 are in the otherextreme. Though I believe that the Sabbatarian 
 view of the origin and obligation of Sunday should make a 
 man, in consistency, keep his Sabbath on Saturday, and with 
 such strictness as the Mosaic command, interpreted by other 
 parts of the Old Testament, would appear to prescribe, and also 
 observe the things which St. Paul calls a σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, I do 
 not believe that many see to what their principles naturally lead 
 them. 
 
 Page 178, line 28. ‘Must have their counterparts,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Mr. Newman contends that they have; but the objection to 
 his argument is, that it is founded solely upon analogy, and not 
 upon the belief of the ancient Church. See his “Sermons on 
 Subjects of the Day,” Sermon XV. 
 
 Page 179, line 10. ‘* The passage in the Romans.’ 
 
 Of course I am perfectly aware of the controversy which has 
 been raised respecting both the genuineness and the interpreta- 
 tion of Romans xiv. 5, 6. 
 
 In the former verse the rendering of our Version has been 
 questioned, and it has been asserted that κρίνει ἡμέραν παρ᾽ 
 ἡμέραν, x.7-r. cannot bear the sense of “one man judgeth one day 
 above another, another judgeth every day alike,” for παρὰ cannot 
 be so translated. I am inclined, however, to think that our ver- 
 sion is correct, and that the passage in Soph. Ajax, 475, quoted 
 by Burton, and the use of παρὰ in 1 Cor. i. 11, confirms the 
 use of this preposition to denote preference to or comparison 
 with. (See Dr. Stanley on 1 Cor. ii. 11). 
 
 Mr. Jowett, connecting κρίνει, «.7.A. with what has preceded 
 and what follows about meats, supposes the passage should be 
 translated thus: “One man approves (selects or distinguishes) 
 alternate days; another, every day.” Hermann, on the passage in 
 Sophocles, mentioned above, and H. Stephanus, (quoted by Her- 
 mann), translate παρὰ thus, “alternis diebus ;’ but by what 
 necessity I cannot discover. Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 637, seems to agree 
 with them. But Mr. Jowett observes, that it is not quite certain 
 whether Judaism is alluded to at all here. If it is not, the number 
 of passages which I have to examine is so far diminished ; but 
 
NOTES. 4.29 
 
 I have thought it best, on the whole, to adopt the rendering 
 of the Authorized Version. Dean Alford takes no notice of the 
 difficulty of the preposition. 
 
 In verse 6 the genuineness of the second clause, “ He that 
 regardeth not the day,” &c. has been disputed. The “Five 
 Clergymen,’ who have recently issued a translation of the 
 Epistle, abandon it. Dean Alford, (one of them), retains it in the 
 text, though he places it in brackets, and observes, that it may 
 have been omitted from the similarity of ending having misled 
 early copyists; but he adds, (in accordance with his purely Eccle- 
 siastical theory of the Lord’s Day), “It may have been inten- 
 tionally omitted after the observation of the Lord’s Day came to 
 be regarded as binding.” Mr. Jowett omits it. Of course, if it 
 is spurious, the whole structure of Mr. F. W. Robertson’s 
 ingenious, but, I think, dangerous sermon, “The Sydenham 
 Palace, and the Religious non-Observance of the Sabbath,” falls 
 to the ground. I believe myself that it is thoroughly genuine, 
 and that an antithesis is required here, as in the next clause. 
 And the paraphrase that I give in the text of the Lecture seems 
 to me to render the adoption of Mr. Robertson’s interpretation 
 unnecessary. I mention his Sermon again in Lecture V. pp. 
 191, 192. It is to be found in his “Second Series,” Serm. xiv. 
 Though objectionable in some respects, it contains a noble protest 
 against the enforcement on the poor, of a rigorous observance 
 of the Lord’s Day from which the rich exempt themselves. So, 
 indeed, does his other sermon on the subject, “First Series,” 
 Serm. vi. But see Lecture VIII. p. 333. 
 
 Page 180, line 21. ‘In all this,’ &e. 
 
 It is not for a moment contended that St. Paul’s principle as 
 to charitable allowance of each other, in doing or abstaining 
 from things indifferent, is not applicable to the conduct of 
 Christians. It is very applicable, and bye and bye I shall exhibit 
 an application of it to the enjoyments and employments of the 
 Lord’s Day. What I contend is, that the Lord’s Day is not 
 itself among the things indifferent, but an institution of Scrip- 
 tural obligation. ᾿ 
 
 Page 183, line 23. ‘To have especial times for religion 
 argues,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Mr. Baden Powell, ‘Christianity without Judaism.” Essay 
 ELE ¢, xix Ὁ; 187. 
 
480 NOTES. 
 
 “ Of all corrupt notions, that of relegating religious duties to 
 certain periods or days is one of the most grateful to human 
 nature, but most radically hostile to Christian principles, though 
 often defended upon the plea, that what is left to be done at any 
 time will never be done; whereas the true argument is, that it is 
 to be done at all times.” 
 
 Page 184, line 29. ‘When did the reverence for it spring 
 
 up 
 
 Thorndike, “Laws of the Church,” IIT. 21, 20, says: “Of 
 this original and universal custom [of observing the Lord’s Day] 
 having as yet found no question made on any side, I hold it 
 superfluous to make evidence of that which no man questions.” 
 His Oxford annotator remarks, ‘‘Heylin must be noted as an 
 exception to this general rule, he being carried so far by zeal 
 against the Sabbatarians as to maintain, (Hist. of Sabbath, Part IT. 
 ὁ. ili. §. 1), that the observation of the Lord’s Day began in the 
 Church as a fixed and universal law not earlier than the time 
 and law of Constantine the Great. To whom may be added the 
 Magdeburg Centuriators, Hist. Eccl. Cent. i. lib. ii. c 6; De 
 Ceremoniis, p. 493; and De Festis, p. 503 ; and Cent. ii. ὁ. vi. 
 paige’ 
 
 Compare Baxter, “‘ Divine Appt.” ὅσ. p. 49. 
 
 “So that when 1, Christian history, 2, and heathen, acquaint 
 us with the matter of fact, that the day was kept in the Apostles’ 
 time ; 3, yea, when no hereticks or sects of Christians are found 
 contradicting it, but the Churches then and after universally 
 practised it without any controversy ; what fuller historical 
 evidence can there be ? 
 
 “And to say that, 1, the Apostles would not have reproved 
 this, if it had not been their own doing; 2, or that it could be 
 done, and they not know it; 3, and that all Christians who 
 acknowledge their authority would have consented in such a 
 practice superstitiously before their faces, and against their wills, 
 and no testimony be left us of one faithful Church or Christian 
 that contradicted it, and stuck to the Apostolical authority, even 
 where the Churches received their writings, and publickly read 
 them ; all this is such as is not by sober Christians to be 
 believed.” 
 
 Page 187, line 17. ‘St. Paul, &c. Compare Olshausen on 
 Rom. xiv. 5, 6. 
 
NOTES. 431 
 
 “In the words κρίνει πᾶσαν ἡμέραν is expressed the original 
 Apostolic view, which did not distinguish particular festivals, 
 because to it the whole Christian life had become one festival. 
 As, however, the season of the Church’s prime passed away, the 
 necessity could not but at the same time have again made itself 
 felt, of giving prominence to points of festival light in the 
 general current of every-day life.” 
 
 It is obvious that, if Olshausen’s remark is correct, either the 
 Apostles themselves altered their view, and so acknowledged 
 themselves to be mistaken, or the Church after them altered 
 their practice, and that so, in observing the Sunday, we have 
 un-Apostolic Christianity. 
 
 Page 189, line 2. ‘Having been established originally,’ &e. 
 On this, see Dr. T. Young, ‘‘ Dies Dominica,” Prooem. p. ii. :— 
 
 “Hi audacter potius, quam vere, hujus temporis auctoritatem, 
 non Dei, sed hominum constitutioni acceptam ferunt; quasi 
 Dominica solennitas esset instar Feriarum que erant Romanis 
 imperative, scilicet, quas Preetores pro arbitrio potestatis indice- 
 bant, atque ita ejus observatio a civilis Magistrattis, et Ecclesiz 
 auctoritate penderet.” 
 
 Page 189, line 17. ‘A change of the day.’ 
 
 It is curious that Mr. Holden, “The Christian Sabbath,” p. 
 273, Lond. 1825, though he sees the peculiar fitness of the first 
 day of the week, does not see it in the light of an imperative 
 duty. ‘“‘ Forcibly (he says) as this day is recommended to our 
 adoption, I cannot perceive it to be unalterable,” &c. This was 
 a natural result of his theory that “one day in seven” is the 
 essence of the Fourth Commandment, and that it is as well 
 obeyed by keeping the First as by keeping the Seventh Day. 
 If so, as the day has been changed once, it may be changed 
 again. He cannot, in candour, avoid this conclusion ; and he 
 is driven to the same sort of reservations and qualifications as 
 Suarez, and Bp. Sanderson, and Dr. Heylin, and Abp. Whately 
 have adopted. 
 
 On the subject of change of the day, Dr. Whewell, “ El. of 
 Morality,” &c. B. IV. c. xvi. p. 122, remarks,— 
 
 “Tn points on which the evidence of Apostolic and Catholic 
 usage is complete, a Christian, or a body of Christians, have no 
 liberty to alter the mode of observance. As an example of this, 
 it appears to be inconsistent with Christian duty for any com- 
 
482 NOTES. 
 
 munity to alter the day of religious observances from the first to 
 any other day of the week ; as Calvin is said to have suggested 
 to the city of Geneva to do, in order that they might show their 
 Christian liberty in regard to ordinances. If to do this were 
 within the limits of Christian liberty, it would likewise be so to 
 alter the period of the recurrence of the day, and to observe 
 every fifth day, or every tenth, as was appointed in France when 
 Christianity was rejected.” 
 
 Page 189, line 19. ‘Calvin . . . proposed to the magistrates 
 of Geneva.’ 
 
 “Whereupon it was sadly demurred upon, even in Geneva, to 
 have that day altered to Thursday; and himself (Calvin) holds it 
 alterable.”—Dr. John Pocklington, “Sunday no Sabbath,’ p. 8. 
 London, 1636. He refers to Barclay’s Parzen. lib. i. 6. xiii. p. 160. 
 
 Page 189, line 20. ‘Dr. Heylin.” “ Hist. of Sabb.” Part IT. 
 c. v1. § 2. 
 
 Page 189, line 22. ‘Suarez.’ Lib. 11. “De Relig.” ¢. i. 
 
 Page 189, line 24. ‘Bishop Sanderson.’ In his ‘Opinion 
 upon certain Cases,” &c. Answer to the Second Question. 
 
 Page 189, line 29.‘ Archbishop Whately.’ “Thoughts,” ὅσο. 
 p. 18. 
 
 Page 190, lime 17. ‘Our theory precludes any such result.’ 
 The following is an extract from Bishop Cosin’s “ Determination 
 on the Immutable Obligation of the Lord’s Day,” at Cambridge, 
 1640. Itis of the nature of a reply to Dr. Heylin’s “ Hist. of 
 the Sabbath.” It will be observed that the Bishop makes use of 
 the argument that the Lord’s Day has no traceable origin in 
 Ecclesiastical Councils. ‘Denique, ipsa quoque omnium sex- 
 culorum experientia sententiz nostre veritatem confirmat, quum 
 Eeclesia Christiana in nullis Conciliis et Synodis vel Diem hune 
 primum instituerit, vel instituti mutationem Diei unquam atten- 
 taverit; neque unquam futurum sit ut sine maximo Christianorum 
 scandalo eum quoquomodo attentet, quia nulla causa aut occasio 
 singularis cogitari potest, que Diem hunc memorize resurrectionis 
 Domini et sanctissimis usibus dicatum mutabilem reddat : contra 
 de aliis legibus ad tempus tantum institutis censendum est, 
 harum enim cum causa mutata sit, ipse etiam leges mutari 
 possint, et soleant ; at in hac nostra, causa perpetua et sempi- 
 terna erit, nec convelli aut loco suo moveri queat. Nec quicquam 
 valet illud a Suarezio suggestum ; ‘mutari scilicet hune Diem 
 
NOTES. 488 
 
 posse in alium per auctoritatem Ecclesiz absolutam, non verd 
 practicam :’ non minus enim valuisset heec distinctio in Sabbatum 
 olim Judzorum, quam in nostrum quadrat Dominicum, quum in 
 neutro erat aliquid intrinsecum quod hujus vel illius mutationem 
 vetuit, sed externum tantum Dei mandatum. Est vero lex 
 divina positiva, nulla autem realis sanctitas, que vel Sabbatum 
 Hebraicum vel Dominicum Christianum a quovis alio die dis- 
 pescuit. Aio igitur, quod stante lege Evangelicé non magis in 
 nobis sita est potestas mutandi Dominicum, quam in Judeeis olim 
 erat transferendi Sabbatum stante lege Mosaica.” 
 
 Page 191, line ult. ‘Mr. F. W. Robertson.’ Ut supra. I 
 believe that much of the confusion of thought, which appears in 
 the two Sermons of Mr. Robertson above quoted, arises from 
 this: that though he spends a good deal of time in proving that 
 the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day are distinct institutions, he 
 afterwards forgets that he has done so; and applying to the 
 Lord’s Day what is said in the New Testament as to the in- 
 different character of the Sabbath, in effect makes them the 
 same. 
 
 Page 192, line 29. ‘Hengstenberg.” “The Lord’s Day,” 
 p- 93 (Martin’s translation). 
 
 Page193, line 4. ‘Every day isa Sabbath to the Christian,’ &e. 
 
 It is curious that Philo (de Sept. δὲ 2—5), puts jirst in his 
 list of ten Jewish ἑορταὶ, “ Every day.” πρώτη μὲν, ἣν ἀκούσας 
 θαυμάσαι τις ἂν ἴσως. Αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡμέρα πᾶσα. The second is 
 the seventh-day Sabbath. In § 6, Philo speaks of the employ- 
 ments of the Sabbath ; in ὃ 7, of kindling fire, ὅσο. 
 
 Page 193, line 12. ‘The false spiritualism,’ &c. 
 
 Dr. Chalmers, ‘‘ Congregational Sermons,” vol. ii. Sermon xiv. 
 on “The Advantages of a Fixed Sabbath,” pp. 304, seq., has 
 some admirable remarks on the importance of regularly recurring 
 times for religious duties. His text is, Gal. iv. 10. 
 
 Page 194, line 16. ‘In order to keep every day,’ &c. 
 
 Pridden, ‘‘ Early Christians,” p. 120, translates thus from 
 Fleury. His language may, mutatis mutandis, be urged in 
 favor of a fixed Lord’s Day. 
 
 “ Although it is true that the Christian religion is altogether 
 inward and spiritual, yet Christians are men as well as others, 
 and therefore not above the power of sense and imagination. 
 Devotion must therefore be assisted by the impressions of sense. 
 
 FF 
 
4.84. NOTES. 
 
 Were we angels, we might pray in all places alike—in the hurry 
 of the roads, in the crowd of the streets, in the noise of the © 
 guard-chamber, or in the confusion and riot of a tavern. Why, 
 then, do we shun these places of distraction, and when we would 
 be devout, seek after silence and retirement, but only as a 
 remedy against the weakness of sense and imagination? It is 
 not God that hath need of temples and places of prayer, but we. 
 He is equally present in all places, and always alike ready to 
 hear us everywhere, but we are not always in a frame of mind 
 fit to address Him.” Hence, &c. &e. 
 
 Page 196, line ult. ‘Had the Sabbath received its full anti- 
 type in Canaan,’ &c. It indeed received a partial antitype in 
 this way, for David says elsewhere, 1 Chron. xxiii. 25, “The 
 Lord God of Israel hath given rest unto His people, that they 
 may dwell in Jerusalem (07, as i is in the margin, and He 
 dwelleth in Jerusalem) for ever.” 
 
 Page 197, line 9. ‘If the true Joshua,’ Heb. iv. 10. Dean 
 Alford says upon this verse, ‘that Owen, Alting, Stark, and 
 recently Ebrard, refer ὁ γὰρ εἰσελθὼν to Christ. ‘For He who 
 entered into His (own or God’s) rest, Himself also rested from 
 His works, like as God rested from His own; and, therefore, 
 from our Forerunner having entered into this Sabbatism, it is 
 reserved for us, the people of God, to enter into it, and because 
 of Him. ‘Thus,’ as Ebrard says, ‘Jesus is placed in the 
 liveliest contrast to Joshua, who had not brought God’s people 
 to their rest, and is designated as ‘‘ That one who entered into 
 God’s rest.”’” 
 
 Page 197, line 20. ‘No longer to be called κατάπαυσις." 
 
 “ Σαββατισμὸς est haud dubie idem, quod antea seepius κατά- 
 παυσις dicitur. Sed maluit Auctor hic σαββατισμῷ uti, quod 
 legentis animum ad ea revocaret, quae supra de Deo, septimo die 
 quiescente, dixisset, simul que doceret, esse in Sabbato typum 
 sive adumbrationem ccelestis vite, quae et ipsa perpetuum Sabba- 
 tum est habitura.”—Abresch. not. in Heb. iv. 
 
 “Non dixit guietem sed Sabbatismum, nomine proprit expli- 
 eato, et eo quidem quo maximeé oblectabat. Eo item nomine 
 usus est Apostolus, ut revocaret ab externa observatione Sabbati 
 observationem. Neque enim aliter potest ejus abrogatio intel- 
 ligi, quam cognito spirituali fine quem proximé attingit.’”’— 
 Calvin, in Heb. iv. 
 
NOTES. 435 
 
 Page 198, line 15. ‘If we make it identical,’ Ge. 
 
 Morer, Ἡμέρα Κυριακὴ, p. 87, puts the argument another way. 
 
 ‘The Sabbath is a shadow of things to come, viz. of Christ, 
 ‘the body ;’ if, therefore, we assert that the Sabbath continues 
 now, we deny that Christ has come.” 
 
 Page 203, line 24. ‘They are binding upon us because.’ 
 Something has been said upon the points here involved in a note 
 to Lecture IV. p. 143, 1. 24. The following may be added. 
 
 1. Dr. Whewell, “Elements of Morality,” ὅσο. says, B. III. 
 Ὁ. xvi.:—“The Ten Commandments are not binding upon 
 Christians because they are parts of the law of Moses, but 
 because they are parts of the moral law. Zhow shalt not steal ; 
 thou shalt not kill ; thou shalt not commit adultery ; are precepts 
 which do not derive their authority from any special command, 
 but from the moral nature God has given to man. There are 
 parts of the Ten Commandments which are’ merely arbitrary, or 
 local, or temporary, and apply only to the ancient Jews. Such is 
 the reason given in the fifth command, that thy days, ὅσο. ; such 
 is the command of absolute abstinence from labour on the 
 Sabbath ; such is the selection of the seventh day of the week 
 for the day of rest, if that selection is really included in the 
 command.” 
 
 2. Abp. Whately’s Essay “On the Abolition of the Law,” 
 the fifth in his Second Series, is a valuable treatise on this part 
 of my subject. I can, however, only quote a few words from 
 § 2: “The very law itself indicates, on the face of it, that 
 the whole of its precepts were intended for the Israelites exclu- 
 sively, (on which supposition they cannot of course be, by their 
 own authority, binding on Christians), not only from the inter- 
 mixture of civil and ceremonial precepts with moral, but from 
 the very terms in which even these last are delivered. For 
 instance, there cannot be any duties more clearly of universal 
 obligation than that of the worship of the one true God alone, 
 and that of honoring parents; yet the precepts for both of these 
 are so delivered as to address them to the children of Israel ex- 
 clusively : ‘I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the 
 land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage ; thou shalt have 
 none other Gods but Me.’ And again, ‘ Honor thy father and 
 thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord 
 thy God giveth thee.’ 
 
 FF2 
 
436 NOTES. 
 
 “ The simplest and clearest way, then, of stating the case with 
 respect to the present question, is, to lay down, on the one hand, 
 that the Mosaic law was limited both to the nation of the Israel- 
 ites and to the period before the Gospel ; but, on the other hand, 
 that the natural principles of morality, which, (among other 
 things), it inculcates, are, from their own character, of universal 
 obligation ; that, as on the one hand ‘no Christian man (as our 
 article expresses it) is free from the obedience of the command- 
 ments which are called moral ;’ so, on the other hand, it is not 
 because they are commandments of the Mosaic law that he is 
 bound to obey them, but because they are moral. Indeed there 
 are numerous precepts in the laws, for instance, of Solon and 
 Mahomet, from a conformity to which no Christian can pretend 
 exemption: yet, though we are bound to practise almsgiving 
 and several other duties there enjoined, and to abstain from 
 murder, for instance, and false witness, which these lawgivers 
 forbid, no one would say that a part of the Koran is binding on 
 Christians, since their conduct is determined, not by the 
 authority of the Koran, but by the nature of the case.” 
 
 3. Dr. Heurtley says, “ Univ. Serm. on the Lord’s Day,” 
 pp. 17, 18, that the moral law did not become obligatory for the 
 first time when it was promulgated at Sinai, nor upon any except 
 the Jews because of its beg promulgated there. It had been 
 obligatory upon all men from the beginning of the world, though 
 its obligations had been grievously lost sight of and forgoiten.” 
 Dr. Heurtley’s view of the subject generally does not agree with 
 my own, any more than that of Dr. Whewell, or of Abp. Whately 
 does, but I quote him merely for the point in question. 
 
 Page 203, line 28. ‘That opinion of Calvin seems to be a 
 probable one,’ το. 
 
