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 precedents of the assault on Jericho, which he supposes 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, à fortiori should Christians honor that Day which God has chosen for His service." And various Churchmen and Synods at different times and places set themselves to stem the torrent of Judaism which was flowing into the Church. Archbishop Islip of Canterbury,200 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,270 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 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 Ecclesiasticism, 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,271 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,272 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,273 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 protests, 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 complicated Ecclesiastical Sabbatarianism became in theory, the more religion was practically disregarded, and the Lord's Day perverted to unholy uses, were among the causes that provoked in due time that more systematic and general movement, the Reformation.

This important event, found, as we have said, the Lord's

Day obscured by a sort of Sabbatarianism established on an Ecclesiastical foundation. It purified it from this, and in England, proceeded, authoritatively at least, no further. On the Continent,274 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 devoted 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.

LET NO MAN

COLOSSIANS II. 16, 17.

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.

Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων,

“Α ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστοῦ.

THAT the Lord's Day is a positive ordinance of Scriptural and Apostolic Christianity, standing on grounds, and supported by considerations, 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 275 on the command given to the Jews for the establishment of the Sabbath, seem therefore to be a rebuilding of things which have been destroyed, and to make those who do so transgressorshas been the argument of the previous Lectures. There are, 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

H

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 centuries. And we might perhaps be contented with this clear evidence from antiquity that Sabbatarianism 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, before 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 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?

It was scarcely, I think, a matter of Natural or Moral Law,276 in the sense of being an obligation discoverable. without express revelation. Nothing that man finds within him could possibly direct him to the seventh day, in