of candid inquiry, so readily allowed in other matters, may be as readily allowed here; the second, that my audience will carefully discriminate between two things, which, though essentially distinct, are often confounded in popular nomenclature—a respectful desire to set an institution on its true basis, and a disrespectful desire to undermine it. I hold this institution to be, in a spiritual sense of the words, "The day which the Lord hath made;" "I rejoice and am glad in it: "4 and I believe the way in which it is regarded to be no uncertain index of Christian stedfastness or decline, "signum aut stantis ant cadentis Christiani."

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 commencement, 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 acquaintance with which may be useful to us in the discussion which is to follow. Their diversity will at any rate. justify an attempt to exhibit some view which shall bind the conscience as scriptural, and satisfy the historical inquirer 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 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 passed away. "Christ did not Himself institute, He did not give author"ity to others to institute, nor may others institute with"out His authority, any special day of worship or rest in "lieu of, or in succession to, the Sabbath. Therefore, the "Sunday is altogether a fiction; there is now either no "Sabbath at all, or, if the mere word be contended for, it

may be understood 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 Anabaptists.

And here is the second view, though, perhaps, chronologically speaking, it should stand after the third, of which it is the honest development.

66

66

"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 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 rigour "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.8

"The Sabbath existed from the beginning, was re-enacted "and regulated by Moses, and has never since been abolished

1

66

"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 prefer to designate it, must be "observed as strictly as was that of the Jews, in the wil"derness under Moses, or in Jerusalem under Nehemiah." This is, on the whole, the Sabbatarian view as it appears in the celebrated work of Dr. Nicholas Bownd, which was first put forth A.D. 1595, and afterwards republished with additions A.D. 1606. It was formalized by the Westminster Divines in the statements made in their "Confession of Faith" and their "Larger" and "Shorter" Catechisms. Two of their number, Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer,10 published a very elaborate work in vindication and explanation of it A.D. 1645 and A.D. 1652.

66

Here is the fourth view."

"Sunday is the Christian representative of an earlier "Sabbath-in fact, of a Patriarchal Sabbath, 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 Commandment "for its moral sanction; it may be qualified as the Chris"tian Sabbath, because Christianity has eliminated from "the observance 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,'12 "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," 13 he must of course "be supposed to allude only to the Jewish aspect of them. "The change of the day, the softening of the rigour of

"Sabbath observance, both of which we allow to have "been made, no matter how or when, but probably by the "Apostles, are matters of minor import, and do not affect "the essentials of the Fourth Commandment upon which "Sunday depends. We cannot, perhaps, observe our Chris"tian Sabbath as strictly as its letter enjoins, 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, modifications, whatever Scripture says of the rest of the Seventh day is virtually said of the rest of the First day. For all prac"tical 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 assumptions, 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.16 The difference, 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 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.17

And now we come to the fifth view.18

"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 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 Christians generally as a law of God, or upon "members of the Church of England in virtue of the "terms of their communion. Nay, the 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 the words, a Sabbath, or a successor to the "Sabbath. It is a purely Ecclesiastical institution. It "has little, if anything, to do with the Fourth Command"ment. It has an origin, a reason, an obligation of its

own. The passages usually cited from the New Testa"ment do not imply that it existed as an institution in the "lifetime 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. 10,19 which may be seriously ques❝tioned. We do not believe that it is sinful 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 per"sonal responsibilities. Sunday should give free play to "his whole nature. Thus far as to our idea of this festival,