 Calvin’s view is perspicuously stated by Hengstenberg, (‘The 
 Lord’s Day,” pp. 81, 82,) though I conceive he is scarcely justi- 
 fied in attributing the assertion which he is controverting to 
 “English Theologians,” at least in such a sense as to make it a 
 dogmatic statement of the English Church. He asks the ques- 
 tions, “ What is the Decalogue? and in what relation does it 
 stand to the other laws of the Old Testament?” and he then 
 makes “English Theologians” reply,—‘ The Decalogue differs 
 entirely from the other laws of Moses. It contains the purely 
 moral law, and is binding upon all men and all times. For the 
 
NOTES. 437 
 
 rest of the law was written by Moses in a book ; the Decalogue 
 was first proclaimed by the voice of God, amidst fearful natural 
 phenomena, which called attention to its importance, and then 
 written by the finger of God upon tables of stone, the symbol of 
 perpetuity.” These statements I cannot discover to have been 
 anywhere made by the English Church, though something very 
 like them is found in Hooker, whom Hengstenberg had probably 
 in view. [See Lecture IV. p. 144, for some remarks upon them. ] 
 In opposition to them, Hengstenberg makes the following state- 
 ment, which will be found to be much in accordance with what I 
 have said in the text of this Lecture: “The Decalogue contains 
 the kernel and quintessence of the whole code of laws of the Old 
 Testament. It was important that immediately after the cove- 
 nant was concluded, the chief points in the arrangements of the 
 new house should be sketched in rough lines upon the door-post. 
 The Decalogue is the sketch of all the legislation that follows ; 
 and this is the filling up of the former—so that Calvin has 
 adopted a correct method, when he adds to every commandment 
 all that belongs to it throughout the Pentateuch. Thus he 
 appends to the Sabbath command not only all that occurs with 
 direct reference to the Sabbath, but all that relates to the Sabbatic 
 year, the year of jubilee, and the festivals. From this view 
 alone, that the Decalogue contaimed the quintessence of the 
 whole of the Mosaic laws, is the appropriateness of the symbol 
 of the stone tables made sufficiently apparent, and the frequent 
 allusions made to the Ten Commandments by Christ and the 
 Apostles under the simple name of the commandments, explained. 
 For if they were indeed the most important part of the Old 
 Testament legislation, it follows that the kernel in them must be 
 of greater worth than the shell—the eternal than that which 
 was merely temporary ; though it by no means follows that there 
 was no shell at all in them, that no special ends were to be 
 answered, and that they had no exclusive reference to the people 
 to whom they were first given. On the contrary, there are 
 several proofs that such a special purpose did exist; that the 
 Ten Commandments are not to be applied in this unhesitating 
 manner to the Christian Church ; and that, in fact, regarded as 
 laws, they are no more applicable to it than the rest of the 
 Pentateuch. The words with which they are introduced, ‘I 
 am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of Egypt, out of 
 
438 NOTES. 
 
 the house of bondage,’ are sufficient in themselves to prove this. 
 These words establish the right of God to give the law, and the 
 duty of Israel to obey it. This right is claimed by God, not on 
 the ground of His general relation to the human race, but on that 
 of the special relation into which He has entered to Israel. He 
 has bought it at a great price from its former hard masters, the 
 Egyptians, not that it may belong to itself, but that it may 
 belong to Him. This grownd of obligation does not affect us, 
 and therefore the obligation itself does not.” 
 
 Bp. Ironside, “Seven Questions of the Sabbath,” speaks thus 
 of Calvin’s view: “The Sabbath being in the Decalogue, 
 sacrifices and all other ceremonials were there also; for the 
 Sabbath is there placed as the swmmum genus, and short 
 epitome, of the whole ceremonial law, as Calvin hath well 
 observed.” 
 
 Page 204, line 17. ‘The Sabbatarian spiritualises it in his 
 peculiar way,’ &c. 
 
 Compare Dean Alford’s remark in his ‘‘ Second Letter to Mr. 
 Sperling,” pp. 12, 13: “If I were disposed to turn the tables— 
 which I am not, for I as little believe my Sabbatarian friends 
 guilty of disingenuousness as they me—might I not fairly say, to 
 which of the two does the charge more properly apply—to my- 
 self, who, regarding the commandment as not binding in its 
 literal sense, read it as interpreted by the Gospel and the 
 Church,—or to them, who, regarding it as strictly and literally 
 obligatory on them, obey its command to observe one prescribed 
 day, for a definite assigned reason, and in a strictly specified 
 manner, by observing another day, for a totally different reason, 
 and in a manner entirely their own ;—first praying that they 
 may keep the law, then abrogating every word of it, substituting 
 a new law of their own, and investing it with the authority of 
 the other.” 
 
 Page 205, line 1. ‘Other reasons which may have influenced 
 our Reformers.’ 
 
 The terms in which confession to the priest is spoken of in 
 the first and second Books of King Edward the Sixth respect- 
 ively, are very different. In the first it is considered the obvious 
 and natural method of preparation for the Holy Communion ; 
 in the second it is only the resort suggested, in case a person 
 cannot, after having tried, quiet his own conscience. Thorndike, 
 
NOTES. 439 
 
 “Just Weights and Measures,” c. xxii. (Works, vol. v. p. 245), 
 observes, that “confession of sins (of course to the Almighty) 
 afore the Eucharist is seen in some of the ancient liturgies ;” 
 and he adds, “I do not find it questioned on any hand, as 
 either unseasonable, or not requisite in this action. The Deca- 
 logue, and answers, which, since Queen Elizabeth’s time [this is 
 an error; he should have said, since King Edward the Sixth’s 
 second Book], we begin the service with, seem more proper to be 
 placed here, (7.¢. just before the Confession), to branch forth the 
 particulars of those sins which we confess. Jor the command- 
 ments are certain heads, to which men may refer the sins for 
 which they ask pardon, and grace to avoid them.” But though 
 Thorndike has thus justified the insertion of the Ten Command- 
 ments in the Liturgy, he is not quite satisfied with it after 
 all: and here I venture to disagree with him. He goes on thus: 
 “There is great reason why they are not found in the service of 
 the ancient Church. The reason is, because the Decalogue is 
 proper to the law, and unproper to Christianity.” His real 
 objection, however, is that “ the Sabbatarian error hath had the 
 rise, or increase, from the construction, which ignorant preachers 
 have made, of the prayer for remission of sins against this 
 Fourth Commandment, which the Church prescribeth.” 
 
 There is, I think, little doubt that a combination of motives 
 influenced the Reformers in their insertion of the Ten Command- 
 ments in the Liturgy. The providing of convenient heads for 
 self-examination was one, and a very wise one, so it seems to 
 me. I cannot regret that they are there, even though their 
 presence may have led to the abuse of which Thorndike speaks. 
 It is possible that the offering of a protest against idolatry was 
 another motive ; that a desire to counteract the purely Eccle- 
 siastical theory of the Lord’s Day was a third; that the incul- 
 cation of loyalty by the words of the Fifth Commandment was 
 a fourth ; and that the guarding of morality generally against 
 the communism of the Anabaptists was a fifth motive. It may 
 also be that Valerandus Pollanus (or Pullain), and John a Lasco 
 (or Laski), the former a refugee from Strasburg, and the latter 
 a Polish noble, (both exiled in consequence of the Znxterim), may 
 have suggested the idea of the insertion, by their liturgies. 
 And no other authority except theirs, and a manual of one 
 Gilbertus Cognatus, a.p. 1553, and the Primers of a.p. 1535 
 
440 NOTES. 
 
 and 1545, may be adducible as similar cases. But, 1. Every 
 national Church is surely at liberty to arrange her own Liturgy, 
 and to derive hints for such arrangement from any available 
 source ; and, 2. All things considered, the advantages gained by 
 the insertion more than counterbalance any supposed or con- 
 tingent disadvantage. As for the question of ancient precedent, 
 if any justification is necessary, it was a practice of antiquity 
 to read a lesson from the Old Testament before proceeding 
 to those from the New. Our own Church has adopted this 
 plan in the Morning and Evening Service. The Liturgy is 
 clearly a service distinct and complete in itself; and, as such, 
 may follow the rule of the other services. Mr. Palmer has 
 discussed this point, and excused the invariableness of this Old 
 Testament lesson by several cases somewhat parallel. ‘Orig. 
 Liturg.” vol. ii. pp. 27-32. For the other points, see Procter 
 “On the Book of Common Prayer,” pp. 45-49, and p. 341; 
 L’Estrange, ‘‘ Alliance of Divine Offices,” ο. vi. p. 246, Oxford 
 Edit. 
 
 Page 206, line 4. ‘The Scotch and the American Liturgies.’ 
 The Scotch Liturgy, in the rubric before the Commandments, 
 instead of the words, “for their transgression thereof for the 
 time past,” has, “‘for their transgression of every duty therein, 
 either according to the letter or to the mystical importance of 
 the said commandment, for the time past.” The American 
 Liturgy allows the alternative of using either the Decalogue, or 
 the Evangelical Form in which our Lord sums up all religious 
 and moral duty. 
 
 Page 206, line 15. ‘It no more binds us,’ &e. Compare the 
 passage from Selden’s “Table Talk,” quoted in Lecture IV. 
 p. 145 ; and in page 357 the paraphrase of the Response given 
 in the extract from Dr. Hawkins’ Bampton Lecture. 
 
 Page 206, line 22. ‘It does not by including all Church 
 Holydays,’ &c. See Lecture I. pp. 11, 12, where a paraphrase 
 of the Response is given according to Dr. Heylin’s interpretation 
 of it. This is also the acceptation of the commandment in the 
 Tridentine and certain other authorized Catechisms of the Church 
 of Rome. 
 
 Page 206, line 25. ‘It does not so volatilize,’ &c. The 
 tendency of the neglect of the passages in Scripture which 
 indicate the Lord’s Day as an observance of the Apostles, while 
 
NOTES. 441 
 
 those passages are dwelt upon exclusively which abrogate or 
 spiritualize the Sabbath, is here hinted at. 
 
 Page 206, line penult. ‘And lastly, it does not,’ &c. The view 
 is controverted by anticipation by Bishop Jer. Taylor. He says: 
 “Upon the occasion of this, (Col. ii. 16, 17), and some other like 
 expressions, the Christians have supposed that all the rites of 
 Moses were types and figures of something in Christianity, and 
 that some mystery of ours must correspond to some rite of theirs. 
 This fancy makes some impertinences in the discourses of wise 
 men, and amuses and entertains the understanding of many with 
 little images of things which were never intended, and hath too 
 often a very great influence with doctrines: whereas here the 
 word σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, ‘the shadow of things to come,’ 
 means a shadow in respect of the things to come: that is, if these 
 rituals be compared to the ta μέλλοντα, ‘those things which 
 were to come,’ they are but very shadows and nothings: σκιὰ or 
 ‘shadow’ signifies not in relation, but in opposition to, ‘ corpus.’ 
 ‘The shadow,’ that is a religion consisting but in rituals and 
 exterior solemnities ; but Christianity is ‘the body,’ that is, that 
 durable, permanent, true, and substantial religion which is fit for 
 all men, and to abide for all ages.”—Ductor Dubit.*Works, vol. 
 ΧΙ, p. 419. 
 
 Page 207, line ult. ‘We may not argue with the Tridentine 
 Catechism.’ Vide Catech. Rom. Part III. cap. iv. de Tertio 
 [Quarto] Precepto, Questt. 17, 18, 19. See also the Italian 
 abridgment of it, noticed in Lecture II. p. 42, and especially, in 
 Lecture VI. p. 253. 
 
 Page 210, line 8. ‘Under Apostolic example.’ Compare 
 Thorndike, “Of the Laws of the Church,” III. ο. xxi. (Works, 
 vol. iv. p. 499). “And I cautioned afore, that the resurrection 
 of Christ was as sufficient a reason why the Church should serve 
 God on the Sunday ; as the creation of the world was, why the 
 Synagogue should serve God on the Saturday. But this 
 dependance was not immediate ; because I shewed also, that this 
 was not enough to introduce the obligation upon us. The act of 
 the Apostles intervening was the means to make the obligation 
 necessary and legal; whereof, before, the ground only was 
 reasonable. But I do not mean this dependance to be the effect 
 of the fourth commandment only, which prescribeth only bodily 
 rest, as I have showed ; but of those appendences of it, whereby 
 
44.2, NOTES. 
 
 the assemblies of the Jews and their sacrifices for that day were 
 enacted. For, because they were to serve God upon the Sab- 
 bath, it was certainly reasonable, in regard of our Lord’s resur- 
 rection, that Christians should serve God upon the first day of 
 the week.” 
 
 Page 210, line 23. ‘The Book of Homilies.’ “Homily on the 
 Time and Place of Prayer.” 
 
 Page 211, line 24. ‘Archbishop Bramhall.’ “Disc. on the 
 Sabb.” &c. Works, vol. v. p. 70. Puller, “Moder. of the 
 Church of England,” p. 160, speaks of Archbishop Bramhall’s 
 comment on the Homily with entire approval. 
 
 Page 213, line 6. “1 rather hold,’ &c. This is the substance 
 of a remark by Dr. Stanley in his Essay on Apostolical Worship. 
 See what he says on 1 Cor. xiv. 26—40. 
 
 Page 214, line ult. ‘To where beyond,’ &c. Tennyson, 
 Guinevere. 
 
NOTES. 443 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 Page 217, line 3. ‘They were too numerous for that.’ 
 
 Compare Baxter, “ The Divine Appt.” ὅσ. p. 150. 
 
 “The Devil hath here been a great Undoer by Overdoing, 
 When he knew not how else to cast out the holy observation of 
 the Lord’s Day with zealous people, he found out the trick of 
 devising so many days, called Holy Days, to set up by it, that 
 the people might perceive that the observation of them all as 
 holy was never to be expected. And so the Lord’s Day was 
 jumbled in the heap of Holy Days, and all turned into ceremony 
 by the Papists, and too many other Churches in the world, 
 which became Calvin’s temptation, (as his own words make 
 plain), to think too meanly of the Lord’s Day with the rest.” 
 
 Page 221, line 15. ‘This was Brentzer’s view.’ 
 
 John Brentius, or Brentzer, was born in Suabia a.p. 1499, 
 and educated at Heidelberg University. His doctrines coincided 
 generally with those of Luther, who speaks highly of him as an 
 expounder of Holy Scripture. (‘‘ Table-Talk,” ὃ 749, Hazlitt’s 
 Edit.). He died a.p. 1570. Bp. Prideaux, “ De Sabbato,” ὃ 7, 
 and Dr. Heylin, “ History of the Sabbath,” Part II. ὁ. vi. p. 
 467, both mention his low view of the Lord’s Day. 
 
 Page 221, line 20. ‘It has been said,—by the Rey. J. F. D. 
 Maurice, Second “ Sermon on the Sabbath,” p. 41. 
 
 Page 222, line 14. “ Luther’s “ Table-Talk.”’ Quoted in the 
 “Westminster Review” for Sept. 1856, p. 456. 
 
 Page 222, line 24. ‘Baxter.’ “The Divine Appt.” &c. 
 ps» 191 
 
 Page 223, line 11. ‘The “ Larger Catechism” of Luther.’ 
 
 This document is quoted by Hengstenberg, ‘The Lord’s Day,” 
 Ῥ. 62 (Martin’s transl.) ; but I have consulted the original, and 
 made various alterations in the rendering. 
 
 Page 225, line 4. ‘The... Confession... at Augsburg.’ 
 See the “ Sylloge Confessionum,” Oxford, 1827; in Artic. de 
 “ Potestate Ecclesiasticé,” p. 157. For the corresponding pas- 
 sage in the later edition of it, see ibid. p. 230. 
 
 Page 226, line 13. ‘Chemnitz.’ See Dr. Heylin, “ History 
 
AAA NOTES. 
 
 of the Sabbath,” ii. 6, pp. 465-468 ; and Mr. Baden Powell, 
 “ Christianity without Judaism,” p. 236. 
 
 Page 226, line 21. ‘Bucer.’ See Dr. Heylin (ut supra), 
 ii. 6, p. 466 ; and Dean Hook’s “ Eccles. Biog.” Art. Bucer. 
 
 Page 227, line 11. ‘Peter Martyr’? See Dr. Heylin (ut 
 supra), li. 6, p. 466. 
 
 Page 227, line 24. ‘The Heidelberg Catechism.’ See the “Syl 
 loge Confess.” (ut supra). In Artic. de “Gratitudine,” p. 388. 
 
 Page 228, line ὃ. ‘Calvin. “Institutes,” 11. ο. vii. § 28-34- 
 
 Page 229, line 16. ‘The Catechism of Geneva.’ See Dr. H. 
 A. Niemeyer’s “ Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis 
 publicatarum,” Art. VII. Lipsiz, 1840. 
 
 Page 229, line 17. ‘Beza.’ Born a.p. 1519, died a.p. 1605. 
 Dr. Heylin (ut supra), ii. 6, p. 464, states his view thus: “ Beza, 
 Calvin’s scholar and Achates, sings the self-same song, that, how- 
 soever the assemblies of the Lord’s Day were of Apostolical and 
 Divine tradition, ‘sic tamen ut Judaica cessatio ab omni opere 
 non observaretur, quoniam hoc plane fuisset Judaismum non 
 abolere, sed tantum quod ad diem attinet, immutare :’ and then 
 he adds that this 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 businesses, might wholly give themselves to 
 hearing the Word of God, ‘in merum Judaismum degenerarit.’” 
 
 Page 229, line 19. ‘The Helvetic Confession.” See the 
 “ Sylloge Confess.” (ut supra). In Artic. de “ Feriis,” ὅσο. p. 90, 
 
 Page 231, ine 12. ‘Neither the day itself? ὅθ. Compare 
 the following translation of an extract from Zuingle, the Swiss 
 Reformer, born a.p, 1484, died a.p. 1531. It is quoted in 
 “Christ our Rest,” by a Layman, p. 182, Bath, 1856. 
 
 ‘Now hear, my Valentinus, how the Sabbath is rendered 
 ceremonial. If we would have the Lord’s Day so bound to time 
 that it shall be wickedness, ἐγ. aliud tempus transferre, to transfer 
 it to another time, in which resting from our labours equally as 
 in that, we may hear the Word of God, if necessity haply shall 
 so require, this day so solicitously observed, would obtrude on 
 us a ceremony. For we are no way bound to time, but time 
 ought so to serve us, that it is lawful, and permitted to each 
 Church, when necessity urges, (as is usual to be done, especially 
 
NOTES. 4A, 
 
 in harvest time), to transfer the solemnity and rest of the Lord’s 
 Day or Sabbath to some other day ; or on the Lord’s Day itself, 
 after finishing of the holy things, to follow their labours, though 
 not without great necessity.” —Libel. ad Valentin. Gentil. 
 
 Page 232, line 21. ‘Hengstenberg.’ See ‘The Lord’s Day,” 
 pp. 69-76. 
 
 Page 232, line 23. ‘Udemann.’ Godfrey Udemann was a 
 preacher at Zurich, and is mentioned by Brandt as having been 
 present at the Synod of Dort. 
 
 Page 232, line 24. ‘Teelling” William Teelling was a Dutch 
 theologian. He is mentioned by Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 116 (Mac- 
 laine’s transl.). 
 
 Page 233, line 3. ‘The Synod of Dort.’ For a full account 
 of this assembly, see Brandt’s “‘ History of the Reformation in 
 and about the Low Countries,” 4 vols. (English translation, 
 London, 1722), and the “ Letters from Dort,” by the “ever- 
 memorable” John Hales, in his ‘Golden Remains,’ London, 
 673. See also, for the proceedings after Hale’s departure, Dr. 
 Balcanqual’s Letters to Sir Dudley Carlton, Hale’s “Golden Re- 
 mains,” (ut supra), pp. 99 seq. especially p. 162. 
 
 Page 233, line 7. ‘Some Supplementary Sessions.’ Twenty- 
 six of these were held; of which Brandt gives the following 
 account, B. XLII. vol. ii. p. 312 :— 
 
 “ap. 1619. After the departure of the foreigners from Dort, 
 the Dutch divines held twenty-six Sessions more, in order to 
 finish those matters which they had reserved to themselves or 
 which were particularly referred to them. For which purpose 
 we shall chiefly make use of the Synodical Writings or the Post- 
 Acta, which were published in the year 1668. 
 
 “On the 16th of May, 162d Session, Afternoon, 
 
 “Tt was resolved that the Churches shall solemnize or keep, 
 together with the Lord’s Day, likewise Christmas Day, Easter, 
 and Whitsunday, and the day immediately following each of the 
 said festivals. And forasmuch as there are likewise observed in 
 most of the towns and provinces of the Netherlands, the days of 
 our Saviour’s Circumcision and Ascension, the Ministers of all 
 those places where the said days are not as yet observed shall use 
 their endeavors with the civil powers to bring them all to an 
 exact uniformity. 
 
 “ And on the 7th of May, 163d Session, Morning, 
 
4.4.5 NOTES. 
 
 “Tt was resolved to apply to their High Mightinesses the 
 States General, to obviate and restrain, by new Ordinances and 
 strict Placards, the manifold profanations of the Sabbath, which 
 increased more and more, and spread themselves over all these 
 Provinces. 
 
 “Upon the occasion of this resolution, there arose some debates 
 in the Synod, about the question of the necessity of the observa- 
 tion of the Lord’s Day. This question had already been started 
 and canvassed in some of the Churches of Zealand. And now 
 the Professors of Divinity, who were present at the Synod, were 
 desired to enter into an amicable conference with the brethren of 
 the aforesaid Province concerning that question, and at the same 
 time to consider whether there might not be some general regula- 
 tions thought of, and drawn up by common consent, within the 
 limits of which both parties might rest contented till the new 
 National Synod should take further cognizance of the matter.” 
 
 Then follow the Six Articles which are given in the text of 
 the Lecture. 
 
 Page 233, lines 15-18. ‘Suggested by the English.’ 
 
 “ At the 148th Session they (the English Divines) likewise took 
 notice of the great scandal which the neglect of the Lord’s Day 
 at Dort gave them, exhorting the Synod to interpose with the 
 Magistrates for preventing the opening shops aad the exercise of 
 trade on Sundays. Upon this occasion one of the Inland Di- 
 vines brought upon the stage the question about the observation 
 of that day ; but this point was reserved among the Gravamina, 
 to be discussed by the Dutch Clergy only, after the departure of 
 the foreigners.” —Srandt, vol. 111. p. 290. 
 
 “Complaints were made by the English at the 14th Session, 
 about the profanation of the Lord’s Day by gaming, ὅσο. ; and 
 they recommended an application to the Civil Magistrate to bring 
 the people to the Afternoon Service, ‘in order to have them 
 keep the whole Sabbath as they ought.’ Then ‘they (the Synod) 
 prayed the foreign Divines to acquaint them with their customs 
 with respect to this matter ; whereupon the Hnglish Bishop told 
 them first, that in his country the Civil Magistrate set a fine or 
 pecuniary penalty upon those who forebore coming to Divine 
 Service, according to their duty ; and such a fine wrought much 
 more on the people than any the most pious exhortations,’ ”— 
 Brandt, vol. iii. pp. 28, 29. 
 
NOTES. 4A 
 
 John Hales, “ Letters” (ut supra), p. 5, reports to Sir Dudley 
 Carlton the Bishop’s reply, much in the same language, and he 
 goes on to state what others said. “Those of the Palsgrave’s 
 Country showed that each Sunday they had two Sermons, and 
 such as were absent were first admonished by the Clergy ; and if 
 this sufficed not, they required the help of the Civil Magistrate. 
 Those of Geneva told us that in the churches in their cities they 
 had every Sunday four Sermons, &c. Those of Breme, that 
 they had three Sermons, of which one was catechetical ; and to 
 avoid profanation of the Sabbath, it was not lawful to celebrate 
 any Marriage Feast or such like upon the Sunday, till six 
 o'clock in the evening.” 
 
 Gerard Brandt, born a.p. 1626, died a.p. 1685. He was for a 
 large part of his life the minister of a congregation of Remon- 
 strants or Arminians, at Nieuwkoop. 
 
 John Hales, born a.p. 1584, died a.p. 1656. As chaplain to 
 the English Ambassador to the Hague, Sir Dudley Carlton, he 
 was able to procure admission to the open Sessions at Dort. The 
 effect upon his own mind was a desertion of Calvinism for 
 Arminianism. 
 
