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· ἐγαλλιασώμεθα 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 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 Pharisees 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 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 overquestions blending themselves most nearly with

Χ

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 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 para

bolically 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 multitudehow 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