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 examination either to be of questionable genuineness, or to assert no more than is conveyed in such words as the following: 500 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 Archbishop 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 (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 renunciation"),501 formally enjoined, and enforced under severe threatenings, and even penalties, in order to give time, and opportunity, and disengagement, 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 discussion." And I have brought down my inquiry 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 connected with our subject which it would not be right to pass over-questions blending themselves most nearly with our social life, our individual comfort, and I may say with our earliest religious prepossessions. Such are the following:-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 commanded in Scripture, on what principle may society either enforce it by forbidding employments, 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? 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 pro

ceeded 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 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 mysterious 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 combination, 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 away from the ordinary things of this life-life's labours and life's cares-and bids us with hearts "swept and garnished" invite the Lord's presence. 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—I 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 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, therefore, 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 commemorated upon it, it is a day of rest to those for whom their Lord by His rising conquered sin and death.

66

Well, but if the Lord's Day is a day of rest, what sort of rest is it? Is it a mere animal rest? 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 perish" be assigned to "the children of the resurrection." Is it a gloomy penitential rest, one which checks cheerful converse, family meetings, gladdening sights and sounds, invigorating air and exercise, contemplation of God's wonders in earth and sky, and which strictly forbids everything save direct participation in religious offices, and receiving or communicating religious instruction? 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, joyousness, (evþpoσúvn, xapμooúvn,) 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 enjoyments of it with sobriety; but sobriety is not sadness, still less is it abstinence and mortification.502

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,503 vegeti præscripta 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 convivial 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 Resurrection is a pledge of ours, who won our Resurrection 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,54 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