 Page 235, line 11. ‘Gomarus.’ Francis Gomar, or Gomarus, 
 
 -born A.D. 1563, died a.p. 1641. From him the Calvinists, or a 
 section of them, were sometimes called Gomarists. His chief 
 works on the subject were, “Examen Sabbati ;” “ Investigatio 
 Sentent. de Orig. Sabb. ;” ‘ Defensio investig. de Orig. Sabbati.” 
 
 Page 235, line 20. “ Rivetus.’ Andrew Ryvet, or Rivetus, 
 born Α.Ὁ. 1572, died a.p. 1047, He was originally a French 
 Protestant, See his “Commentar. in Exod. ;” especially his 
 “ Explic. Decalogi, Exod. xx.” 
 
 Page 235, line 320. ‘ Waleus.’ Anthony Walzus, born Δ. Ὁ. 
 1573, died a.p. 1639. See his “ Dissertatio de Quarto Precepto.” 
 
 Page 235, line 22. ‘Ames.’ William Ames, or Amesius, an 
 Englishman, born 4.p. 1576, died a.p. 1633, wrote “ De Origine 
 Sabbati et Diei Dominic.” The Biographie Universelle says of 
 him, that in his “ Puritanismus Anglicanus,” “il semble regarder 
 les Puritains comme les seuls honnétes gens de l Angleterre.” 
 
 Page 235, line 24. ‘ Voétius.’ Gisbert Voét, or Voétius, born 
 A.D. 1589, died a.p. 1676. Some of the adherents of Calvinism, 
 says Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 240, were called after his name. 
 
 Page 236, line 5. ‘Heidanus.’ Abraham Heidan, or Hei- 
 
448 NOTES. 
 
 danus, born a.D. 1597, died a.p. 1678. Cocceius speaks 
 of him as his colleague, and as having held a “ Disputatio 
 de Sabbato et die Dominica,” and also a second in defence of 
 the former. 
 
 Page 236, line 5. ‘Cocceius.’ John Cock, or Cocceius, born 
 A.D. 1603, died a.p. 1669. Mosheim gives an account of him, 
 vol. ii. p. 258. He wrote a great deal on the subject of the 
 Lord’s Day. See especially his “ Indagatio Nature Sabbati et 
 Queestio Novi Testamenti ;” his “ Testimonia Veterum et Recen- 
 tiorum Ecclesiz Doctorum”, (a valuable document, but drawn up 
 with too much partisanship) ; and his ‘‘ Typus Concordize Ami- 
 corum circa Honorem Dominice.” 
 
 Page 236, line 14. ‘ Hoornbeeck.’ John Hoornbeeck, born 
 A.D. 1617, died a.p, 1666. He is mentioned by Hengstenberg, 
 “The Lord’s Day,” p. 70; but I have not seen any of his 
 works. 
 
 Page 236, line 23. ‘Essen.’ Andrew Essen, born a.p. 1618, 
 died a.p. 1672. See his ‘ Disquisitio de Moralitate Sabbati 
 Hebdomadalis ;” his ‘“‘ Dissertationes de Decalogo, ὅσο, adversus 
 Abrah. Heidanum ;” and his “ Vindiciz Quarti Preecepti in 
 Decalogo.””. This last was written in answer to Francis Burmann, 
 who defended the view of Cocceius. 
 
 Page 236, line 24. ‘Burmann.’ Francis Burmann, born a. Ὁ. 
 1632, died a.p. 1679. A treatise of his, “ De Moralitate Sab- 
 bati,’ brought him into conflict with Essen. See August. Ep. 
 Ixxxu. tom. ii. col. 257, for the quotation in the text. 
 
 Page 237, line 2. ‘ Maresius.’ Samuel des Maréts, or Mare- 
 sius, born a.D. 1599, died a.p. 1663. He is mentioned by Heng- 
 stenberg (ut supra), p. 70; but I am not acquainted with his 
 works. : 
 
 Page 237, line 4. ‘Alting.” James Alting, born a.p. 1618, 
 died a.p. 1679. See his “ Hebraeorum Respublica.” 
 
 Page 237, line 29. ‘Fecht. John Fecht, or Fechtius, born 
 A.D. 1636, died Α.Ὁ. 1716. Hengstenberg, (ut supra), p. 70, speaks 
 highly of his research and learning. 
 
 Page 238, line 7. ‘Schwartz. Hengstenberg (ut supra), 
 Ῥ. 71, has described his work thus: “A true Account of the 
 Sabbath, in reply to Burmann’s false doctrine, which a minister 
 in Holstein, (Liinekogel), has sanctioned, and introduced into 
 Germany, with evil consequences to the Land.” 
 
NOTES. 449 
 
 Page 238, line 11. ‘Mayer.’ John Frederic Mayer, born 
 A.D. 1650, died a.p. 1712. 
 
 Page 238, line 15. ‘Stryk.’ John Samuel Stryk, or Strykius, 
 born a.p. 1640, died a.p. 1710. See his “ Commentatio de 
 Jure Sabbati.” 
 
 Page 239, line 4. ‘ Buddeus.’ John Francis Budd, or Bud- 
 deeus, born Δ. Ὁ. 1667, died a.p. 1729. See his “ Institut. Theol. 
 Moralis.” 
 
 Page 239, line 6. ‘Spener.’ Philip James Spener, born Α. Ὁ. 
 1635, died a.p. 1705. His view is set forth very graphically by 
 Hengstenberg, (ut supra), pp. 73, 74. 
 
 Page 239, line 18. ‘Dr. Chalmers.’ The passage quoted in 
 the text of the Lecture will be found in his Sermon on “ The 
 Christianity of the Sabbath,” Congreg. Serm. vol. ii. Serm. XITI. 
 
 Page 241, line 8. ‘Mosheim. John Lawrence Mosheim. 
 See his “ Eccl. Hist.” passim, and also the two passages following 
 from his “ De Rebus Christianorum ante Constant. Magn. Comm.” 
 pp. 112-116. 
 
 “ Populus Christi Hierosolymitanus, tametsi publica Judzorum 
 sacra haud deserebat, suos tamen etiam conventus rei Divine 
 faciendze causé celebrabat, in quibus ab Apostolis instituebatur, 
 communes preces fundebat, et memoriam Jesu Christi per sacram 
 ccenam repetebat. Diem his conventibus dicatum illum fuisse, 
 quo Jesus Christus in vitam redut, certum magis est, quam 
 verisimile.” 
 
 “Pro certo sumi potest, diem hebdomadis primum, quo de 
 morte triumphum egit sanctissimus Servator, ab ipsis Apostolis 
 Hierosolymis commorantibus, conventibus Christianorum sacris 
 dicatum fuisse. Videmus Troadenses Christianos primo post 
 Sabbatum Judeorum die ad sacram coenam et simul convivium 
 amoris celebrandum convenire, et S. Paulum in illo ccoetu longum 
 sermonem recitare: Actor. xx. 7, μίαν enim τῶν σαββάτων, qua 
 conventus hic agebatur, diem indicare, que Sabbatum Judzorum 
 excipiebat, argumentis omni exceptione superioribus viri docti 
 demonstratum viderunt: Ecquis neget, Troadenses auctoritate 
 Apostolorum et exemplo ccetus Hierosolymitani, quem omnes 
 imitabantur familiz Christiane, hune diem divino cultui dedi- 
 cdsse ? Ecquis 5, Paulum, Apostolum, gnarum discipline Hiero- 
 solymitane, alium 5101 persuadeat diem sacris publicis destinare 
 voluisse, quam illum, quo reliquos Apostolos Hierosolymis de- 
 gentes conventus agere solere noverat ?” 
 
 GG 
 
450 NOTES. 
 
 Page 242, line 2. “6. Ο. 1Τ.. Franke.” “De Diei Dominici 
 apud Veteres Christianos celebratione.” 
 
 Page 242, line 25. ‘HE. W. Hengstenberg.’ The whole of 
 the earlier portion of his work, “The Lord’s Day,” to p. 88, 
 must be considered as negative or destructive. He begins “to 
 build” at that point. I have stated his argument as concisely, 
 but as fairly as I can. 
 
 Page 246, lines 9 and 10. ‘Oschwald and Liebetrut,’ men- 
 tioned by Hengstenberg, (ut supra, p. 106). With Oschwald’s 
 work, which appears to have been a prize essay, I am not 
 acquainted. That of Liebetrut is “ Die Sonntagsfeier,’ Ham- 
 burgh, 1851. 
 
 Page 246, line 12. ‘Certain Sabbatarian efforts,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Hengstenberg, (ut supra), p. 55, speaks of “attempts origin- 
 ating in England, but principally made through the medium of 
 the Tract Society in Lower Saxony, to introduce Sabbatarian 
 doctrines into Germany.” In page 53, he gives an extract from 
 Gemberg’s “Scotch Church,’ which he says “contains an 
 outline of the opinions generally held in Great Britain and 
 America.” And in page 77, he says, ‘‘ We shall confine our- 
 selves chiefly to the arguments brought together by Dwight in 
 his ‘Theology,’ from the conviction that this theologian, who 
 is highly esteemed in England and America, has collected all 
 the arguments, including those which are only apparent ones, 
 which have ever been used in support of his views.” He is of 
 course referring to Dr. Dwight’s five Sermons on the subject of 
 the Sabbath, Serm. CV.-CIX. They are referable to what I 
 have called in Lecture I. pp. 8, 9, the view of Bishops Horsley 
 and Jebb. Hengstenberg’s idea of the status given to the 
 Decalogue by English Theologians has been noticed already. 
 See note to Lecture V. p. 203, 1. 28. 
 
 Page 246, line 26. ‘Hengstenberg somewhat admires our 
 English Sunday.’ This is evident from the concluding words of 
 his treatise on ‘‘the Lord’s Day,” but he takes care to declare 
 his conviction that what is good in it is “not the product of the 
 theory itself,’ (Sabbatarianism), but is attributable to other 
 causes which he enumerates. These are, “the Christian fear of 
 God, so deeply rooted in the hearts of the people’’—“ the cease- 
 less bustle and restlessness which characterise so large a part of 
 the population both of England and of America,” and which, he 
 says elsewhere, “makes them observe it strictly by an impulse 
 
NOTES. 451 
 
 to spiritual self-preservation,” and lastly, “the love of law which 
 is so prevalent there.” 
 
 Page 247, line 6. ‘He is not singular... . in attributing 
 these views to the English Church.’ In addition to the passages 
 from Olshausen and Chevalier Bunsen, (Hippolytus, ὅσο. vol. ii. 
 218), mentioned in the text of the Lecture, the following may be 
 brought from Kurtz, “Wistory of the Old Covenant,” vol. iii. 
 p- 42 (Martin’s transl.). After stating that he “regards the 
 Sabbatic festival as ante-legal—in other words, as an institution 
 of Paradise ”—he goes on, “but we are very far from intending 
 thereby to support that unspiritual, unevangelical bondage, which 
 prevails both in exegesis and in practice on the other side the 
 Channel.” Some of our own writers have contributed to this 
 impression, The author of “Companions of my Solitude,” for 
 instance, in speaking of Sunday in a German town, says, “In 
 those unfortunate regions they have not made a ghastly idol of 
 Sunday.”—P. 122. 
 
 Page 247, line 25. ‘His own view, ὁ. 6. Chevalier Bunsen’s, 
 is in accordance with that of Hengstenberg.’ See the continua- 
 tion of the passage quoted in the text. An American periodical, 
 “ Bibl. Repertory,” for October, 1859, p. 753, refers to Hitibner, 
 Professor in Wittenberg, as a representative of the Lutheran 
 element of the United Church of Prussia.” ‘In his edition of 
 Biichner’s Exegetisch-homiletisches Lexicon, (says the reviewer), 
 he maintains that the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, and 
 that the observance of such a day ‘is plainly no local or tem- 
 porary command, but an original necessity of the spiritual nature 
 of man: he must suppress all aspiration after the heavenly and 
 invisible, and sink into the earthly and even the brutal, without 
 the Sabbath.’ ” 
 
 Page 248, line 2. ‘The testimony which nearly every lan- 
 guage of the Continent affords to the difference between the 
 Sabbath and the Sunday.’ 
 
 Saturday, in Italian, still retains the Hebrew name of “ Sa- 
 bato ;” so it does, with the slight literal variations which dis- 
 tinguish the several languages, in Spanish and Portuguese. 
 The French ‘‘Samedi” is properly explained by Ménage as 
 merely an abridgment of “ Sabbati-di ;” just as “Mardi” is 
 of “ Marti-di,” and “ Vendredi” of “ Veneri-di.” The journals 
 of the English House of Parliament still designate Saturday by 
 the name of “ Dies Sabbati.” 
 
 Ge2 
 
452 NOTES. 
 
 Sunday holds its Christian title even more tenaciously than 
 Saturday holds its Jewish title. “The Lord’s Day” of our own 
 language appears, through the Latin “ Dies Dominica,” in France 
 as “ Dimanche,” in Portuguese as “ Domingo,” &c. In Russian 
 the designation of it is “The Day of Resurrection,” or, more 
 simply, “ Resurrection.” 
 
 The Germans call Sunday “Sonntag,” and the old name of 
 Saturday was “Sezetres deg” (Anglo-Saxon). These, and the 
 designations of the other days of the week, which we share with 
 them, may be accounted for by the fact that the Teutonic nations 
 received the hebdomadal division, and its nomenclature, from the 
 Romans before their conversion to Christianity. They after- 
 wards adopted for Saturday, partially at least, “‘ Samstag,” viz. 
 “‘ Sabbats-tag,” and ‘‘Sonn-abend,” or “eve of Sunday,” Seeter 
 being considered as the name of an evil being. The Romance 
 nations were earlier under the influence of the Church, so far as 
 these two days were concerned. See Grimm’s “German Mytho- 
 logy,” p. 111, and Ideler’s ‘‘ Handbuch der Chronologie,” p. 177. 
 
 Page 248, line 7. ‘Notre Dame de la Salette.? This some- 
 what reminds one of Eustace, Abbot of Flay. See note to 
 Lecture III. p. 120, 1. 9. 
 
 Page 248, line 12. ‘Le Dimanche tu sanctifieras.’ The 
 French metrical version of the Decalogue, alluded to in the text 
 of the Lecture, is found in the “Catéchisme du Diocése de 
 Paris,” 1857. The first four commandments, which are by 
 suppression of the second made into three, are expressed thus :— 
 
 1. “Un seul Dieu tu adoreras, 
 Et aimeras parfaitement. 
 
 2. “ Dieu en vain tu ne jureras, 
 Ni autre chose pareillement. 
 
 3. “ Les Dimanches tu garderas, 
 En servant Dieu dévotement.” 
 
 The same misrepresentation of the Fourth Commandment 
 occurs in the comment upon it. 
 
 “Q. Quel est le jour du Seigneur ? 
 
 «Ἐς Avant la venue de Jésus-Christ, le jour du Seigneur était 
 le Samedi, en mémoire du repos de Dieu, apres qu'il eut créé le 
 monde; maintenant, c’est le Dimanche, en Vhonneur de la 
 résurrection de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ.”—P. 87. 
 
 And so inveterate has it become, that one of the directions to 
 the members of the French Association for the observance of the 
 
NOTES. 453 
 
 Lord’s Day, which will be mentioned in the next note, is to this 
 effect :— 
 
 “ Réciter une fois par jour un Ave et le troisitme (quatriéme) 
 commandement de Dieu: Le Dimanche tu garderas, en servant 
 Dieu dévotement.” 
 
 It will be observed that the French version of the Fourth 
 Commandment differs from that in the authorized Italian 
 Catechism quoted in page 253 of this Lecture, “ Ricordati di 
 sanctificare le Feste.” This variation has caused an alteration in 
 the ‘Commandments of the Church.” Of the six given in the 
 Italian document, the fifth and sixth, relating to the payment of 
 tithes and forbearing to marry during the prohibited seasons, are 
 omitted entirely ; the second, which relates to fasting, is divided 
 into two, and takes their place ; while the first, “ Udir la Messa 
 tutti le Domeniche, ed altre Feste comandate,” is thus divided 
 for first and second. 
 
 1. “Les Fétes tu sanctifieras 
 Qui te sont de commandement. 
 2. Les Dimanches, la Messe ouiras, 
 Et les Fétes pareillement.” 
 
 Page 248, line 13. ‘A tract by the Abbé Mullois.’. 
 
 Le Dimanche au Peuple, par M. Τὸ Abbé Mullois. He writes 
 as follows, in page 10: “Eh bien, mes amis, il y a une loi de 
 Dieu qui ordonne la sanctification du Dimanche, c’est un article 
 du code divin, article tombé sur le monde au milieu des éclairs. 
 et de la foudre du Sinai. Et voici ce que Dieu a dit: ‘Je sais 
 le Maitre, souviens-toi de sanctifier le jour du Dimanche.’” He 
 speaks of Germany in page 30, and of the suspension of the 
 works at the Tuileries in page 31. (Probably his influence 
 caused the regulation which one has heard of recently, that the 
 theatre at the camp of Chalons should not be open on Sunday.) 
 The passages condemning the French Sunday, and praising 
 that which he supposes to exist in England, occur in 
 pages 7 and 30 respectively. The Abbé Mullois has written 
 another tract, Le Dimanche aux Classes élevées de la Société, 
 from page 13 of which it is evident that I have not misrepre- 
 sented his transformation of the Fourth Commandment. “ Dieu 
 a parlé; du haut de sa formidable puissance, il a laissé tomber 
 sur le monde ces paroles: ‘Je suis votre maitre, et vous n’en 
 avez pas d’autre..... Souvenez-vous de sanctifier le jour du 
 
4.84, NOTES. 
 
 Dimanche” ... Voici un ordre clair et formel . . et il ne sera 
 pas écouté et il ne sera pas obéi.” 
 
 Page 249, line 25, ‘An association exists in Paris.’ This 
 association has its head-quarters at 33, Rue de Verneuil, at Paris, 
 from whence tracts are issued, and where a periodical called 
 “T/Observateur du Dimanche” is published. This has now 
 reached its seventh volume. It contains intelligence as to the 
 working of district associations throughout the country, reviews 
 of books ‘on the subject, instructions for operations, practical 
 hints, and various religious papers bearing more or less upon it. 
 In the number for July, 1860, it has a translation of Queen 
 Victoria’s revised proclamation against vice and immorality, and 
 remarks with satisfaction the regard paid in it to “Lz Jour Du 
 SEIGNEUR :”— 
 
 “Nous ne nous permettrons qu’une seule réflexion sur ce do- 
 cument si remarquable. Si un prince catholique avait publié un 
 édit pareil, la presse anti-religieuse n’aurait pas manqué de crier 
 ἃ lesprit rétrograde, au retour au moyen Age, a l’inquisition! ἃ 
 toutes les absurdités enfin dont ils repaissent quotidiennement 
 leurs lecteurs. Qu oseront-ils dire sur Angleterre protestante ?” 
 
 The tracts, though chargeable with the objections which I 
 mention in the text of this Lecture, are of a practical tendency, as 
 their titles indicate. Repos du Dimanche, aux Ouvriers. Guide 
 Pratique du Chrétien, fidele Observateur du Repos du Dimanche. 
 Réflexions sur les Travaux du Dimanche. Réflexions adressées 
 aux Dames sur le Repos du Dimanche. De la Vente dans les 
 Campagnes le Dimanche, &c. They are accompanied by the 
 Pope’s Bref en faveur de lV Association de Paris, ὅσο. which 
 includes promises of Indulgences of various degrees—and by 
 Instruction pour établir des Associations, emanating from the 
 Central Committee. The Abbé Mullois, in the second of his 
 publications mentioned in the preceding note, is very earnestly 
 in favour of the General Association, and mentions that by 1858 
 it had already branches in various important towns. And the 
 Abbé Gaume, (better known to the world as the author of Ver 
 Rongeur), is equally zealous in the same cause. His work is 
 entitled, La Profanation du Dimanche, considérée au point de vue 
 de la Religion, de la Société, de la Famille, de la Liberté, du Bien- 
 étre, de la Dignité Humaine, et de la Santé. 
 
 It will appear from the extracts made in the text of the Lecture, 
 
NOTES. 455 
 
 that the Abbé Gaume thinks favourably of the observance of the 
 Lord’s Day, both in England and in America. He does not, of 
 course, know how much room for improvement exists in both 
 countries, especially in their capitals. But London must not 
 be judged of from its worst specimens. As for New York, 
 the Bishop of that See, who was recently in England, tells me 
 that the Lord’s Day is better observed there than it used to 
 be—in fact, that much reverence is paid to it. He added, how- 
 ever, that in the German quarter it is sadly profaned, all sorts of 
 excesses being practised in the most undisguised manner. 
 
 Page 251, line 27. ‘Louis Victor Mellet.’ His work is 
 translated under the title of “Sunday and the Sabbath.” 
 
 Page 252, line 9. ‘In Spain and Portugal.’ “ At Madrid there 
 is an improvement, if such a word is applicable to so barbarous’ 
 a practice, in respect to bull-fights. The day appointed for them 
 used to be Sunday, but now Monday is the chief day, because 
 people were prevented going to church. In the provinces, 
 Sunday or a week-day is used indifferently, as the professional 
 toreros can be procured. This applies to the exhibitions of toros 
 de muerte, bulls who are to be killed. There are minor sports 
 with what are called novillos, or young bulls, which are teased 
 and played tricks with, but not killed ; these smaller diversions 
 generally take place on Sunday, and are a favorite rustic amuse- 
 ment.” Mr. J. L. Adolphus has kindly given me this statement. 
 
