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."

66

"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, 336 even of the most distant character, to the question, "Is there any day of obligation under Christianity, depending upon Apostolic usage?" Besides, it is the ordinary practice of the writers of Holy Scripture 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, by these passages, such passages would certainly prove strange exceptions to the general character of the writings of inspired men. I cannot, therefore, agree with those, how respected soever their names may be, who adduce them as subversive 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. Therefore the Lord's Day must be an after-thought, and a human after-thought. This is of course a "petitio principii," 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 argument 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 overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and 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 II.

It is said further, that, the Sabbath being declared to be abolished, we cannot, without recurrence to Judaism, acknowledge a continuance 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 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 admitted: yet such admission is perfectly compatible 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 worshipped 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; 337 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 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 concentrate 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 is 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 кaт' exην merely, but for a Church κатà Tò Suvaτóv; that as to the Lord's Day being a condescension to the weakness 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 twentyfour hours, because we dedicate at morning, at evening, 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 reverence for it spring up? 338 The origin of other holy days we can trace in the Fathers, but we cannot trace them in Scripture. They may, if you please, 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 concerning 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 maintainers of the other opinion, something like a shadow of evidence that it was discovered at some time that the Gospel could not grow without 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 Ecclesiastical theory, and such are at any rate intimations 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 considerations 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 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 impatient of the yoke which it imposed upon them, and without considering that they were perpetrating 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