 Page 252, line 11. ‘In Reformed Geneva.’ For a description 
 of a Genevese Sunday, see Laing’s “ Notes of a Traveller,” 
 pp. 324—326, London, 1842. “1 happened to be at Geneva on 
 Sunday morning as the bells were tolling to church... I 
 hastened to the ancient cathedral, the church of St. Peter, to see 
 the pulpit from which Calvin had preached, to sit, probably, in 
 the very seat from which John Knox had listened, to hear the 
 pure doctrines of Christianity from the preachers who now stand 
 where once the great champions of the Reformation stood ; to 
 mark, too, the order and observances of the Calvinistic service 
 here in its native Church ; to revive, too, in my mind, Scotland 
 and the picturesque Sabbath Days of Scotland in a foreign land. 
 But where is the stream of citizens’ families in the streets, so 
 remarkable a feature in every Scotch town when the bells are 
 tolling to church, family after family, all so decent and respect- 
 able in their Sunday clothes, the fathers and mothers leading 
 
456 NOTES. 
 
 the younger children, and all walking silently churchwards ? 
 And where the quiet, the repose, the stillness of the Sabbath 
 morning, so remarkable in every Scotch town and house? .. . 
 Rome has stiil superstition ; Geneva has not even that semblance 
 of religion. In the head church of the original seat of Cal- 
 vinism, in a city of five and twenty thousand souls, at the only 
 service on the Sabbath Day—there being no evening service— 
 T sat down in a congregation of about two hundred females, and 
 three and twenty males, mostly elderly men of a former genera- 
 tion, with scarcely a youth, or boy, or working-man, among 
 them. A meagre liturgy, or printed form of prayer, a sermon, 
 which, so far as religion was concerned, might have figured the 
 evening at some geological society as an ‘ingenious essay’ on the 
 Mosaic Chronology ; a couple of psalm tunes on the organ, and 
 a waltz to go out with, were the Church service. In the after- 
 noon the only service in towns or in the country is reading a 
 chapter of the Bible to the children, and hearing them gabble 
 over the Catechism in a way which shows they have not a glimpse 
 of its meaning. A pleasure-tour in the steam-boats—which are 
 regularly advertised for a Sunday promenade round the lake— 
 a pic-nic dinner in the country, and overflowing congregations in 
 the evening at the theatre, the equestrian circus, the concert- 
 saloons, ball-rooms, and coffee-houses, are all that distinguish 
 Sunday from Monday. ... In the village churches along the 
 Protestant side of the Lake of Geneva... the rattling of the 
 billiard-balls, the rumbling of the skittle-trough, the shout, the 
 laugh, the distant shots of the rifle-gun clubs, are heard above 
 the psalm, the sermon, and the barren forms of State-prescribed 
 prayer, during the one brief service on Sundays, delivered to 
 very scanty congregations—in fact, to a few females and a dozen 
 or two old men—in very populous parishes, supplied with able 
 and zealous ministers.” 
 
 Page 252, line 16. ‘Protestant Sweden.’ For the case before 
 Lord Campbell, see “ Dublin Review” for Sept. 1858, p. 29; 
 and for the statement respecting the Diet, see ‘The People’s 
 Day,” by William Arthur, A.M., which is quoted in Lecture 
 VIII. pp. 324, 325, 
 
 Page 253, line 2: ‘The Catechism drawn up by Bellarmine.’ 
 See notes to Lecture II: p. 42,1. 18; and to Lecture VI. 
 p. 248, 1. 26. 
 
NOTES. 457 
 
 LECTURE VIL 
 
 Page 256, line 24. ‘The Westminster Confession.’ See 
 Article xxi. of that document, $§ 7, 8. 
 
 Page 258, line ὃ. ‘The Larger and Shorter Catechisms.’ See 
 the Larger Catechism, Questions 116-121, and the Shorter 
 Catechism, Questions 58-62. 
 
 Page 260, line 16. ‘All were agreed as to the fact of the 
 inspiration of Holy Scripture.’ 
 
 Some valuable remarks on the subject of the inspiration of 
 Holy Scripture will be found in Bishop Thirlwall’s “ Letter to 
 Dr. Rowland Williams,” pp. 38, ὅσο. 
 
 Page 260, line 30. ‘Table of Proper Lessons for Sundays 
 and Holydays.’ I am aware that this Table did not exist at 
 first ; but I am speaking of the Prayer-Book as it exists now, 
 after all the changes that it has undergone. 
 
 Page 261, line penult. ‘The Savoy Conference.’ See “ An 
 Accompt of all the Proceedings of the Commissioners of both 
 Perswasions appointed by his Sacred Majesty,’ ὅσο. London, 
 1661. Also, Collier’s ‘ Keel. Hist.” Part 11. Book IX. p. 881, 
 fol. Lond. 1714. 
 
 Page 263, line 24. ‘The Institution of a Christian Man ;’ 
 and in line 25, ‘A necessary Doctrine, &c. See “ Formularies 
 of Faith,” pp. 21 and 213 seq. respectively, Oxford, 1825. 
 
 Page 265, ine 10. ‘Tyndale.’ The passage in the text of 
 the Lecture is from Tyndale’s “ Answer to Sir Thomas More,” 
 p. 287. 
 
 Page 265, line penult. ‘ Fryth.’ See Fryth’s Works, p. 69. 
 
 Page 266, line 17. ‘Cranmer’s Catechism of a.p. 1548,’ p. 40, 
 Oxf. Edit. 1829. 
 
 Page 266, line 18. . ‘Confutation of Unwritten Verities.’ 
 Printed among the Works of Abp. Cranmer, Jenkyn’s Edit. 
 vol. iv. p. 234. 
 
 Page 266, line 26. ‘The Book of Prayer set forth in the last 
 year of Henry VIII” See Cox’s “Sabbath Laws,” ὅσο. p. 289. 
 
 Page 267, lume 15. ‘The Homilies.” .In B. I. x 1, the 
 Book of Wisdom is called “the infallible and undeceivable 
 Word of God : in B, IL. it. 3, occurs the phrase, “ As the Word 
 
458 ᾿ NOTES. 
 
 of God doth testify, Wisd. xiii. xiv. :” and in B. II. xi. 2, “The 
 same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach in sundry places of 
 Scripture, saying, ‘ Mercifulness and almsgiving,’ &c. Tobit iv. 
 The wise preacher, the son of Sirach, confirmeth the same when 
 he says, that ‘as water quencheth burning fire,” &c. Again, 
 in B. I. vi. 1, “ By holy promises we be made lively members 
 of Christ, receiving the sacrament of Baptism. By like holy 
 promises the sacrament of Matrimony knitteth man and wife in 
 perpetual love:” and in B, 11. ix. “It (Ordination) lacks the 
 promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the 
 two above named do. Therefore neither it nor any other sacra- 
 ment else, be such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion 
 are.” See Lecture V. p. 212. 
 
 Page 267, line 25. ‘The injunctions of Edward the 6th.” In 
 his first year. See “ Wilkins’ Conc.” iv. 6. For ‘ Abp. Cran- 
 mer’s Visitation Articles, see ‘“ Wilkins’ Cone.” iv. 24, Art. 
 25. 
 
 Page 268, line 2. ‘As Heylin does.’ “ History of the Sab- 
 bath,” Part IT. c. viii. §§ 2, 3. 
 
 Page 268, line 23. ‘ The Confession drawn up by John Knox.’ 
 See Laing’s edit. of his “ Works,” vol. ii. pp. 107-109. It is 
 also found in the folio Acts of Parliament for Scotland, vol. ii. 
 p. 256, 1814; and in Dunlop’s “Collection of Scottish Con- 
 fessions,” vol. 11. p. 526. 
 
 Page 269, line 17. In the “ Book of Discipline” all Saints’ 
 Days indeed are disallowed, but the Lord’s Day is retained, and 
 called Sunday, not the Sabbath. Its origin is not discussed, but 
 its obligation is assumed. Some of the features of the Book 
 are as follows: In great towns it is thought expedient that every 
 day there should be either Sermon or else Common Prayer, with 
 some exercise of reading the Scriptures. In every notable town 
 it is required that one day besides the Sunday be appointed to 
 the Sermon and Prayers, “ which, during the time of Sermon, 
 must be kept free from all exercise of labour, as well of the 
 master as of the servants.” . .. “ But the Sunday must straitly 
 be kept, both before and after noon, in all towns.” .. . “ How 
 much is appointed for Sunday is already ‘ distinctit’ in our Book 
 of Common Order.” It is also to be observed that prayers be 
 used at afternoon upon the Sunday, where there is neither 
 preaching nor Catechism.” The Lord’s Supper seems no longer 
 
NOTES. 4.59 
 
 considered a necessary element in the Lord’s Day Service, for a 
 celebration of it four times in the year is thought sufficient. 
 See Knox’s “ Works,” (ut supra), vol. 11. p. 238. 
 
 Page 269, line 20. ‘Pocklington.’ See his “Sunday no 
 Sabbath,” a Visitation Sermon, by John Pocklington, D.D. 
 The passage to which Dr. Pocklington alludes, p. 6 of his 
 Sermon, occurs in a criticism upon the English Service Book 
 drawn up by Knox, Whittingham, Dean of Durham, and others, 
 and addressed to Calvin. ‘ Besides, vppon every Sabothe daie, 
 Wensdaie, and Fridaie, there is yet in vse certeine suffrages 
 deuised off Pope Gregory, whiche beginnethe after this manner : 
 “Ὁ God the father off heaven,’ ὅθ. p. xxx. And in p. Ιχχ. are 
 the words, ‘ beinge the sabath daie.’” But these are exceptions 
 to the general terminology of the document. Swnday is the 
 word used in pp. Vi. xxxvill. cxil, and exvil.; Wednesdays, 
 Thursdays, and Swndays are mentioned for Sermons, and the 
 youth are to resort to Church on Saturdays and Sundays in the 
 afternoon for catechizing. (See Petheram’s reprint of “A Brief 
 Discourse of the Troubles begun at Frankfort in the year a.p. 
 1554,” London, 1847.) I think, therefore, that the author of 
 “Sunday no Sabbath” makes the most of the careless employ- 
 ment of the word Sabbath, for such I am convinced it was. His 
 excuse is, that he preached his Sermon in a.p. 1635, when the 
 use of the word had become obtrusively systematic. “ What 
 shall we think then of Knox, Whittingham, and their fellows, 
 that in their letter to Calvin depart from the constitution, ordi- 
 nance, and practice of the Apostles and Apostolic men, and call 
 not this day the Lord’s Day, or Sunday, but, with the piety of 
 Jeroboam, make such a day of it as they have devised in their 
 own hearts, to serve their own turn, and anabaptizing of it after 
 the mind of some Jew hired to be the godfather thereof, call it 
 the Sabbath, and so disguised with that name, become both the 
 first that so called it, and the Testators that have so bequeathed 
 it to their Disciples and Proselytes to be observed accordingly.” 
 He goes on to say that “it was full thirty years before their 
 children could turn their tongues from Sunday to hit on Sab- 
 bath ;” and in p. 7 speaks of the year a.p. 1584 as about the 
 thirty-first year of the Sabbath’s nativity.” In the Edinburgh 
 edition of the “ Form of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacra- 
 ments, ὅσο, used in the English Church at Geneva,” the word 
 
400 NOTES 
 
 Sunday not Sabbath is employed. The work was originally put 
 out in A.D. 1556; this edition is dated a.p. 1562. Another title 
 of it is, “The Book of our Common Order, commonly called the 
 Order of Geneva.”’ See Knox’s “ Works,” (ut supra), vol. ii. 210, 
 and vol. iv. 155. 
 
 Page 270, line 1. ‘ Randolph, writing to Cecil.” See Wright’s 
 “ Queen Elizabeth and her Times,” vol. 11. p. 114. 
 
 Page 270, line 8. ‘It is said on one oocasion.’ “ At Geneva 
 a tradition exists, that when John Knox visited Calvin on a 
 Sunday, he found his austere coadjutor bowling on a green. At 
 this day, and in that place, a Calvinist preacher, after his Sunday 
 sermon, will take his seat at the card-table.”— Disraeh, “ Charles 
 the First,” vol. ii. p. 16. (See also Strype’s Life of Bp. Aylmer, 
 c. xi.) On the same page Disraeli quotes, as an instance of the 
 common mistake of attributing over-strictness of Sunday obser- 
 vance to Calvin, a note of Thomas Warton on the Lady’s speech 
 in Comus, verse 177. ‘It is owing to the Puritans, ever since 
 Cromwell’s time, that Sunday has been made in England a day 
 of gravity and severity; and many a staunch observer of the 
 rites of the Church of England little suspects that he is con- 
 forming to the Calvinism of an English Sunday.” This note, 
 Disraeli observes, was afterwards suppressed. The reason proba- 
 bly was that the author had discovered his mistake. But, if 
 Warton made a mistake in this respect, Disraeli has made one 
 also in attributing, as he does, the Scotch Sunday to Knox. It 
 really travelled northward from the English Puritans. 
 
 Page 270, line 24. ‘Queen Elizabeth’s Injunctions.’ See 
 “ Wilkins’ Cone.” iv. 184 ; Inj. 20 and 39, and iv. 190. 
 
 Page 270, line ult. ‘A license to one John Seconton.’ See 
 T. Hearne’s “ Preface to Camden’s Elizabeth,” quoted by Disraeli, 
 “ Charles I.” vol. ii. p. 15. See also E. V. Neale’s “ Feasts and 
 Fasts,” p. 225. 
 
 Page 271, line 3. ‘The London magistracy.’ See Dr. Heylin, 
 “ Hist. of the Sabb.” Part II. c. viii. § 7. 
 
 Page 271, line 19, ‘ Puritans.” See Dr. Arnold’s “ Lectures 
 on Modern History,” Lecture V. pp. 206 seq. 
 
 Page 273, line 24. ‘And a phrase,’ &c. Gen. iv. 3. So 
 Job i. 6, ‘There was a day when the sons of God came to 
 present themselves before the Lord,” was presumed to imply the 
 Sabbath Day. 
 
NOTES. 461 
 
 Page 274, line 21, ‘Shakspere.’ Merchant of Venice, IV. 1, 
 and Hamlet, I. 1. He speaks of “sighing away Sundays,” in 
 Much Ado About Nothing, 1. 1; and of “velvet guards and 
 Sunday citizens,” in 1 Henry JV. III. 1. 
 
 Page 274, line 29. ‘The name Lord’s Day.’ In the 
 “Accompt, &ec.” of the Savoy Conference, already mentioned, 
 we find, though so long afterwards, a remnant of the dislike to 
 the word Sunday. In the general objections, number Eleven, 
 (p. 6), the Presbyterians desired “that instead of the word 
 Sunday, the word Lord’s Day may be everywhere used.” The 
 reply of the Episcopalians was, (p. 58), “The word Sunday is 
 ancient, as may be seen from Justin Martyr, Apol. Prim. pp. 
 97, 98, and therefore not to be left off.” 
 
 Page 274, line penult. ‘The form of discipline, &c. See 
 Fuller’s “Church Hist.” vol. v. pp. 1, 2 (Brewer’s edit.). 
 
 Page 275, line 1. ‘Grindal.’ See his “Injunctions,” whilst 
 yet Archbishop of York, in “ Wilkins’ Cone.” iv. 266 ; but I am 
 speaking rather of the general tone, both of Grindal and of 
 Sandys, than of any specific acts. 
 
 Page 275, line 25. ‘Judgments were said to follow,’ ὅσο. 
 
 As long back as a.p. 1582, Strype has this minute, “ Annals of 
 the Church under Eliz.” (vol. ii. p. 201, Oxford Edit. 1824). 
 “Tn the diary of the said Recorder, of transactions in the City, 
 customarily sent to the Lord Treasurer, he mentioned ‘the punish- 
 ment of the violators of the Sabbath by God’s Providence at 
 Paris Garden in Southwark: where were sports on that day 
 for entertainment of great confluences of people to see them, 
 mounted upon scaffolds, that fell down.’ The day after . 
 Sir Thomas Blank, mayor, sent notice . . . to Lord Burghley 
 the Treasurer... of the great mishap yesterday, being the 
 Lord’s Day. He addeth piously, ‘It gives great occasion to 
 acknowledge the hand of God for such abuse of His Sabbath 
 Day ; and moveth me in conscience to beseech your Lordship to 
 give order for redress of such contempt of God’s service.’” 
 Daniel Neale, “ History of the Puritans” (vol. i. p. 343, London, 
 1793), notices the occurrence, and adds, “ But the court paid no 
 regard to such remonstrances, and the Queen had her ends, in 
 encouraging the sports, pastimes, and revellings of the people on’ 
 Sundays and holidays.” 
 
 Page 275, line penult. ‘Dr. Bownd’s main propositions as 
 
402 NOTES. 
 
 given by Fuller. See Fuller’s “Church History,” vol. v. pp. 
 212—214. 
 
 Page 277, line 25. ‘The desecration of Sunday.” “ Practical re- 
 ligion, (says Daniel Neale, writing of a.p. 1582), was at a very low 
 ebb ; the fashionable vices of the times were, profane swearing, 
 drunkenness, revelling, gaming, and profanation of the Lord’s 
 Day ; yet there was no discipline for offenders,” &c.—Vol. 1. 
 (ut supra), p. 342. 
 
 Page 278, line 4. ‘It is almost incredible, says Fuller.’ See 
 vol. v. (ut supra), p. 214. 
 
 The passage quoted in the text goes on thus :— 
 
 “On this day the stoutest fencer laid down the buckler, the 
 most skilful archer unbent his bow, counting all shooting beside 
 the mark ; May-games and Morris-dances grew out of request ; 
 and good reason that bells should be silenced from jingling on 
 men’s legs, if very ringing in steeples were adjudged unlawful. 
 Some of them were ashamed of their former pleasures, like 
 children, which, grown bigger, blushing themselves out of their 
 rattles and whistles ; others forbear them for fear of their supe- 
 riors ; and many left them off out of a politic compliance, lest 
 otherwise they should be accounted licentious.” 
 
 Page 278, line 13. ‘ Abp. Whitgift, and line 17, ‘Lord Chief 
 Justice Popham.’ See Fuller, vol. v. (ut supra) p. 217. 
 
 Page 278, line 24. ‘Mentioned by Strype.’ In his “ Life of 
 Whitgift,” p. 415. 
 
 Page 279, line 18. ‘Which an able opponent of it called 
 “more than either kingly or popely.”’ ‘This opponent was 
 Thomas Rogers, of Horninger, in Suffolk, chaplain to Abp. 
 Bancroft, in his preface to a work upon “The Thirty-nine 
 Articles,” London, 1633. Fuller describes him as “ the first that 
 gave a check to the full speed of this doctrine.” Vol. v. (ut supra) 
 pp. 216, 217. 
 
 Page 279, line 20. ‘Learned men,” says Fuller.’ Vol. v. 
 (ut supra) p. 215. These men may have been learned in their 
 way, but those of the first class were obviously not men of his- 
 torical research, or they would not have supposed Sabbatarianism 
 to have the slightest foundation in antiquity. Those of the 
 second class must have been ignorant of one of the first princi- 
 ples in morals, if they thought it justifiable “to deceive persons 
 
NOTES. 4638 
 
 to their good ;” this would nullify St. Paul’s condemnation of 
 “doing evil that good may come,” and excuse every “pious 
 fraud” that has ever been imagined: and those of the third class 
 exhibited great confusion of thought in imagining that our 
 Lord’s treatment of the Sabbath had anything to do directly with 
 the Lord’s Day. If they disliked the Sabbatarian doctrines, their 
 method should have been to show, from the writings of the 
 Apostles that the Sabbath was now abrogated, and from the 
 practice of the Apostles that Christianity possessed a more free 
 and unfettered institution, the Lord’s Day. Our Lord’s treat- 
 ment of the Sabbath might then have been introduced indirectly, 
 somewhat in the following manner: If under the Jewish dispen- 
 sation He did not wish it to be a burden, ἃ fortiori, under the 
 Christian, the somewhat analogous Christian institution cannot 
 have been intended to be so burdensome as the Puritan view 
 would make it. 
 Page 280, ine 11. ‘Hooker.’ See Lecture IV. p. 144, 1. 2. 
 Page 281, line 27. ‘ Whitgift was scarcely dead.’ The suc- 
 cession of Archbishops of Canterbury was as follows: Parker, 
 A.D. 1559; Grindal, 1575 ; Whitgift, 1583 ; Bancroft, 1604 ; 
 Abbot, 1611 ; Laud, 1633—1645. And of Bishops of London : 
 Grindal, a.p. 1559; Sandys, 1570; Aylmer, 1577 ; Fletcher, 
 1594 ; Bancroft, 1597 ; Vaughan, 1604; Ravis, 1607 ; Abbot, 
 1610; King, 1611; Monteigne, 1621; Laud, 1628; Juxon, 
 1633—1660. 
 Page 281, line 28. ‘As Fuller, ὅσο. Vol. v. (ut supra), p. 215. 
 Page 281, line penult. ‘And Heylin says.’ “ History of the 
 Sabbath,” Part II. ¢. viii. p. 489. 
 Page 282, line 17. ‘They found time hang heavily on their 
 hands.’ 
 Sir Walter Scott, in his “‘ Rob Roy,” c. xi. gives a sketch of a 
 not very well educated country family, which might almost have 
 _been written in the reign of James I. “The next morning hap- 
 pened tobe Sunday, a day peculiarly hard to be got rid of at Osbal- 
 distone Hall ; for, after the formal religious service of the morning 
 had been performed, at which all the family regularly attended, 
 it was hard to say upon which individual, Rashleigh and Miss 
 Vernon excepted, the fiend of ennwi descended with the most 
 abundant outpouring of his spirit.” Sir Hildebrand is amused 
 for a few minutes with talking of his nephew’s embarrassment 
 
464 NOTES. 
 
 of the day before, but at length says, “ ‘Talking of heraldry, 1] 
 go and read Gwillym.’ This resolution he intimated with a 
 yawn, resistless as that of the goddess in the Dunciad, which 
 was responsively echoed by his giant sons, as they dispersed in 
 quest of the pastimes to which their minds severally inclined 
 them—Percie to discuss a pot of March beer with the steward 
 in the buttery; Thorncliff to cut a pair of cudgels, and to fix 
 them in their wicker hilts ; John to dress May-flies ; Dickon to 
 play at pitch and toss by himself, his right hand against his 
 left ; and Wilfred to bite his thumbs, and hum himself into a 
 slumber which should last till dinner-time, if possible.” 
 
 Page 282, line 19. ‘“The Book of Sports.”’ A complete 
 account of this document, and of the ferment that it produced, 
 and of the expedients adopted to evade reading it, or to neu- 
 tralize its effects, may be found in Fuller, ‘Church History,” 
 vol. v. pp. 452, seq. ; and in Neale, “ History of the Puritans,” 
 vol. 11. pp. 235, seq. It is said to have been drawn up by 
 Moreton, at that time Bishop of Chester, afterwards of Coventry 
 and Lichfield, and finally of Durham. See Daniel Neale, 
 “History of the Puritans,’ vol. 11, p. 114, who adds, on the 
 authority of Wilson, that Archbishop Abbot would not allow it 
 to be read at Croydon. 
 
 Page 283, line11. ‘The Pilgrim Church.”’ Dr. Cheever’s 
 work, “The Pilgrim Fathers,” gives a tolerable outline of the 
 history of the suceessive Puritan migrations noticed in the text 
 of the Lecture. 
 
 Page 284, line 20. ‘The artist yet loves to dwell on the 
 parting from Delph-haven.’ Of course, I am alluding to the 
 well-known picture by Mr. C. W. Cope, R.A. exhibited in the 
 Royal Academy in 1857, under the title, “The Pilgrim Fathers : 
 Departure of a Puritan Family for New England.” The passage 
 quoted by him as a comment is an extract from Governor 
 Bradford’s Journal, and will be found in Cheever, p. 11. Mr. 
 Cope has since reproduced his picture as a fresco, in the New 
 Palace at Westminster. Longfellow, in his ‘Courtship of 
 Miles Standish,” has transferred Governor Bradford’s descrip- 
 tion to the occasion of the May-Flower’s return homeward :— 
 
 “Men, and women, and children, all hurrying down to the sea-shore, 
 Eager, with tearful eyes, to say farewell to the May-Flower, 
 
NOTES. 465 
 
 Homeward bound o’er the sea, and leaving them here in the desert. 
 
 # ΕΣ * * * * * 
 
 Then, as if filled with the spirit, and wrapt in a vision prophetic, 
 
 Baring his hoary head, the excellent Elder of Plymouth 
 
 Said, ‘Let us pray!’ and they prayed, and thanked the Lord, and took 
 courage.” 
 
 Page 285, line 1. ‘ William Blackstone.’ See Cheever, 
 Ῥ. 243. 
 
 Page 285, line 5. ‘Rules said to have been drawn up by 
 John Cotton,’ ὅσο. 
 
 The specimens of Puritanic legislation, given under this 
 description, are taken from Mr. Cox’s “Sabbath Laws and Sabbath 
 Duties,” p. 562; to which I have been occasionally indebted, 
 though the view contained in it differs materially from my own. 
 He adds two more in the same place :— 
 
 “No woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or Fasting 
 Day. 
 
 “Tf any man shall kiss his wife, or wife her husband, on the 
 Lord’s Day, the party in fault shall be punished at the discretion 
 of the magistrates.” 
 
 As Mr. Cox did not give his grounds for believing them to be 
 genuine, beyond referring to a tract entitled “The Whole Doc- 
 trine of the Sabbath,” ὅσο. by J. W., Edinb. 1851, 1 wrote him on 
 the subject. The following is his obliging reply :— 
 
 “When visiting New England some years ago, I took pains to 
 ascertain whether the laws quoted on p. 562 of ‘Sabbath Laws 
 and Sabbath Duties’ are genuine ; and I found them in a volume 
 entitled ‘The Blue Laws of New Haven Colony, usually called 
 Blue Laws of Connecticut, &c. Compiled by an Antiquarian. 
 Hartford, 1838.’ By an antiquarian friend at Boston I was in- 
 formed that the volume was compiled by Mr. R. R. Hinman, of 
 Hartford. 
 
 “The Code drawn up by Governor Eaton for New Haven 
 Colony in 1656 (of which Mr. Hinman gives ‘a brief compi- 
 lation’ in pp. 125-130 of his book) contains the following 
 articles :— 
 
 “28, Whosoever shall profane the Lord’s Day, or any part of 
 it, by work or sport, shall be punished by fine, or corporally. 
 But if the court, by clear evidence, find that the sin was proudly, 
 presumptuously, and with a high hand, committed against the 
 
 HH 
 
400 NOTES. 
 
 command and authority of the Blessed God, such person therein 
 despising and reproaching the Lord shall be put to death. Num. 
 xv. from 30 to 36 verse.’ (Hinman, p. 128.) 
 
 “ ¢38. If any man shall kiss his wife, or wife kiss her husband, 
 on the Lord’s Day, the party in fault shall be punished at the 
 discretion of the Court of Magistrates.’ (Hinman, p. 130.) 
 
 “Hinman gives another body of Blue Laws collected from 
 Peters’s ‘ Hist. of Connecticut’ and Barber’s book with the same 
 title. From this I quote the following :-— 
 
 “¢21. No one shall run on the Sabbath Day, or walk in his 
 garden, or elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting.’ 
 (Barber. ) 
 
 “¢22. No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep 
 house, cut hair, or shave, on the Sabbath Day.’ (Barber.) 
 
 “¢23. No woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or 
 fasting day.’ (Barber.) 
 
 «24, The Sabbath shall begin at sunset on Saturday.’ (Hin- 
 man, p. 122.) 
 
 “ Hinman is distrustful of Peters, who, I believe, wrote during 
 the American War of Independence on the loyalist side, and 
 who, according to Hinman, added to the laws he took from 
 Governor Eaton’s Code ‘some disgraceful laws, to stigmatize the 
 inhabitants of the Colony, which appears to have been his 
 object throughout his whole history’ (p. 125). Barber, he sup- 
 poses, had no better authority than that of Peters (2.). 
 
 “On the whole, I do not implicitly receive as genuine any of 
 these articles, except the two quoted from Governor Eaton’s 
 Code. But the others are so accordant with these, and with 
 what we otherwise know of the practices of the colonists, that 
 they are probably as genuine as the former.—P. 130. 
 
 “Captain Marryat, in his ‘Diary in America,’ 1839, vol. i. 
 pp. 255-6, gives the 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th laws quoted by me 
 (S. L. p. 562) as the 17th, 18th and 19th Articles of the Blue 
 Laws of Connecticut. Some expressions vary from those in 
 the copy quoted by me from J. W. 
 
 “J. W. is John Wauchope of Edinburgh, who died some 
 years ago. His tract is not a scholarly production. I asked 
 him where he got the laws, and he could only guess that it was 
 from Marryat. But Marryat has not the paragraph commencing 
 ‘Whoever shall profane,’ &c., and does not ascribe the laws to 
 
NOTES. 467 
 
 Cotton, who, however, is likely to have proposed similar laws. 
 He certainly did propose one of them ; for Hutchinson, in his 
 ‘History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay’ (Lond. 1765), 
 states that in the first draught of the Laws of the Colony, by 
 Cotton, not only murder, witchcraft, arson, blasphemy, &c. were 
 made capital offences, but also ‘ profaning the Lord’s Day, in 
 a careless or scornful neglect or contempt thereof.’ Governor 
 Winthrop, however, erased the punishment of death for Sabbath- 
 breaking, and for several of the other offences, leaving to the 
 diseretion of the Court the infliction of any minor punishment. 
 (Vol. i. p. 442; see also pp. 161, 173, 193, 215.) | Hutchinson 
 mentions another law, by which Cotton and his friends desired 
 to restrain people from walking in the streets or fields on the 
 Lord’s Day. Exception was taken to it in England, ‘but, 
 although,’ says the historian, ‘their charter was in danger, they 
 refused to make any alteration in the law. —P. 443. 
 
 “ Among the capital laws of the Colony of New Plymouth, as 
 revised in a.D. 1671, presumptuous Sabbath-breaking stands as 
 . an offence for which the perpetrators ‘shall be put to death, or 
 grievously punished at the judgment of the Court.—Himman’s 
 Blue Laws, ὅσο. p. 55. 
 
 “Tam not aware that under these laws any American Sabbath- 
 breaker was ever put to death. Even in the Jewish history we 
 have but the solitary instance of the man who gathered sticks in 
 the wilderness during the life of Moses.” 
 
 A work called ‘‘ American Photographs,” by J. M. G. and M. 
 Turnbull, gives an account of “the Pilgrim Fathers,” and speci- 
 mens of their legislation ; but the authors do not seem to have 
 had any other authorities than those given above by Mr. Cox. 
 
 Page 286, line 5. ‘The Pilgrim bands,’ &c. Bryant. “The 
 Burial Place,” a Fragment. 
 
 Page 286, line 10. ‘Macaulay.’ “ History of England,” ο. 1. 
 vol. i. pp. 79—81, fifth edition. The continuation of the passage 
 quoted is a most powerful enlargement upon the general tone 
 and manners of the Puritans. 
 
 Page 287, line 4. ‘In consistency a Sabbatarian must keep 
 his Sabbath on Saturday.’ 
 
 Accounts of John Traske, and his opinions, will be found in 
 Fuller's “Church History,” vol. v. pp. 459, 460; in Pagitt’s 
 “ Heresiography,” pp. 135, 136, London, 1648; and in the 
 
 HH 2 
 
408 NOTES. 
 
 introduction by the Oxford Editor to Bp. Andrewes’ sentence 
 upon him in the Star-Chamber, (Minor Works, p. 83). He after- 
 wards made a formal recantation of his opinions, Dec. 1, 1619. 
 Fuller says that he lapsed into other heresies ; but from a tract 
 which he published the next year, called ‘Liberty from 
 Judaism,” which is noticed by Mr. Brewer, this would seem 
 very unlikely. One of his disciples, named Hamlet Jackson, 
 afterwards became a convert to actual Judaism. 
 
 Theophilus Brabourne is noticed in Fuller, vol. vi. p. 88, in 
 Wood's “ Athenz Oxon.” ii. 541; and in Bp. F. White’s preface 
 to his “Treatise of the Sabbath Day,” written in refutation of his 
 second book. But Brabourne wrote afterwards ; and a compo- 
 sition of his against Cawdrey, which came out in 1654, gives no 
 evidence of sincerity of retractation. 
 
 Various Saturday-Sabbatarian writers, besides Traske and Bra- 
 bourne, preceded Thomas Bampfield, who was almost the last of 
 them. Among them may be named Edward Stennets, H. 
 Soursby, M. Smiths, and William Sellers, who wrote against 
 Dean Owen. Bampfield and Stennets each brought out two 
 books on the subject. 
 
 Puller, in his ‘“ Moderation of the Church of England,” p. 159, 
 quotes a curious passage from Erasmus, which seems to have been 
 a continental foreshadowing of Traske’s and Brabourne’s views. 
 
 “ Audimus apud Bohemos exoriri novum Judeorum genus, 
 Sabbatarios appellant qui tanta superstitione observant Sabbatum, 
 ut si quid eo die inciderit in oculum, nolint eximere, quasi non 
 sufficiat eis pro Sabbato dies Dominicus, qui Apostolis etiam erat 
 sacer, aut quasi Christus non satis expresserit, quantum tribun- 
 dum sit Sabbato.”—Hrasm. de amab. Concord. col. 506. 
 
 This somewhat reminds one of the Dositheans among the 
 Jews, of whom Origen speaks: ἄλλοι δὲ, ὧν ἐστι Δοσίθεος ὁ 
 Σαμαρεὺς, οἴονται ἐπὶ τοῦ σχήματος, οὗ ἂν καταληφθῇ τις ἐν τῇ 
 ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου, μένειν μέχρις ἑσπέρας. In other words, they 
 interpreted ‘abide ye every man in his place’ so literally and 
 rigorously, as that whatever habit, place, or posture a man was 
 found in on the Sabbath-day, he was to continue in it all that 
 day ; if he was found sitting, he must sit still all the day; or 
 if lying down, he must he all the day. See Bingham, Christ. 
 Antiq. XX. 2. § 3, and Origen. περὶ ἀρχῶν iv. c. 19, whom he 
 quotes. 
 
NOTES. 409 
 
 Page 288, line 1. Bp. F. White was answered by an anony- 
 mous pamphlet, printed 1636, entitled “The Lord’s Day the 
 Sabbath Day.” It is “digested dialogue-wise between two divines, 
 A, and B.” 
 
 Page 288, line 25. ‘A multitude of Sabbatarian writers.’ As 
 the following: Richard Greenham, whom Fuller speaks of, 
 (vol. v. p. 193), “as a great advancer of the strict observance of 
 the Lord’s Day by that treatise which he wrote of the Sabbath ;” 
 (he died in a.p, 1592): Richard Byfield, who wrote “The Doc- 
 trine of the Sabbath Vindicated,” against Edward Brerewood : 
 and Isaac Marlow, whose “Tract on the Sabbath Day” was 
 intended as a refutation of the Saturday-Sabbatarianism of 
 Thomas Bampfield. 
 
 Page 289, line 6. ‘ At what exact hours does the Lord’s Day 
 commence and conclude?’ Richard Baxter, so it seems to me, 
 has given a common-sense answer to the former of these ques- 
 tions, and rendered it unnecessary to touch upon the latter. He 
 says (Divine Appt. p. 91), “If we can tell when any day 
 beginneth, we may know when the Lord’s Day beginneth. If 
 we cannot, the necessity of our ignorance will shorten the 
 trouble of our scruples by excusing us. 
 
 “Because “the Lord’s Day is not to be kept as a Jewish 
 Sabbath ceremoniously, but the time and the rest are here com- 
 manded subserviently for the work sake ; therefore we have not 
 so much reason to be scrupulous about the hours of beginning 
 and ending, as the Jews had about their Sabbath.” 
 
 The curious points raised about mariners losing a day in their 
 reckoning are discussed in Isaac Marlow’s pamphlet. ‘They are 
 frequently alluded to by writers of the period. See also Abp. 
 Whately, “Thoughts on the Sabbath,” p. 5. The difficulty was, 
 of course, caused by a neglect to alter the reckoning day by day. 
 It may make against the doctrine that the Jewish Sabbath, insti- 
 tuted for one country, is intended to prevail over the whole world. 
 But it cannot make against the doctrine that the first day of the 
 week, observed in Apostolic times in various places, according to 
 the longitude of each place, without any question being agitated 
 about it, is binding upon mankind. 
 
 Mr. Ellis, the author of “ Polynesian Researches,” tells me 
 that some time ago the inhabitants of Tahiti and of the Society 
 Islands, only about seventy or eighty miles asunder, observed 
 
470 NOTES. 
 
 the Lord’s Day on different days. A mistake originally made had 
 been corrected in one case, but not in the other. 
 
 The “ Polemical Dissertation of the Inchoation and Determi- 
 nation of the Lord’s Day Sabbath,” by W. Prynne, was written 
 to prove that the Lord’s Day begins on the Saturday evening. 
 
 Page 289, line 11. ‘Thomas Broad,’ or Brodzus ; see his 
 “ Tractatus de Sabbato.” ‘Edward Brerewood ;’ see his “ Two 
 Treatises of the Sabbath.” ‘Christopher Dow ;’ see his ‘‘ Dis- 
 course of the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.” ‘David Primerose ;’ 
 see his work, entitled, “ Of the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.” 
 
 Page 289, line 17. ‘Bp. Stillingfleet.’ ‘“TIrenicon,” Part 1. 
 ὉΠ Ὁ 10: 
 
 Page 290, line 1. ‘Laud’s contention,’ &c. Fuller’s Church 
 Hist. vol. vi. pp. 95, seq. 
 
 Page 290, line 3. ‘ Daniel Neale’s unfair representation,’ ὅσο. 
 See “ Hist. of the Puritans,” vol. 11. p. 238. 
 
 Page 290, line 8. ‘The Theological decisions of Peers and 
 Commons.’ 
 
 Among the theological achievements of the House of Lords at 
 this time, Jan. 4. Ὁ. 1641, was the arraignment of Dr. Pocklington, 
 and condemnation of his Visitation Sermon. It appears that he 
 refused to recant, and was deprived of his preferments. But see 
 a curious tract, entitled “The Petition and Articles on several 
 Charges exhibited in Parliament against John Pocklington, 
 D.D.” &c. London, 1641. 
 
 As for the Commons, the following anecdote is given by 
 Disraeli, “ Charles I.” vol. 11. p. 20. “It was on the occasion of 
 a bill ‘for the Better Observance of the Sabbath, commonly 
 called Sunday,’ we learn from a private letter of the day, that a 
 member of the House presuming to sneer at the Puritans, 
 observed that if Saturday was dies Sabbati, (as the journals of the 
 House termed it), it might be entitled a bill ‘ for the observance 
 of Saturday, commonly called Sunday.’ Our unlucky wit had 
 the good fortune only to be expelled the House.” 
 
 Page 290, line 14. ‘That no religious day whatever,’ &c. See 
 Lecture I. page 6, line 7, and note there. 
 
 Page 290, line 17. ‘ Meanwhile, in Scotland,’ ὅσο. 
 
 The first three of the examples given are quoted from Mr. 
 Cox’s “Sabbath Laws,” ὅσο. pp. 310, 311; the fourth from 
 Fraser's Magazne, May, 1859. 
 
NOTES. 471 
 
 Page 292, line17. ‘The fifty-sixth, &c. See “MS. Book of 
 Common Prayer for Ireland,” edited by Mr. A. J. Stephens, Q.C., 
 (for the Ecclesiastical History Society, 1849, vol. i. Introd. pp. 
 XXXVil.—1xxiil.), for a copy of the Irish Articles, and for a learned 
 and interesting account of their origin, tendency, and final super- 
 seding. See also a note by the Oxford editor to Abp. Bramhall’s 
 ‘‘Discourse on the Sabbath,” ὅσο, Works, vol. v. p. 80. 
 
 Page 293, line 27. “The language of Canaan.” Bp. Jer. 
 Taylor. ‘“ Sermon preached at the Funeral of the Lord Primate.’’ 
 Works, vol. vi. p. 321, Heber’s Edit. 1828, quoted by Mr. A. 
 J. Stephens. 
 
 Page 294, line 16. ‘Earl Stanhope.’ See his “ History of 
 England,” ¢. xix. where he quotes the “Life of the Rev. William 
 Grimshaw, p. 43.” 
 
 Page 295, line 22. ‘Abp. Whately.’ For this passage, see his 
 “ Remarks,” ὅσο. p. 4. 
 
 Page 296, line 19. ‘To meet the prevailing license . . . by a 
 directly Divine precept.’ 
 
 Bp. Horsley notices very strongly the prevailing habit of 
 travelling on the Lord’s Day. 
 
 Page 296, line 28. ‘Richard Cecil.’ See his “ Remains,” 
 p. 336. 
 
 Page 296, line 29. ‘Charles Simeon.’ See his Life, pp. 292— 
 294, 
 
 Page 299, line 24. ‘The strictness of a Scottish Sunday, 
 which Dr. Chalmers deprecated,’ &c. 
 
 “ Certain it is that the Sabbath Day may be made to wear an 
 aspect of great gloom and great ungainliness, with each hour having 
 its own irksome punctuality attached to it ; and when the weary 
 formalist, labouring to acquit himself in full tale and measure of 
 all his manifold observations, is either sorely fatigued in the work 
 of filling up the unvaried routine, or is sorely oppressed in con- 
 science, should there be the slightest encroachment either on its 
 regularity or on its entireness. We may follow him through his 
 Sabbath history, and mark how, in the spirit of bondage, this dri 
 velling slave plies at an unceasing task, to which, all the while, 
 there is a secret dissatisfaction in his own bosom, and with which 
 he lays an intolerable penance on his whole family. He is clothed 
 in the habiliments of seriousness, and holds out the aspect of it; 
 but never was aspect more unpromising or more unlovely. And, in 
 
472 NOTES. 
 
 this very character of severity, is it possible for him to move 
 through all the stages of Sabbath observancy—first, to eke out 
 his morning hour of solitary devotion ; and then to assemble his 
 household to the psalms, and the readings, and the prayers, 
 which are all set forth in due and regular celebration ; and then, 
 with stern parental authority, to muster, in full attendance for 
 church, all the children and domestics who belong to him ; and 
 then, in his compressed and crowded pew, to hold out, in com- 
 plete array, the demureness of spirit that sits upon his own 
 countenance, and the demureness of constraint that sits on the 
 general face of his family ; and then, to follow up the public ser- 
 vices of the day by an evening, the reigning expression of which 
 shall be that of strict, unbending austerity, when the exercises of 
 patience, and the exercises of memory, and a confinement that 
 must not be broken from even for the tempting air and beauty of 
 a garden, and the manifold other interdicts that are laid on the 
 vivacity of childhood, may truly turn every Sabbath as it comes 
 round into a periodical season of sufferance and dejection. And 
 thus, instead of being a preparation of love and joy for a heaven 
 of its own likeness, may all these proprieties be discharged for no 
 other purpose than that of pacifying the jealousies of a God of 
 vengeance, and working out a burdensome acquittal from the 
 exactions of this hard and unrelenting task-master.”—Congrega- 
 tional Sermons. Sermon XIII. vol. ii. pp. 274, 275. 
 
 After thus describing the ‘Sabbath drudge,” as he calls this 
 person, Dr. Chalmers next gives a sketch of the person whom 
 he calls the “Sabbath amateur,” pp. 277, 278, from which the 
 passage quoted in the text of the Lecture is taken. ἣ 
 
 Page 300, line 2. ‘A few words,’ ὅο. I subjoin a large por- 
 tion of my friend’s letter. An experience of Scotland for nearly 
 six years has enabled him to speak with authority. 
 
 “The outward aspect of Sunday in Scotland is marked by 
 extreme strictness. Statistics prove, however, I believe, that 
 the number of those who do not go to any place of worship is 
 about the same as in England, namely, one-third of the entire 
 population. 
 
 “Tt is held to be sinful to play on an instrument, as the 
 piano, even the most sacred music. In many towns, a house 
 where this rule was infringed would be mobbed; and great 
 persons have been known to give way to the prejudices of their 
 
NOTES. 473 
 
 servants, and keep the- piano shut, not only in Scotland, but in 
 London. 
 
 “The strictest Presbyterians teach that a walk on Sunday is 
 unlawful. One distinguished minister of the Free Kirk openly 
 avows his wish to see the interference of the police to prevent 
 Sunday walks. I have known a respectable person, engaged in 
 an Edinburgh poorhouse, whose occupations prevented her from 
 getting a walk, (save very rarely), in the week. She did not dare 
 to do so on Sundays, because of the scandal. Her position, in 
 this respect, must be that of thousands. 
 
 “ Now, unless these restrictions upon Christian liberty can be 
 strictly proved to be enjoined by the law of God, they must do 
 harm in many ways. 
 
 “1. They tend, I fear, to make many people hate religion. If 
 this be Christianity, is their not unnatural feeling, what an iron 
 yoke itis! Its commandments are grievous. 
 
 «2, They encourage Pharisaism and hypocrisy. To sit in the 
 social circle, and discuss ones neighbours, creates no scandal ; to 
 sing a chorus from the ‘ Messiah,’ with the accompaniment of a 
 piano, is wickedness ; to remain at home, with closed windows, 
 during service time, and read any kind of book, can be managed 
 without offence ; but any out-door pursuit is put down. 
 
 “3. They encourage drinking. A people thus constrained 
 takes refuge in whisky. Whisky, (euphemistically termed re- 
 freshment), and sermons are, with many, alternate objects of 
 attention. ‘There is a great demand for drink on Sunday, and 
 it must be supplied,’ (evidence of Mr. Teacher, wholesale and 
 retail spirit merchant, before the Commission on the Forbes 
 Mackenzie Act, Glasgow Daily Herald, 12th August, 1859). 
 A minister of the Establishment, in a town on the west coast, 
 who had used all his influence, (with the very best and highest 
 intentions), to stop any hiring of boats on Sunday, told a friend 
 of the writer that he began to doubt whether the practical 
 result was good, inasmuch as the non-kirk-goers stayed away just 
 as much, and read light and even infidel books. The same 
 minister mentioned that the proprietor of a house of refresh- 
 ment, three miles off, had taken as much as 20/. for whisky on 
 a single Sunday. This, at the ordinary rate of 6d. per glass, 
 represents 800 glasses. The three miles’ walk qualifies the 
 purchasers to claim refreshment as travellers. 
 
474. NOTES. 
 
 “ Any one who looks into the back streets of Edinburgh on a 
 Sunday, may observe much cleaning of flys, and like occupations. 
 Another friend of the writer’s inquired of the men on board a 
 Clyde steamer, whether they went to kirk on Sunday. The 
 reply was, ‘No; they take care to give us too much work to do 
 for that.’ The men were occupied in cleaning the engines, &c. 
 Similarly, there is reason to fear, that farm-servants, in many 
 parts of Scotland, find great difficulty in getting to kirk. 
 
 “My own impression is, that keeping up appearances is but 
 far too common. Many people in Edinburgh contrive to obtain 
 a walk by going to some place of worship as remote as possible 
 from their homes. This saves their conscience ; but it is surely 
 a great injury to the conscience of others who do take a walk, 
 to be doubting all the time whether they are not doing wrong.” 
 
 Then follows a passage relating to the Debate which is spoken 
 of in the next note. 
 
 Page 300, line 10. ‘Ata recent meeting of . . . the United 
 Presbyterians.’ 
 
 The following extract is taken from a report given in the 
 Scotsman, Wednesday, Feb. 8, 1860, of the meeting of the 
 “ Edinburgh United Presbyterian Presbytery.” 
 
 Dr. JoHNsTON, after some remarks, said—“ There were multi- 
 tudes of persons in the city, (meaning Edinburgh), who disre- 
 garded the Gospel, and their people were in danger of being led 
 away by these people. He should deeply regret if ever the time 
 should come when their people should employ themselves as 
 even good people felt themselves at liberty to employ themselves 
 on the Continent. He should never forget what he saw when 
 he was in Strasbourg. He had a letter of recommendation to a 
 gentleman in Strasbourg—a good man. He delivered his letter 
 in the afternoon of the Lord’s Day, and the servant told him 
 that his master was out walking with his lady on the ramparts ; 
 and he found it was the common custom of the Christians in 
 Strasbourg to walk on the ramparts. 
 
 “Mr. Paruane, of Tranent—Why did you deliver the letter 
 on that day ? 
 
 “Dr. Jonnston—I can explain that, if it is necessary. It 
 was a work of necessity.” 
 
 A debate followed this, in the course of which Mr. James 
 HENDERSON (the elder) observed, in a much wiser tone, that 
 
NOTES. 47 
 
 “* they were all agreed as to certain forms of Sabbath desecration 
 mentioned in the report; but there were others upon which 
 there was a great difference of opinion. He referred especially 
 to burying the dead upon that day. He could see nothing in- 
 consistent with the sanctity of the Sabbath in attending to that 
 solemn duty. No doubt the report did not go the length of 
 saying that it was sinful, and certain reasons were given for its 
 being right in some cases; but he thought there were other 
 reasons besides those stated in the report. It was a well-known 
 fact that a great proportion of the funerals on that day were 
 those of the working classes, and it was natural that they should 
 have a desire to ask their friends and acquaintances to attend 
 the funeral of any member of their families. He thought they 
 might desire to do so without being charged with pride—a 
 remark in the report which he thought very unhappy indeed. 
 It was well known that the working-man was not in a position 
 to lose nearly half a day in attending funerals. He questioned 
 much if any of them would be willing to lose half a day of 
 their income for any such purpose. Certain ministers had stated 
 that, in consequence of their conscientious feeling, they decline 
 attending Sunday funerals ; but his impression was that few 
 members of the churches expected that ministers should attend 
 on that day, because they had more important duties to perform. 
 In his opinion, however, that was an argument showing the 
 necessity of these people burying their dead on that day, because 
 there was no time when a member had a greater desire to see his 
 minister than upon such an occasion. It was suggested in the 
 report that ministers, city missionaries, and elders should decline 
 attending funerals on Sabbath Days. He trusted elders would 
 never do anything of the kind. He should hope, if the report 
 was to go forth, that that paragraph would be deleted ; but if it 
 should not, he trusted elders would set their face against it, and 
 attend Sabbath Day funerals with greater regularity than for- 
 merly. As to the cab question, he thought every person must 
 be left to decide on that question as they thought proper. He 
 opposed shop traffic as much as any man, except such as might 
 serve the purposes of necessity and mercy. As to Sabbath 
 walking, he thought none of them would approve of walking 
 during Divine service ; but he could not see any sin in any of 
 them rising before breakfast and taking a walk for half an hour. 
 
470 NOTES. 
 
 They would be much better employed doing that than lying in 
 their beds. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) And so too, in the evening, 
 he never could bring his mind to think that it was sinful for a 
 husband and wife, with their children, to take a walk on a Sun- 
 day evening, when they had been, perhaps, cooped up in a small 
 house, with little air, all the week. It was very easy for mem- 
 bers of committee, who had their large airy apartments—their 
 drawing-room, dining-room, and every other convenience—to 
 keep from Sabbath walking; but they must remember that 
 many of the members of their churches were cooped up in small 
 houses, where they could scarcely breathe the fresh air, and he 
 never could bring his mind to believe that there was anything 
 sinful in taking a quiet walk on a Sabbath evening. As to what 
 had horrified Dr. Johnston on the Continent, he could not speak 
 on that point; but he thought there was little difference between 
 the minister taking a walk with his lady on the ramparts on a 
 Sunday, and Dr. Johnston walking along the streets and de- 
 livering a letter of introduction on that holy day. (Laughter.) 
 He could see no difference between the two, and if there was 
 sin at all committed—if there was anything wrong, the greater 
 sin was on the part of Dr. Johnston, in walking along the streets 
 and delivering a letter of introduction to that minister on the 
 Sabbath ; that appeared to him to be a greater act of Sabbath 
 desecration than the act of the minister and his lady in walking 
 on the ramparts.” 
 
 This caused a vehement discussion, Dr. Johnston repeating his 
 assertion, that “his walking was a matter of necessity.” No 
 doubt this was so, but it did not alter the case ; for Mr. Hender- 
 son’s argument implied that he considered that there was no sin 
 in the walk of either of the two parties. The debate was 
 further remarkable for an assertion on the part of Mr. MusHer, 
 that Calvin’s opinion had been against “the obligation of the 
 Sabbath.” Dr. Pepprm answered him, not by a denial that 
 Calvin thought thus, (this was impossible), but by the following 
 words: “Calvin is not the standard of this Church, but the 
 ‘ Shorter Catechism.’ ” 
 
NOTES. AT7 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 Page 304, line 19. ‘To convey no more than is conveyed in 
 such words as the following.’ 
 
 Dr. Pusey in his note upon p. 391, n. 6. of Ephrem’s Homi- 
 lies, by Morris, after going through many of the passages in the 
 early Fathers, in which the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day are men- 
 tioned, concludes thus: “It is evident from this examination 
 that the Fathers (1) spoke absolutely of the abolition of the 
 Jewish Sabbath ; (2) that they did not speak of the Lord’s Day 
 as being a transfer of it ; (3) yet that they do speak of it as an 
 Apostolic ordinance ; and (4) as a substitution for it, displacing 
 it ; (5) that abstinence from business on the Lord’s Day, as a 
 religious duty, was an early universal tradition ; and (6) enforced 
 by the laws of the Church. According to that larger acceptation 
 of the Ten Commandments, whereby they contain the summary 
 of all moral duty, as the sixth forbids anger or spiritual murder, 
 or the seventh all uncleanness, so the fourth enjoins the hallow- 
 ing of all days appointed by authority, whether Apostolic or the 
 Church. And of these the Lord’s Day, of course, with the great 
 festivals of our Lord, holds the highest place ; so that it is still 
 the chief object and intent of the Fourth Commandment. The 
 Ten Commandments, placed at the commencement of Alfred’s 
 code, are a testimony to the ninth century.” 
 
 Dr. Pusey has enlarged the number of centuries from which 
 he derives his view, and has consequently raised other festivals 
 more nearly to the rank of the Lord’s Day than I have found 
 reason to do, But his six heads very nearly agree with the con- 
 clusions to which I have arrived in these Lectures. I am anxious, 
 while mentioning his name, to quote his opinion also upon an 
 assertion sometimes made, that “the Fathers speak commonly, 
 as if the whole principle of observing one day more than 
 another was Jewish and blameable.” 
 
 He says then, in the same note, “ This statement seems too broad. 
 The Fathers seem to me only to apply the language of Holy 
 Scripture (Col. ii. 16), which speaks of the Jewish Sabbath as 
 something past, ‘a shadow of things to come;’ and Heb. iv. 10, 
 which points out, whereof it was a figure, the rest in Christ, 
 
478 NOTES. 
 
 ‘There remaineth yet a keeping of a Sabbath, E. M. (σαββατισμὸς) 
 to the people of God,’ of which resting from sin is a part and a 
 condition. The Lord’s Day was kept from the time of the 
 Apostles, and consequently, the Fathers could not have meant to 
 condemn ‘the principle of observing one day more than another,’ 
 under which they themselves were acting. Rather there was the 
 less risk in speaking broadly of the cessation of the Jewish 
 Sabbath, or of the rest from sin, or of our eternal rest, as its 
 spiritual meaning, without any mention of the Lord’s Day, be- 
 cause the Lord’s Day was an Apostolic ordinance, everywhere 
 observed as a chief part of Christian devotion, and which there- 
 fore could not be meant to be disparaged.” 
 
 Page 305, line 8. ‘A sacrifice of renunciation.’ 
 
 “ Der lezte Tag soll der Ruhe geweihet seyn : alle gewohnlichen 
 Arbeiten der Menschen sollen an ihm aufhéren, eine auszeror- 
 dentliche Stille eintreten. De soll also der Mensch auch auf den 
 Gewinn und Genuss verzichten den er durch sein gewohnliches 
 Treiben und Arbeiten sucht: dies ist das Hntsagungs-Opfer 
 welches er hier bringen muss, ein ganz anderes als alle die 
 Opfer der vorigen Welt, aber ein fiir den Menschen, gewinn- 
 siichtig oder sonstwie in das Gewirre der Welt versunken wie er 
 ist, oft gar nicht so leichtes.”—Die Alterthiimer des Volkes Israel, 
 von H. Ewald. 
 
 Page 309, line 23. ‘But sobriety is not sadness, still less is it 
 abstinence and mortification.’ 
 
 Compare “ Ut in vita, sic in studiis, pulcherrimum et humanis- 
 simum existimo, severitatem comitatemque miscere, ne illa in 
 tristitiam, heee in petulantiam procedat.” 
 
 Page 309, line 27. ‘That according to the poet’s words, 
 “ Vegeti preescripta ad munia surgant,” on the Monday.’ Though 
 it is far from being merely a renewal of strength, it 7s this, as 
 Macaulay well puts it in his speech on the Ten Hours’ Bill. 
 (Speeches, corrected by himself, p. 453.) “The natural differ- 
 ence between Campania and Spitzbergen is trifling when com- 
 pared with the difference between a country inhabited by men 
 full of bodily and mental vigour, and a country inhabited by men 
 sunk in bodily and mental decrepitude. Therefore it is that we 
 are not poorer but richer, because we have, through many ages, 
 rested from our labour one day in seven. That day is not lost. 
 While industry is suspended, while the plough lies in the 
 
NOTES. 479 
 
 furrow, while the exchange is silent, while no smoke ascends from 
 the factory, a process is going on quite as important to the 
 wealth of nations as any process which is performed on more 
 busy days. Man, the machine of machines—the machine com- 
 pared with which all the contrivances of the Watts and Ark- 
 wrights are worthless—is repairing and winding up, so that he 
 returns to his labours on the Monday with clearer intellect, 
 with livelier spirits, with renewed corporal vigour.” 
 
 Page 310, line 22. ‘Bp. Prideaux.’ The passage in the text 
 is taken from a translation of the Bishop’s “ Oratio Septima— 
 De Sabbato,” p. 36, Second Edit. London, 1634, 
 
 Page 315, line ult. ‘A certain Bill which has just passed the 
 House of Lords.’ It has since been withdrawn in the Com- 
 mons ; but I have not felt at liberty to recall the remarks in the 
 text, which seemed to me to describe its tendency not imaccu- 
 rately. It differed from nearly all existing Acts in this respect : 
 they were of the nature of special prohibitions, of the exercise 
 of certain trades, professions, &c. in support of the sanctity of 
 the day, when invaded by bodies of men too strong for the 
 common law of the State and of the Church. And, whatever 
 they forbade, (of course, with a few exceptions implied), they 
 forbade throughout the day, thus recognising the principle that 
 it is the Lord’s Day. But this Bill appeared to give up that 
 principle, and to make it lawful to large classes of tradesmen to 
 traffic on that day, as if it were a week-day, with the arbitrary 
 reservation, in some cases, of the hours after ten, in others of 
 from ten to one only. And it appeared also to render it possible 
 by a little management, for many tradesmen not intended by its 
 provisions, to avail themselves of them, by nominally classing 
 themselves amongst those intended, ze. by selling what they 
 sold in addition to their own articles. 
 
 The only plausible arguments that were urged in favor of 
 the Bill were, that the law as at present existing was defied ; 
 and that it is better to have a law, (though a bad one), kept, than 
 a good law neglected and inoperative. (Conf. Arist. Rhet. 1. 15.12). 
 
 To these it was replied, that to give up a good law, because it 
 is at present inoperative, shows great faint-heartedness, and dis- 
 trust in moral and missionary influences, which, perhaps, have 
 never yet been fairly brought to bear; that sanitary measures 
 and attempts to better the condition of the poor are yet in their 
 infancy ; and that, the high ground of the sanctity of the day 
 
480 NOTES. 
 
 once abandoned by the State, not merely would many persons, 
 now restrained by the secondary motive of regard of the law, be 
 tempted to traffic on the Lord’s Day, but it would be almost im- 
 possible to make the poor understand that that was objectionable 
 which their betters, (for so they would call the Legislature), per- 
 mitted. 
 The pernicious tendency of the Bill escaped the notice of one 
 of the chief London Societies specially interested in the subject, 
 ~“The Metropolitan Rest Association,” and they were induced to 
 support it; but “The Society for Promoting the Due Observance 
 of the Lord’s Day” discovered its character at once, and issued 
 most energetic protests against it. I may not agree with that 
 Society as to the grounds on which the Lord’s Day is of Divine 
 obligation, or indeed as to the degree and manner in which it is 
 to be observed, but I greatly respect their zeal, and sympathise 
 with them in their main object, the upholding the sanctity of 
 this Diviye Institution. I subjoin a portion of a Memorial 
 presented by them to the Secretary of State, which I found very 
 useful in clearing my own view of the tendency of the Bill. 
 “We do not wish to call in question the intentions of the 
 framers and supporters of the above-mentioned Bill, while we 
 are persuaded that its principle is unsound and that many of its 
 clauses are dangerous. In all former legislation on the Lord’s 
 Day, the Divine authority for its religious observance has been 
 made the ground of right to make that penal on this day, which 
 in itself and on other days is lawful. This Bill, from first to 
 last, ignores this truth, thus making mere civil expediency the 
 basis of coercive statutes. All former exceptions from the legal 
 penalties incurred by trading on the Lord’s Day have been made 
 upon the assumption of their necessity, as being articles of food 
 quickly perishable, medicines, or else as being required by 
 travellers. This Bill proposes openly to legalize the sale of 
 articles—as for instance, periodical publications and newspapers, 
 as well as confectionery—on all hours of the Lord’s Day, save 
 from ten to one o’clock, the sale of which cannot be said to be 
 ealled for either by necessity, charity, or piety. 
 * * * * % * * 
 “We also submit that the arbitrary distinctions of this Bill 
 will be sure to create discontent, which will have to be allayed 
 by similar concessions to other branches of trade. For example : 
 
NOTES. 481 
 
 Should this Bill become law, pastryeooks may traffic in their 
 commodities on all hours of the Lord’s Day, save from ten to 
 one o'clock. Grocers, however, who keep many of the same 
 articles, will be fined if they sell them. The booksellers of 
 London, in the same hours, may sell any work whatsoever, even 
 though it be of a demoralising tendency, provided it be issued 
 in parts or numbers: if they sell the same work as a complete 
 book, they are liable to a penalty. The tobacconist who should 
 hand over the counter any of his articles to a customer, may be 
 summoned for a breach of the statute, while his neighbour the 
 publican may sell tobacco because he also sells beer. The 
 question of selling or not selling on the. Lord’s Day will thus 
 be removed from its present grounds: it will become a matter 
 of justice or injustice. It will be asked, If one may sell, why 
 may not another ?—if periodicals, why not books !—if books, 
 why not clothes ? 
 
 “Nor is this all. As this Bill, should it become law, will 
 clash with former statutes now in force—as the Act of Charles 
 IL.—it has already been intimated that such statutes will, in 
 such case, have to be repealed, thus leaving no legislative witness 
 and keeper of the Lord’s Day, save this Bill of arbitrary dis- 
 tinctions. 
 
 “ We have been glad to learn that, as the moral feeling of the 
 community has improved, and support has been afforded by a 
 large proportion of the trading classes themselves, the present 
 laws against trading on the Lord’s Day have of late, in certain 
 towns, been successfully appealed to, and in some instances 
 enforced, although their penalties are almost nominal. And we 
 think it would be safer that there should be no legislation in 
 this direction, until the mind of the country be ripe for a sound 
 and fair measure, than now purchase a partial and doubtful 
 success by ignoring that authority which should be the basis of 
 such legislation. We therefore pray you, as one of her 
 Majesty’s Secretaries of State, to use your influence with the 
 Government and Parliament to prevent this Bill becoming law ; 
 that the example and sanction of the Legislature may not be 
 afforded for the legalising and upholding of unnecessary trading 
 on the Lord’s Day.’ 
 
 My own opinion I have endeavoured to express in pp. 317, 
 318 of the text. Legislatively, I would at present do nothing ; 
 
 II 
 
482 NOTES. 
 
 but, under the Divine blessing, a great deal may be done with- 
 out legislation. What has recently transpired at Birmingham 
 is an evidence of this. And neighbourhoods become observant 
 of the Lord’s Day in proportion to the missionary and philan- 
 thropic agencies which are brought to bear upon them morally 
 and physically. 
 
 Page 318, line 19. ‘So, again, with respect to travelling.’ 
 I do not know that I can add anything to what has been already 
 said in the text of the Lecture on this point. It will be obvious 
 to any candid reader that I am most anxious that all, if possible, 
 should rest on the Lord’s Day from their labours, whether the 
 driver of a cab, or the clerk or stoker on a railway. But I 
 cannot help looking at such matters practically, and should 
 therefore deprecate any such interference with travelling as has 
 been attempted in Scotland. 
 
 Page 321, line 6. ‘By providing parks and similar open 
 spaces.’ I do not think this advantage can be too widely ex- 
 tended. Let those who are inclined to disbelieve its benefits, or 
 to distrust the behaviour of the multitude, visit the Victoria 
 Park at the east end of London in the afternoon of a Sunday 
 in summer. 
 
 Page 322, line 20. ‘A design of getting rid of the religious 
 character of the day.’ See, on this subject, “The People’s Day ; 
 or, An Appeal to Lord Stanley, M.P. against his Advocacy of a 
 French Sunday,” by William Arthur, A.M. I quote this again 
 in pp. 324, 325. I do not, of course, agree with the ground 
 that it takes for the obligation of the Lord’s Day, and I should 
 object to other points in it. But it is powerfully written and 
 very suggestive. 
 
 Page 325, line 2, ‘The demonstration’ alluded to was on 
 the occasion of the introduction of Lord R. Grosvenor’s (now 
 Lord Ebury) Bill in 1855, 1856. The passage quoted in the 
 text is from Mr. Arthur’s pamphlet, pp. 46, 47. 
 
 Page 326, line 2. ‘Charitable allowance for each other’s 
 circumstances.’ Dr. Chalmers has a very beautiful Sermon on 
 “The Accommodating Spirit of Christian Charity,’ Congreg. 
 Serms. Vol. II. Serm. XV. in which this principle is advocated. 
 Among other points which come under his notice, is the duty 
 of not doing violence to the religious feelings of the nation in 
 which one is staying for a season, by any act which to ones own 
 
NOTES. 483 
 
 conscience, and in ones own country, appears perfectly harmless. 
 As an instance of this, he quotes the example of Wilberforce. 
 When at home he could, and did without scruple, enjoy exercise 
 and God’s fresh air on Sunday ; but when in Scotland he was 
 so careful of offending the scruples of the Scotch, that he care- 
 fully shut himself up in his inn for the whole of the day except 
 during church-time. 
 
 Page 327, line 18. ‘Very little of such legislation,’ &c. 
 “A Summary of the Statutes for the Observance of the Lord’s 
 Day” has been drawn up and circulated by “The Society for 
 Promoting the Due Observance of the Lord’s Day.” But the 
 reader is referred to the work of Mr. E. V. Neale for a full 
 account of English legislation on the subject, which has beer 
 put together and commented upon with much learning and 
 research—“ Feasts and Fasts.” 
 
 Page 328, line 1. ‘Mr. J. 8S. Mill’ “On Liberty,” ὦ iv. 
 pp. 161-163. 
 
 Page 330, line 20.‘ By administering the Holy Communion 
 in the afternoon or evening ;’ and again, ‘What insuperable 
 objection there can be to this I cannot conceive.’ I observed in 
 Lecture II. p. 35, 1. 4, that I conceived that ‘‘such things con- 
 nected with the celebration of the Holy Communion as do not 
 actually occur in Scripture, and so are not of the essence of the 
 Holy Communion, are to be considered as matters not Divine, 
 but simply and purely Ecclesiastical.” And they are not even 
 Ecclesiastical to any particular Church, unless that Church has 
 laid down a rule respecting them. 
 
 I observed, too, in a note to the above passage, that thus “the 
 time at which the Holy Eucharist is celebrated would, anywhere, 
 come under the category of things purely Ecclesiastical.” To us 
 it is not even that ; it is a matter indifferent: for, as it is not 
 settled once for all in Holy Scripture, so our own Church has 
 not thought it necessary to fix it by a special regulation. This, 
 then, being the case, I believe that with us the Holy Eucharist 
 may be celebrated at any hour which may be found most to 
 edification, subject of course to the “ godly admonition” of the 
 Bishop under which a priest or a parish may be placed. 
 
 In England a feeling has long been growing up that the 
 present hour for the Holy Communion is anything but uni- 
 versally convenient. Appended as the Office for it is to those 
 
 ΤΡ 
 
ASA NOTES. 
 
 of Morning Prayer and Litany united, and containing the 
 Sermon within its limits, it is fatiguing to all, especially where 
 there are many communicants. It taxes the attention of all, 
 especially of the poor, to a most unwise extent. And not merely 
 so; but as it occurs exactly at the dinner-hour of a very large class 
 of persons, and after a service which many are necessarily 
 unable to attend, difficulties which cannot be ignored too often 
 prevent its reception. Hence a very prevalent disregard of it ; 
 and hence, also, a forgetfulness of the real character of the Lord’s 
 Day, which is intimately connected with the reception of the 
 Lord’s Supper. 
 
 This state of things being very unsatisfactory, the next ques- 
 tion is, What is to be done? Every one is theoretically agreed 
 that the present time of celebration has little but prescription to 
 recommend it ; and that it has gained that prescription in conse- 
 quence, partly of the general alteration of habits, especially in 
 towns, from earlier to later rising, partly of the somewhat slovenly 
 custom which was not unusual in the Church of Rome, of taking 
 distinct offices in close sequence, and, in fact, running them into 
 each other. Inconvenient, however, and undetermined by Church 
 law as the present hour is, it need not, for all that, be abandoned 
 everywhere, or at once. It may be retained, where desired, either 
 with or without a celebration for others, at some more conve- 
 nient hour of the day. This might, at any rate, satisfy those 
 who like things as they are. But the difficulty is not yet quite 
 got over. If the hour of celebrating the Holy Communion is 
 to be shifted, it must be either to an earlier hour than at present, 
 or to a later hour. Those who would shift it to an earlier hour 
 put it generally very early indeed, and plead primitive practice, 
 and the desirableness of communicating fasting, and certain 
 strong phrases on the subject which may be quoted from ancient 
 (though not the most ancient) Christian writers, and the danger 
 of profaning it if taken after the meal of the day. Those who 
 would shift it to a later hour deny the primitive practice, or deny 
 that it is binding in defect of any intimation in Holy Serip- 
 ture on the subject, or, if pressed over much, sometimes turn 
 round upon their opponents with the remark, “If Scripture is to 
 be quoted at all, it seems rather in our favor than in yours, for 
 the Eucharist was instituted in the evening.” But generally, they 
 Jhold so strongly that “the Holy Communion was made for man, 
 
NOTES. 485 
 
 and not man for the Holy Communion,” that they are willing to 
 celebrate it at any hour, in the morning early, at midday, in the 
 afternoon, or in the evening, as may be found most suitable 
 and most merciful, the circumstances of their flocks considered. 
 I would say a word upon each of these views ; and first of the 
 early view. It is usually acknowledged by its upholders, that, 
 for some time, at least, the Church did not make any rule what- 
 ever on the subject ; an admission which seems almost to settle 
 the allegation of primitive practice. No hint is found on the 
 subject in the earliest Fathers ; and though, (which I am inclined 
 to do), we allow that the Sacramentum of Pliny, which was 
 taken at the Christian assemblies, ante lucem, was the Holy 
 Eucharist, this point has to be explained; Was the early 
 meeting, or early Communion, a matter of religion at all? Was 
 it not rather a matter of necessity? May not the same necessity 
 which obliged Christians to choose as places of celebration the 
 most secluded spots, and sometimes even cemeteries, have obliged 
 them to choose a time also when persecution should be asleep? 
 As for the Christian writers of the second century, Justin, if I 
 mistake not, does not insist upon any particular time, though he 
 describes with some exactness the service of the Lord’s Day, 
 including the celebration of the Eucharist. Tertullian, whose date 
 must be placed at its termination, has indeed something which 
 seems to bear upon it. But as the three places generally cited 
 are either susceptible of various interpretations, or else refer to 
 special cases, I do not dwell upon them. (I allude to De Oratione, 
 c. xiv.; De Corond Militis, c. ix.; and Ad Uxorem, lib. ii. ὁ. v. 
 The notes in Rigaltius’ edition are worth consulting.) Were they 
 free from any exception, I should still venture to doubt whether, 
 without connecting links, they are sufficient to prove that the 
 custom of early Communions was a primitive ecclesiastical ordi- 
 nance. And this would apply yet more strongly to the language 
 of Cyprian in the latter half of the third century, even if that 
 language would bear the meaning which has sometimes been 
 imposed upon it. But it will not bear it. For let us see what 
 he says in his sixty-third Epistle, To Cecilius, §§ 15, 16,17. He 
 is speaking of a class of persons called Aquarz, or such as used 
 water only, instead of the mixed chalice, in the Holy Eucharist. 
 But the Aquarii of his day were not those ordinarily so denomi- 
 nated, (as Bingham intimates, B. XV. c. i.) ; but cowards in act, 
 
480 NOTES. 
 
 rather than heretics in principle. They used water for the morn- 
 ing celebration, lest the smell of wine should betray them to the 
 heathen ; but in the evening they used the mixed chalice. And, 
 when pressed with their inconsistency, instead of acknowledging 
 their real reason, cowardice, they professed to be keeping closer 
 to the hour of the original institution by celebrating in the 
 evening. 
 
 Cyprian tells them that Christ’s time, the evening, was pro- 
 phetic and symbolical, and need not be considered strictly exem- 
 plary. He says that in the evening, celebrations must necessarily 
 be private, for all cannot then be present; (the reason for this 
 doubtless was the fear of attracting the notice of the heathen ;) 
 that the resurrection of Christ is commemorated in the morning, 
 and as often as the Holy Supper takes place, (quotiescunque) ; 
 and that whenever it is celebrated, it should be celebrated in all 
 the circumstances essential to it. The Aquarii, in having only 
 water in the morning, left out one very important circumstance, 
 the wine, and so commemorated imperfectly. 
 
 Such is Cyprian’s argument. There is not the slightest hint 
 in it of an obligation to morning celebration exclusively. 
 
 The two points urged are—“ We cannot get the brethren 
 together in the evening, but we can in the morning. Join us 
 at that hour, and partake of the Holy Communion in the proper 
 way.” And—‘‘Do not mutilate it by imperfect rites in the 
 morning, which you adopt for fear of discovery, not really for 
 conscience’ sake. For observe, you adopt perfect rites in the 
 evening, and thus negative your own plea of conscience. Re- 
 member the design of the institution ; whenever it is celebrated 
 —morning, evening, or guwotiescungue—it is to be celebrated in 
 its perfectness.” The whole of the passage shows that the calix 
 mixtus was what Cyprian was chiefly contending for, and that the 
 question of ¢ime—an open one in itself—only became important 
 because the body of believers could be got together more con- 
 veniently at one time than at another. This is especially evident 
 from ὃ 17. If, then, Cyprian’s way of treating the subject is to 
 assist either party, it must be the party which considers what 
 time will get together most communicants. (I will only remark 
 in passing, that if resort is had to Cyprian for the time as a 
 matter of obligation, the mixed chalice must be adopted on his 
 authority also. He insists upon that most strongly. But our 
 
NOTES. 487 
 
 Church has not thought proper to follow him.) Cyprian, then, and 
 Tertullian, being set aside as not in point, Augustine and Chrysos- 
 tom, at the close of the fourth century, are undoubtedly the great 
 patristical authorities on the subject. But Augustine thought it 
 necessary to explain why the Holy Eucharist, instituted in the 
 evening, did not take place in the evening. And Chrysostom uses 
 language concerning it which defeats its purpose by its very 
 exaggeration: “If I have done any such thing, (as administer 
 to persons except fasting), let my name be blotted out of the 
 roll of Bishops, nor be inscribed in the book of the Orthodox 
 Faith ; since, lo! if I have done any such thing, Christ also 
 will cast me out of His kingdom.” Our Church has adopted 
 neither Augustine’s reasoning, nor Chrysostom’s scruples. As 
 for what is said by the Third Council of Carthage and by the 
 Council of Laodicea, the later Council, that of Carthage, rules 
 differently from the former. And, even were their rulings in 
 harmony, our own Church, which, in an indifferent matter, 
 (standing on the Lord’s Day at Divine Service), does not regard 
 even an Ccumenical Council, is, in a matter to all appearance 
 equally indifferent, not bound by Provincial Councils. 
 
 It is said, however, that there is danger of profaning the Holy 
 Communion, if it is received after the chief meal of the day. 
 Now, to whom does this apply? Surely not to the poor, for their 
 chief meal on Sunday is, as I have observed in the text of the 
 Lecture, not of the abundant character to create this apprehen- 
 sion, even if they communicate in the afternoon, and much less if 
 they communicate in the evening. Many of the middle classes 
 will continue to communicate at the time now usual. Many of 
 those in easy circumstances and disengaged, and many who 
 habitually rise early, will communicate early. As for the imagi- 
 nary case of “ Dives” quitting ἃ dining-room where he has “ fared 
 sumptuously,” and coming to church in an unfit condition to 
 receive the Holy Communion, this is scarcely likely to occur. 
 Even did it occur now and then, would this be a sufficient reason 
 for depriving others of a blessing which he is wicked enough to 
 misuse? And would the mere possibility of it, antecedent to a 
 fair trial, justify the invention of a new epithet, “ post-prandial,” 
 to stigmatize a late reception by many who come, perhaps, not 
 when they would, but when they can? Let those who are 
 inclined to adopt such an epithet go to St. James’, Leeds ; to 
 
488 NOTES. 
 
 St. Martin’s, Birmingham ; or to St. Peter’s, Stepney ; they will 
 see there many humble worshippers to whose condition as com- 
 pared with ours might be applied Burke’s description of the 
 natives of India, persons “‘whose very excess and luxury, in their 
 most plenteous days, falls short of our austerest fasts.” At the 
 last-named church, St. Peter’s, I have myself officiated on an 
 Easter Sunday evening. It was the third celebration on that day. 
 One hundred and sixty communicated ; I administered to eighty 
 of these. There were not two of them whose hard hands and 
 general appearance did not indicate the working man or woman. 
 
 The mistake of those who advocate the early Communion seems 
 to be, that they do not merely urge it to bea desirable practice— 
 this we might allow—but that they consider it to be the only 
 practice which ought to prevail. They thus ignore difficul- 
 ties created by poverty, by engagements, by health, and by a 
 variety of other causes. This at least is avoided by those who 
 argue for the later view. Generally, they concede that any time 
 is lawful, and look to the practical objects of the institution, 
 the strengthening and refreshing of the souls of believers. This 
 they conceive more necessary to be kept in view than a mere 
 Church regulation—if indeed it was such—which our own 
 Church has not adopted. They have weighty arguments on their 
 side —-the present hour does not bring people to the Holy Com- 
 munion ; other hours do. In some neighbourhoods an early hour 
 suits some ; let them have it. In other neighbourhoods a later 
 hour suits very, very many; let them have it also. Scripture and 
 the silence of our Church have, they say, left the hour an open 
 question. Why make it aclose question? And if experience is 
 wanted, cases are ready in abundance to show how the change of 
 hours has worked. 
 
 I confess I incline to this liberal view, and in confirmation of it 
 I subjoin extracts from letters by three well-known clergymen, of 
 differing sentiments on some other matters, but agreeing thoroughly 
 as to the happy result of the experiment which they have made. 
 
 The first extract is from a letter by the Rev. Dr. Miller, 
 rector of St. Martin’s, Birmingham. He treats incidentally of 
 other matters connected with my subject, such as the division 
 and alternation of Sunday services, and the importance of a 
 distinct service for children. It bears date July 25, 1860. 
 
 “T find, on reference, that we began our evening Communion 
 
NOTES. 489 
 
 in July, 1852. This was after the termination of our first experi- 
 ments, which commenced in January of the same year, and 
 included early, midday, and afternoon Communions. 
 
 “ After the institution of the evening Communion we soon 
 abandoned that in the afternoon, as unnecessary for the conve- 
 nience of the communicants. 
 
 “The number of evening communicants has gradually increased, 
 and includes all classes. Partly, no doubt, because time is not so 
 important as in the morning, when every minute affects early 
 family dinners and the afternoon attendance of servants. Partly 
 because it suits Sunday-school teachers. To servants and many of 
 the artisan class the evening is their only time for public 
 worship. - 
 
 * Our early service was an entire failure—in no measure from 
 prejudice—only from the habits of the population. It suited no 
 class. Most people take an extra rest on Sunday mornings, 
 and servants cannot be spared so early. 
 
 “Generally, I may say, that I strongly recommend division of 
 the services; and I think the variety on different Sundays an 
 advantage. By so arranging, no one of the three congregations 
 is deprived of any part of our Liturgy. Our afternoon and 
 evening people sometimes join in Litany and Communion service, 
 as well as in evening prayers ; and they soon fall into the plan. 
 The fancy that they will be in constant uncertainty is groundless. 
 No inconvenience is felt, no complaints are made. 
 
 “Our Sunday morning service for our school children, in a 
 separate building, and lasting an hour, is much liked by teachers 
 and children. 
 
 “NUMBER OF COMMUNICANTS, 1860. 
 
 ἐξ . Early . . . 982) Communion thrice 
 shi 1st-—Moring | Midday .. 121 on first Sunday 
 ΠΟΙ ἐν οὁὅἔοὁνΡρ  ἸΠ0 1 ὝΘΔΥ. 
 Stir —arlyeme en) eh oe ee LO 
 February 5th—Midday ...... 79 
 UW OSEN ὦ ρον 
 26th.—Evening. . ... . 95 
 March 4th—Midday...... 1714 
 ἘΠῚ ΞΞΞ EAT ce ct tonne τῶ iy LO 
 25th.—Mivening. . . ... 90 
 April lst—Midday ... . a AZ 
 
 Good Friday, Midday . 64 
 
400 _ NOTES. 
 
 Easter Day, Early . . 73 
 
 Midday . 77 
 
 Evening . 179 
 
 May 6th—Midday ...... 66 
 
 arly wee ete no.  O 
 
 Ascension Day, Midday . . 26 
 
 Whit Sunday, Midday. . . 381 
 
 Evening. . . 152 
 
 June. Trinity Sunday, Midday . . 43 
 
 MO = Warly pace pn ie Ὁ 95 
 24th.— Evening. . . ... 89” 
 
 The second extract is from a letter by the Rey. T. J. Rowsell, 
 the incumbent of St. Peter’s, Stepney. It bears date July 25, 
 1860. 
 
 “T am ata distance from my journals, but I can remember the 
 following facts about evening Communions : 
 
 “Since we adopted the practice, in addition to Communions at 
 other hours, the number of communicants has increased at least 
 one-fourth, if not one-third, and in the evening nearly all are 
 poor. The few who are not, are often invalids, or those who have 
 remained at home with those who are invalids—and some have 
 been kind watchers by the sick, who can get out in the evening, 
 though not earlier. About a quarter of the day’s number attend 
 in the evening, rather more than at the early Communion ; the 
 rest attend in the midday. Their manner is most devout, as you 
 have seen, and the labouring poor often express gratitude for the 
 opportunity. Our people dine early, at one ; get tidy and quiet, 
 and get their children to bed ; their minds are at ease—and this 
 is indeed the Lord’s Supper to them: I am sure the Holy Gift 
 is a sanctification to them, and it is always reverently accepted. 
 Lam not at all changed by anything that has been written against 
 my practice: 1 Cor. xi, and he who wrote to them gives me 
 liberty, and guards me against license. The souls of my people 
 are dearer to me than discipline, thankful as I am for discipline 
 when it leads to, not keeps away from, Christ. Surely that is the 
 Church’s spirit. 
 
 “There is no step in the last seventeen years which I took, at 
 first, with more hesitation, but there is none which I now less 
 regret. ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice,’ is what one 
 desires to learn, and to draw our poor to church with kindness 
 and charity.” 
 
NOTES. 491 
 
 The third extract is from a letter by the Rev. Edward Jackson, 
 the incumbent of St. James’, Leeds. It bears date August 30, 
 1860. 
 
 “The practice of celebrating the Holy Communion in the 
 evening commenced in Leeds in 1851. 
 
 “The question, along with others of a similar character, had 
 been carefully considered by the Leeds clergy shortly before the , 
 practice was commenced, and it had been recommended as 
 desirable by a committee of the Rural Deanery in a report 
 published in October of that year. 
 
 “The first church in which evening Communion took place 
 was one, situate in a populous suburb, principally occupied by 
 the working classes ; the next was my own, which is surrounded 
 by a dense mass of the lowest grades of society ; vagrants, 
 hawkers, reputed thieves, and the poorest Irish. 
 
 “« The practice was next introduced into the large parish church, 
 by the vicar, Dr. Hook, but was in that church limited to the 
 administration of the Communion in the evenings of such 
 holy days and saints’ days as did not fall on Sundays. Τὺ 
 afterwards spread to several other churches, both in the town 
 and the suburbs. 
 
 “T have now had a nine years experience of evening Commu- 
 nions, and therefore I may be allowed to speak with some 
 confidence of results. 
 
 “And first I would say generally, that I have reason to be 
 altogether satisfied with the practice, and to be most thankful 
 that it was introduced into my church. I consider that it has 
 tended more than anything else in connexion with our services 
 to kindle and keep alive the spirit of true devotion, and the 
 perseverance in holy living, as well as to foster a warm attach- 
 ment to the place where the privileges were afforded, as indeed 
 the house of God; all which is continually more evident. 
 
 “2. As regards numbers in attendance, the average at the 
 evening celebrations has been more than double the average at 
 Communions in the earlier part of the day ; and at the evening 
 Communions on saints’ days and other holy days, the attend- 
 ance has been fully equal to that on Sunday mornings, if not 
 greater. 
 
 “T ought here to state, that it has been the custom in my 
 church, since the year 1838, to have the Communion adminis- 
 
492 NOTES. 
 
 tered every Lord’s Day, and on all saints’ days and holy days, 
 for which there are special services appointed by the Church. 
 
 “Our hours for service are: On Sundays—Morning, 10.30, 
 evening 6.30; and on saints’ days and holy days, at 8 in the 
 evening only, the service ending at 9. 
 
 “Tt is perhaps important also to remark, that on Sunday 
 mornings, when the Communion is administered, the Litany is 
 said in the evening, and not in the morning; and vice versd, 
 when the Communion takes place in the Evening Service, 
 which is once in the month, the Litany is said at the Morning 
 Service. The advantage of this arrangement in equalizing the 
 respective duration of the two services is very considerable, both 
 to the minister and the people. 
 
 “3. The convenience to the families of the working classes is 
 so great, and I may say so necessary, that now it appears to me 
 no longer any wonder that the greater part of our population is 
 alienated from the Church, and that we have so few communi- 
 cants from the masses of the poor. It cannot indeed be 
 otherwise, when the services are so arranged as to time and 
 circumstance, that the working people cannot avail themselves 
 of them. 
 
 “ For instance, how can a mother of the lower orders leave her 
 house on Sunday, either to attend an ordinary service or to 
 receive the Communion, so long as her children require her 
 attendance and her care? It is obvious, that the only time for 
 her is the evening, when the little ones are in bed. 
 
 “4, Again: the only day in the week when the working 
 man’s family can meet to have a comfortable dinner is on 
 Sunday ; but how can this be, if either the husband or the wife 
 stay the usual forenoon Communion, which is not ordinarily 
 over until past one ? 
 
 “The working man’s usual dinner hour is twelve, or soon 
 afterwards ; what logic will be sufficient to quiet the craving 
 appetite of himself and his family for well nigh an hour and 
 half beyond their proper time, which must be the necessary 
 delay, if he lives any distance from the church and stays the 
 midday Communion ? 
 
 “But even should he stay, how hurried is he to reach his 
 home—how, instantly on his arrival, must he sit down to the 
 delayed meal—how all at once are the whole of the reflections 
 
NOTES. 493 
 
 and solemn impressions of the service he has just left dispersed 
 by the bustle of the wife and the exclamations of the children ! 
 
 “5. This consideration, however, assumes a graver character, 
 when it is taken in connexion with the fact, that in our working 
 families (alas! is it so only with our working families ?) the 
 communicants are generally the exceptions; and should they, by 
 staying for Holy Communion, trespass upon the usual arrange- 
 ments for the important Sunday meal, little peace is there in the 
 household for them! And when the young communicant by 
 painful experience knows this to be the case, can we expect him 
 to give that close, calm attention to the sacred service, which is 
 so necessary for its proper enjoyment, and the realization of its 
 benefits ; or can we wonder, if in the face of such continued 
 opposition, he should after the first warmth of his confirmation, 
 or primal religious impressions, gradually discontinue his at- 
 tendance ? Was it not to avoid similar persecution, in their case 
 however oftentimes οὗ ἃ physical, as well as of a moral kind, that 
 the early Christians held their religious assemblies in the even- 
 ings, or at night, so that with them the nocturnal administration 
 of the Lord’s Supper was the rule, and not the exception ? 
 
 “6, But it has been said, that if the Holy Communion be 
 administered at any other time than before dinner, there is the 
 danger of its being received upon a full stomach, and therefore 
 with less likelihood of attention and devotion. 
 
 “With us, I can safely say, there is no such danger. Our 
 working people dine at 12, or 12.30, and take their tea at 4, or 
 4.30, and our middle classes on Sundays dine not later than 1, or 
 1.30, and take tea at 5, or 5.30. Now, the time for the reception 
 of Evening Communion cannot, with our arrangements, be 
 before 8.30; for we have first Evening Prayer, then the Com- 
 munion Service with Sermon ; so that there can have been no 
 food taken for three hours at the least before the hour of com- 
 municating, and no hearty meal for seven hours ! 
 
 “7, I can truly say, that no services I have known have sur- 
 passed in solemnity and depth of devotional feeling the evening 
 Communions, which I have the privilege of attending ; and I 
 think I can confidently appeal to all others, who have enjoyed 
 the like privilege, for a corroboration of what I say. To which 
 should be added, that there is this great special advantage attend- 
 ing them, that the communicants usually go away to a quiet 
 
494, NOTES. 
 
 home, from all disturbing sights and influences, and should theirs 
 be religious households, to family worship, and then to the 
 retirement and final devotion of their own bedrooms. 
 
 “8, But it may be well to notice one other objection, which is 
 not unfrequently made to the practice of evening Communions : 
 ‘ Allowing all that has been said as to the desirableness and even 
 necessity of some change from the usual forenoon administration 
 of the Holy Communion, could not this be met and provided for 
 by an early celebration ; say at seven or eight o'clock, which 
 would have the advantage of being more strictly in accordance 
 with the mind of the Church, and be less liable to abuse ?” 
 
 “My answer to such objectors is this: I have tried, and tried 
 fairly, early Sunday morning Communions, and they do not 
 succeed, Whatever be the case with the upper classes, with the 
 working people, who can only have an extra hour of sleep on 
 Sunday, (which they often greatly want, and which I believe is 
 frequently a merciful allowance for them), such early services are 
 not found in the long run either practicable or profitable. As 
 an eminent London physician said to a friend of mine, ‘I know 
 not what may be the benefit of such early fasting services to 
 your souls, but certainly they are very injurious to your bodies.’ 
 
 “Then I should further dispute with the objectors alluded to, 
 that evening Communion is not opposed to the mind of the 
 Church, seeing that such was the time of its sacred institution 
 by the Lord himself, the only time mentioned for its adminis- 
 tration in the Acts of the Apostles, and the acknowledged hour 
 in the Primitive Church, whilst our own Church has fixed no 
 time, but left it to the discretion and convenience of the minister 
 and congregation. 
 
 “Of course, with respect to its administration on other days 
 not Sundays and general holydays, there can be no Communions 
 for working people, except in the evenings ; their hours of labour 
 utterly preventing any general attendance at either a morning 
 service, or at any other hour of the day; therefore such days, 
 though provided for by the Church with special services, can- 
 not be observed as the Church contemplates by the mass of 
 the population, except by evening services and evening Com- 
 munions. 
 
 “T will only add to what I have already said, that after 
 
 -twenty-seven years of labour amongst the working population of 
 
NOTES. 495 
 
 this large town, and with great opportunities for studying their 
 needs, and the difficulties of their peculiar circumstances, I am 
 decidedly of opinion that the Church of England will never regain 
 her influence over the masses, and no efforts of hers for that end 
 will ever be successful, unless, in combination with the earnest, 
 simple, and affectionate preaching of the full Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ, she offers short services and frequent Communions, such 
 as the Prayer-Book evidently contemplates and provides, at times 
 when the people can conveniently attend them ; the whole re- 
 commended to the consciences and feelings of those sought to be 
 benefited by a humble, lowly, loving and self-sacrificing pastorate.” 
 
 This note is already too long, but I cannot close it without 
 quoting a passage from a letter which has recently appeared in the 
 Guardian newspaper, by the Rev. James Skinner, formerly of Pim- 
 lico. He does not indeed plead for afternoon or evening Commu- 
 nions, but he ventures to urge that one may communicate at the 
 hour now usual without being disadvantageously compared with 
 the Churches on the Continent. He so far, in fact, agrees with 
 what has been said above, as to consider the exact hour an open 
 question, and to have been mercifully and charitably left so, both 
 by Scripture and by our own Church. It was written from 
 Prague, Sept. 23, 1860, after attending the opening of the 
 Provincial Council. 
 
 “One thing I especially wish to note before I conclude. And 
 I shall be glad if a contemporary of yours will observe what I 
 say, and have some mercy on late communicants. I am an 
 invalid, and have much sympathy with the many who, like 
 myself, most usually receive Holy Communion after eleven o’clock 
 in the day, and are hurt at being abused for it. Well, it was 
 strange, certainly, but all the time during the long and inte- 
 resting ceremony of opening the Provincial Council at the high 
 altar, a priest was celebrating mass hard by, at the gorgeous 
 shrine of St. George Nepomak ; and it was not a private mass, 
 but it was ἃ low mass, with the administration. I saw the priest 
 minister the consecrated wafer to at least twenty persons. 
 Whether they were pilgrims to this popular shrine, and could 
 not be there earlier, I cannot say. But there they were; and so it 
 was. And I looked at my watch, and the hour was twelve o'clock.” 
 
 Page 331, line 21. ‘Thorndike.’ “Just Weights and Measures,” 
 ce. xxii. ὃ 5. On the lawfulness of separating the services, and 
 
499 NOTES. 
 
 on the removal of any restriction of the hour of Communion 
 Service at the last Review, see Wheatly’s “ Rational Illustration,” 
 ὅσο. pp. 251, 252. 
 
 Besides the passages quoted from Thorndike in the text of the 
 Lecture, see also his “Due Way of composing Differences,’ ὃ 40 
 (Works, vol. v. p. ὅδ, Oxford Edit.), and his “‘Just Weights and 
 Measures,” cxxil. § 10. 
 
 There are many cases, no doubt, in which an early service 
 would be a great boon, especially to persons who live in towns, 
 and walk out after attending church to visit their friends in the 
 country. I have been told by a clergyman near Highgate, that 
 many young men leave London at ten, attend his church at 
 eleven, and then go on. This is an advantage to them, but 
 perhaps an early service in their own church might have been 
 better still. And it might attract others who are going toa 
 greater distance. 
 
 Page 333, line 28. ‘We should not brand those as Sabbath- 
 breakers,’ ὅσο. ‘if they change air and scene, consistently with the 
 higher claims of the day.’ 
 
 I suhjoin two additional illustrations of the point urged in the 
 preceding note. The former is from the Sermons of the late 
 Mr. F. W. Robertson, “Series 1, Sermon VI.” 
 
 “ Aoain, that which is rest to one man is not rest to another. 
 To require the illiterate man to read his Bible for some hours 
 would impose a toil upon him, though it might be relaxation to 
 you. To the labouring man a larger proportion of the day must 
 be given to the recreation of his physical nature than is neces- 
 sary for the man of leisure, to whom the spiritual observance of 
 the day is easy, and seems all. Let us learn large, charitable 
 considerateness. Let not the poor man sneer at his richer 
 neighbour, if, in the exercise of his Christian liberty, he uses 
 his horses to convey him to church, and not to the mere drive 
 of pleasure ; but then, in fairness, let not the rich man be 
 shocked and scandalised if the over-wearied shopkeeper and 
 artisan breathe the fresh air of heaven with their families in the 
 country. ‘The Sabbath was made for man.’ Be generous, con- 
 sistent, large-minded. A man may hold stiff, precise Jewish 
 notions on this subject, but do not stigmatise that man 88 ἃ 
 formalist. Another may hold large, Paul-like views of the 
 abrogation of the Fourth Commandment, and yet he may be sin- 
 
NOTES. 497 
 
 cerely and zealously anxious for the hallowing of the day in his 
 household and through the country. Do not call that man a 
 Sabbath-breaker. Remember, the Pharisees called the Son of 
 God a Sabbath-breaker. They kept the law of the Sabbath— 
 they broke the law of love. Which was the worse to break ? 
 which was the higher to keep? Take care lest, in the zeal 
 which seems to you to be for Christ, ye be found indulging 
 their spirit, and not His.” 
 
 The second passage is from the Zimes newspaper, for May 
 16th, 1856. It is valuable as ἃ layman’s view of the matter. 
 
 The writer just touches on the polemical history of the Lord’s 
 Day, and proceeds thus :— 
 
 “Here, then, are two theories of the day, and the English 
 Sunday is a mixture of both. It is partly a Sabbath, partly a 
 Festival. The popular religion connects a certain strictness with 
 the day. Amusements which would be very proper on other 
 days are not proper on that day. ‘There is a certain quiet repose 
 and gravity which is considered to suit it,—and abstinence from 
 rough excitement and disorderly mirth. But some enjoyment and 
 some festival feeling is still connected with the day. Go into any 
 populous town on a Sunday, and, if it is at all a fine day, walk 
 a mile or two on the road, or take the path through the fields. 
 You will meet men, women, and children all looking their best, 
 and wearing their brightest colours, Sunday hats and waistcoats, 
 Sunday bonnets and shawls, come out of their dark recesses, and 
 exchange their six days’ torpor and flatness in the drawer for the 
 shining stiffness of an actual wear. You meet family parties, 
 married couples, engaged couples. These persons do not profess 
 to be engaged in direct spiritual contemplation, nor do they think 
 it wrong that they are not. No; their idea is that of quiet, 
 harmless enjoyment. They take their stroll, and derive an inno- 
 cent pleasure from the sun, the open air, the fields, and the sky, 
 —from the quiet gossip which accompanies their saunter, and 
 from having nothing particular to do or to think of for that day. 
 Follow these saunterers to their homes, and you will see the 
 same type of Sunday observance. It is a day for families to 
 meet, talk, and be cheerful round the fireside, the tea-table, or 
 the supper. Yet these persons would think it highly wrong to 
 play at cards or to go to a play on a Sunday, This is the type of 
 Sunday observance which more or less pervades English society, 
 
 Ἴς E 
 
498 NOTES. 
 
 It is a religious day, and a certain strictness is associated with it ; 
 yet together with the claims of public worship and the general 
 gravity and quiet of the day is combined enjoyment ; the Festi- 
 val mingles with the Sabbath, and the Puritanical theory unites 
 with the ecclesiastical. This is our traditional Sunday. Our 
 English Sunday has, from the Reformation downwards, shown 
 this mixed type, and rather obstinately adhered to it. Attempts 
 from time to time have been made to wrench it one way or 
 another way,—to pull it in the Puritanical direction or the other, 
 to make it exclusively a Sabbath or a Festival; but they have 
 invariably failed. The ‘Book of Sports’ in the days of the 
 Stuarts was a bold attempt to convert it into the simple Festival ; 
 but it was a vain one. The Puritans would not dance, though it 
 was solemnly enjoined on them, on peril of incarceration, by 
 justices of the peace, and though they were led up to the sportive 
 scene under the superintendence of constables. But the Puritans 
 in their turn could not, when they got the upper hand, establish 
 a Puritanical Sabbath, and persuade Englishmen to be morose, 
 gloomy, and unhappy on that day. 
 
 ‘Such being, then, the traditional and established English 
 Sunday, it would be well on the whole if people would agree to 
 let our popular type of the day alone, without fretfully meddling 
 with it. One party thinks we are not strict enough in our ob- 
 servance of the day ; another party thinks we are too strict. So 
 Sir Joshua Walmsley has his motion, and wants to introduce the 
 continental Sunday. Mr. Baines wants to introduce the Puritan 
 Sabbath.” 
 
 Page 335, line 12. ‘Other remedial measures . . . Church 
 Festivals ©. . Saturday half-holiday, and the like. I have 
 been told by various mercantile firms, employing and lodging 
 a large number of young men and women, that since the 
 adoption of an earlier hour of closing on Saturday, they have 
 observed a great improvement, physically and morally, in their 
 workpeople. efore, the late hours of Saturday so thoroughly 
 wearied them, that on Sunday they were fit for nothing but 
 listless animal rest, or rude bodily exercise. They had neither 
 heart nor spirits for anything relating to their souls. Wow, they 
 will rise earlier and more cheerfully, occupy themselves well in 
 the house-library till church-time, go to church, and after dinner 
 take the bodily recreation which they really need ; or they go 
 
NOTES. 499 
 
 to their friends from church, and thus fall under good influences. 
 This restoration of Sunday to something more befitting man’s 
 Divine nature and higher destiny is attributable in a great 
 measure to partial intermission of work on Saturday. Many 
 can now get a game of cricket on Saturday ; many others secure 
 relaxation in other harmless ways ; and none, in houses thus 
 regulated, can now say that they have no opportunity of attend- 
 ing to their bodily health, except at the expense of that of their 
 souls, or vice versd. This plea used often to be urged, and it was 
 very difficult to meet it. I am sure that nothing is wanting to 
 make this happy change general, but a resolve on the part of pur- 
 chasers to refrain from late shopping on Saturday. The workpeople 
 are most anxious, the employers are most willing, to carry it out. 
 Ts it much for a Christian community to stretch forth a helping 
 hand to what will tend to the benefit of their brethren, and to 
 the honor of their Lord, and of His Day? I believe also— 
 for I have had the subject mentioned by those who should be 
 well informed—that a quarterly holiday, (not necessarily a Church 
 holy-day, but if that, so much the better), would be heartily 
 welcomed, if ordered by Government. The days suggested have 
 been Easter Monday, Midsummer Day, Michaelmas Day, and 
 Christmas Day, Good Friday being thrown in, and perhaps thus 
 saved from its present desecration, by being no longer one of the 
 two days in the year, besides Sundays, on which labour ceases. 
 Again : multiplication of holidays would give persons an oppor- 
 tunity of learning to use them irreproachably. We are told 
 sometimes that English operatives do not know how to employ 
 a leisure day. What chance have they had of gaining such 
 knowledge, for many, many years past ἢ 
 
 Page 336, line 4. ‘To begin with children, &c. See the 
 well-known “ Essay on Church Parties,’ Edinb. Rev. No. CC. 
 for Oct. 1853, ascribed to the late Mr. Conybeare. 
 
 “But the most conspicuous example of Judaizing tendencies 
 in the party is furnished by their Sabbatarian views. In defiance 
 of the clearest expressions of Scripture—in defiance of the uni- 
 versal consent of all foreizn Churches, Catholic and Protestant— 
 in defiance of the express declarations of the Reformers, but in 
 accordance with the traditions of the Scotch and English Puritans 
 —they teach that the Christian Lord’s Day is identical with the 
 Jewish Sabbath. Nay, they require that it should be observed 
 
500 NOTES. 
 
 with a stern severity, unknown even to the Mosaic ritual. The 
 effect of such an observance upon those who submit to it for 
 conscience’ sake is, we freely own, most beneficial. Nor does 
 it differ materially from that observance of the day which is the 
 highest privilege of the Christian. Those who know how much 
 we need every help to raise our thoughts above the turmoil of 
 the world, will feel thankful that they are permitted to rest 
 from earthly cares and amusements on the Sunday. They will 
 be ready to exclaim with Herbert— 
 
 “Ὁ day most calm, most bright, 
 The fruit of this, the next world’s bud, 
 The week were dark, but for thy lght.’ 
 
 “ But the Puritans have always enforced this religious privi- 
 lege of the advanced Christians, as if it had been a command 
 compulsory upon all men. And they have enforced it, moreover, 
 in its negative and prohibitory aspect ; where they could, by 
 penal laws ; everywhere by damnatory denunciations. Thou- 
 sands are thus alienated from piety by associating it from their 
 earliest childhood with a day of gloom and restriction, imposed 
 upon them by arbitary force. 
 
 * * “2 * τς * 
 
 “The child is father of the man, and a childhood thus trained 
 too often fathers a manhood of impiety ; yet it is not on those who 
 can be constrained, whether by force or persuasion, to Sabbatize, 
 that the bad effects are most serious ; the real sufferers are the 
 working millions, whom nature, shut out by steam-engine and 
 spinning-jenny during the week, draws forth on the day of rest 
 to refresh their lungs with purer air, and their eyes and hearts 
 with gazing on the unspoiled works of their Creator. Religion is 
 too often known to these multitudes in the Puritan form alone. 
 They have been taught by their spiritual guides, both Epis- 
 copalian and Dissenting, that it is ‘Sabbath-breaking’ to look 
 upon green fields and running brooks ; and that Sabbath-break- 
 ing is as great a sin as drunkenness or fornication. Thus their 
 Sunday pleasures, in themselves so innocent, are turned into 
 guilts. Being placed under the ban of religion, they become reck- 
 less of her restraints, As they are Sabbath-breakers already, they 
 think they may as well be drunkards too ; and when upon the 
 wings of steam they have left the smoky town far behind, they 
 
NOTES. 501 
 
 vary their excursions by a visit, not to the rural church, (whither 
 by wiser treatment they might easily have been won), but to 
 the roadside alehouse. Thus the masses are brutalised and 
 degraded by the attempt to raise them prematurely to a high 
 degree of spiritual advancement.” 
 
 For a passage very similar in character, and especially descrip- 
 tive of the restilts of the northern “ Sabbath” upon the minds of 
 many young persons, see a Scottish publication, called ‘The 
 Panoply,” vol. i. p. 284. In the course of it is cited “ἃ favorite 
 saying of a late Judge in the Court of Justiciary, and himself 
 a Presbyterian, that it was not Sabbath-breaking, but Sabbath- 
 keeping that was the beginning of almost all crime.” By “ Sab- 
 bath-keeping,” he meant, as the context shows, such constraint 
 of children on the Lord’s Day as Mr. Conybeare in this note, 
 and Dr. Miller in the following note, so earnestly deprecate. 
 
 Page 337, line 11. ‘Dr. Miller.” I subjoin an extract, not 
 less remarkable for its outspoken boldness than for its truth, 
 from a speech by this gentleman. It was delivered at the 
 anniversary of the “Sunday School Union,” May 3, 1855. (He 
 alludes to the subject in his letter, quoted in note to Lecture 
 VIII. p. 330, 1. 20.) 
 
 “1 do not believe there is a single father upon this platform, 
 or in this hall, who would attempt, if he had a grain of common 
 sense, to deal with his own children as we have been dealing 
 with the children of the poor. Who that knows the elasticity 
 of a child’s body and mind, and the difficulty of keeping it still, 
 even at family prayer, would ever dream, if he thought at all on 
 the subject, of overtasking the physical and mental powers of 
 children, as we have so long been doing on the Lord’s Day? I 
 know how it is in Birmingham, and I suppose it is much the 
 same elsewhere. Our children come down to school at nine or 
 a quarter past nine o’clock ; many of them having to leave their 
 homes an hour, or nearly so, before that, and they very often 
 come with a half-finished slice of bread and butter in their 
 hands. The child is taken into the school, and first of all there - 
 is a religious service ; then you sit down to lessons, and now and 
 then the child is placed under the care of the kind of teacher to 
 whom I have a great objection, and that is a preaching teacher. 
 Well, when the child has gone through all this, he is taken to 
 church or chapel, I will take the case of my own church, and 
 
502 NOTES. 
 
 then I shall not appear invidious. Whatever praises may be 
 lavished upon the Liturgy of the Church of England, it is not one 
 in all its parts specially attractive to little children. Then in 
 our churches—I do not know how it is among Nonconformists 
 —these young ones are placed in a gallery, far off, and almost 
 out of sight of the pulpit, where they very often get the benefit 
 of all the hot and foul air of the place ; and there you see these 
 poor little unhappy creatures cracking nuts, peeling oranges, and 
 engaged in all sorts of things which disturb the congregation, 
 and distress their teachers. Well, you keep them there under a 
 very good and eloquent sermon as I am bound to suppose, but, 
 in my case, a very long one ; and then, at a quarter to one, you 
 let them out, and you turn round and imagine, that having gone 
 through this round for years, they will, at the age of seventeen, 
 having left your school, be so enamoured-of it and all connected 
 with it, that they will come back and become regular attendants 
 at your churches and chapels, to hear your sermons and your 
 prayers. Now, I for one say the whole thing is a mistake ; and 
 I maintain that one of the reasons—I would say the only reason 
 —why you have to be perpetually asking, ‘What has become 
 of the working classes who were brought up in our Sunday- 
 schools?’ is the way in which you have thus detached them 
 from you on the Lord’s Day. And I cannot but call to mind an 
 anecdote, which I heard from an excellent clergyman, who told 
 me that a boy, brought up in his Sunday-school, on one occasion 
 passing the church, said to his companion, as he heard the bell 
 ringing for service, with a look of extreme disgust, ‘I hate that 
 bell ;’"—and why? It was because he had there heard services 
 associated with weariness in his mind. And though I am fully 
 alive to the difficulty which I feel, more strongly, perhaps, as a 
 clergyman of the Church of England, of dissociating the minds 
 of children from the actual attendance on the very sanctuary of 
 God—and I feel that there is a great deal to be said on this 
 point, and I do not wonder at ministers feeling this—yet I say, 
 if we can only devise some plan of suitable religious services, 
 especially with regard to the younger children, we shall most 
 unquestionably be solving one of the greatest difficulties of the 
 day ; most effectually promoting the religious instruction of the 
 young ; and I venture to say, that when those who are now 
 children in our schools are adults, those who follow us will 
 
NOTES. 503 
 
 not have to look round upon the empty free seats of our places 
 of worship, and ask despondingly, ‘Where are the working 
 classes” See also Dr. Miller’s Sermon, ‘‘The Dying Judge's 
 Charge,” pp. 26, 27. 
 
 Page 339, line 11. ‘Let us resolve that we who can rest at 
 other times,’ ὅσο. 
 
 Fuller speaks on this subject, Church History, vol. vi. p. 93: 
 “A worthy doctor, (Dr. Paul Micklethwaite), who in his sermons 
 at the Temple no less piously than learnedly handled the point of 
 the Lord’s Day, worthily pressed that gentlefolk were obliged to 
 a stricter observation of the Lord’s Day than labouring people. 
 The whole have no need of the physician, but those who are sick. 
 Such as are not annihilated with labour have no title to be 
 recreated with liberty. Let servants, whose hands are ever 
 working whilst their eyes are waking ; let such who all the fore- 
 going week have their cheeks moistened with sweat, and hands 
 hardened with labour; let such have some recreation on the 
 Lord’s Day indulged unto them ; whilst persons of quality, who 
 may be said to keep Sabbath all the week long, I mean who rest 
 from hard labour, are concerned in conscience to observe the 
 Lord’s Day with the greater abstinence from recreation.” 
 
 Page 339, line 22. ‘Suggest principles towards their solution.’ 
 The Rev. G. J. Gowring, of Banbury, in a small and unpretending 
 volume, called ‘Sermons on the Lord’s Day,” &c. Oxford, 1855, 
 has some valuable remarks on “The Observance of the Lord’s 
 Day.” See his Twelfth Sermon. The Christian Knowledge 
 Society has a most excellent and cheerful little tract addressed to 
 peasants, and entitled “How to spend Sunday.” It is marked 
 No. 731. ᾿ 
 
 Page 340, line 12. ‘ Bishop Horsley,’ Serm. 29. 
 
 “ Perhaps a better general rule cannot be laid down than this, 
 that the same proportion of the Sabbath, on the whole, should 
 be devoted to religious exercises, public and private, as every 
 man would spend of any other day in his ordinary business. 
 The holy work of the Sabbath, like all other work, to be done 
 well, requires intermissions. An entire day is a longer space of 
 time than the human mind can employ with alacrity upon any 
 one subject. The austerity, therefore, of those is little to be 
 commended, who require that all the intervals of public worship, 
 and whatever remains of the day after the public duty is satis- 
 
504 NOTES. 
 
 fied, should be spent in the closet, in private prayer and retired 
 meditation. Nor are persons in the lower ranks of society to 
 be very severely censured—those especially who are confined in 
 populous cities, where they breathe a noxious atmosphere, and 
 are engaged in unwholesome occupations, from which, with their 
 daily subsistence, they derive their daily poison—if they take 
 advantage of the leisure of the day to recruit their wasted 
 strength and harassed spirits by short excursions into the purer 
 air of the adjacent villages, and the imnocent recreations of 
 sober society, provided they engage not in schemes of dissipated 
 and tumultuous pleasure, which may disturb the sobriety of 
 their thoughts, and interfere with the duties of the day.” 
 
 The use of the word Sabbath, and indeed the course of his 
 argument throughout his three Sermons on the subject, show to 
 what school Bp. Horsley belongs. But it is instructive to find 
 him, nevertheless, so practical and so merciful. His own rule, 
 quoted in the text, scarcely does him justice. 
 
 Page 340, line 19. ‘High heaven,’ &c. Wordsworth’s “ Eccl. 
 Soanets,” xlii. 
 
 Page 341, line 2. ‘Bene precipiunt.’ Cic. ‘‘ De Offic.” 1. 9. 
 
 Page 341, line 8. ‘St. Paul.” Rom. xiv. 29. 
 
 Page 341, line 13. ‘Domine Deus, &e. Augustin. ‘ De 
 rin.” lib. xv. ¢. XVilL. 
 
 Page 342, line 19. ‘The day which, in our foolishness.’ This 
 is in accordance with what has been said all along, that man feels 
 the need of periodic worship of God, but that he is directed to 
 the particular time of it by special external revelations. Such 
 revelation supposed away, as the Jew would not have selected a 
 septenary religious day, the Sabbath, so the Christian would not 
 have selected the Sunday. Though each felt the want, he 
 would not otherwise have met it in that particular way. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL. 
 
soup write ti 
 
 Shik ce 
 
 pert bine ie bene boat 
 Heh ἵ 
 ΝΠ Ἦν, 
 ΑΝ 
 the 
 
 | 
 εἰμὴ θεν νθ tt 
 ΜΉΝ 
 
 ie adap 
 Hegre 
 jab ee eco 
 
 einer 
 GbE here he 
 
 wie fie pete 
 ΔΛ 
 
 fw as 
 ἐμ, ἩΝΙ