66

day when our Lord and Master rose in triumph from the grave. giving proof of an accepted Atonement and a Heaven reopened to mankind and it is the day on which the Third Person of the Ever Blessed Trinity assumed His office of Paraclete, to prepare for the reopened Heaven the people whom the Father hath given to the Son." In answer to the question whether the day is desecrated by recreation or amusement, he refers to the design of the festival, "which is, that it be a day of public worship, and, in relation to this, of mental repose and bodily rest. Such being the case, we answer at once, that recreation, as such, is not inconsistent with a religious observance of the Lord's-day; neither so was it considered by the Reformers,' -as the conduct of Parker and Aylmer, of which examples are given, shows. After arguing from Luke xiv. that recreation was not excluded from the idea of the Jewish Sabbath, he observes that this was the principle observed throughout the Christian world-the toleration of recreation not inconsistent with the design of the Lord's-day-until the prevalence of Puritanism, towards the close of Queen Elizabeth's reign. The Puritans asserted first that the Lord's-day was not an ordinance of the Church, but a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath, and then, in opposition to the Church, they represented it as profaned by every species of amusement. They were driven to this unscriptural course by the exigencies of their position. For if the Church has power to appoint one festival, it has power of course to appoint others. But being determined not to observe the festivals of Christmas and Easter, and being at the same time determined to keep the Sunday, they went from the New Testament to the Old, and, to remove themselves as far as possible from the Church, what the Church observed as a festival they converted into a fast. Hence all the logical confusion to which allusion has been made in the first part of this discourse." With respect to Sunday amusements, Dr Hook observes further:-"It is quite clear that all amusements for which money is paid must have a tendency to convert the Sunday into a working day. If we pay for amusements, a large number of persons will be compelled or induced to work. There will be a demand for work that we may be amused, and avarice will meet the demand. In saying this, then, do we not find the principle for which we are seeking? Paid-for amusements are to be resisted, on social grounds as well as religious, because they must lead to labour. But we must go further. If we would prevent a demand for the kind of recreation which would lead to consequences which we deprecate, we must provide, as far as in us lies, unpaid-for recreation for the working-classes. Under the present excitement of feeling upon this subject, I shall not enter upon details, further than to remark that no object can be presented to the eye more innocent or more lovely than that of a family-father, mother, children-recreating in the fields at eventide in the summer months. Let, then, our fields and parks be open. And as there must be temptation in an alehouse, and as there can be no sin in reading, why should not our libraries be

made accessible in the winter? I would ask yet further, why should not our Church services be made more attractive, not by the introduction of foolish imitations of bygone usages, but by the artistic performance of that sacred music peculiar to the Church of England, and which is unequalled in any other Church? It is folly to disregard the inferior motives; and hundreds who have been brought within the sound of the Gospel, attracted first by the music, have remained to pray, as this large congregation can bear witness." In the Appendix, extracts are given from Bishops Sanderson, Cosin, Bramhall, Nicholson, Taylor, and Horsley, and from Paley and Coleridge. Part of the quotation from the last is as follows: "I sincerely wish to preserve a decent quiet on Sunday. I would prohibit compulsory labour, and put down operas, theatres, &c., for this plain reason, that if the rich be allowed to play, the poor will be forced, or, what comes to the same thing, induced to work. I am not for a Paris Sunday. But to stop coaches, and let the gentleman's carriage run, is monstrous."-Dr Hook was addressed by "A London Clergyman," in Remarks on his pamphlet (London: Bell & Daldy, 1856; 12mo. pp. 12). The main purpose of this friendly critic is to represent, that "you would have strengthened your own cause, if, while allowing that we are bound, on a principle of revealed religion, to dedicate one day in seven to be a day of bodily and mental rest, and to be a day of Divine worship, you had not stated also that we establish, by precisely the same argument, the Divine authority of the Lord's-day and the Divine authority of Confirmation." It is however to be observed that Dr Hook hardly goes so far as to say that we are bound to act on the so-called "principle." His words, in page 27, are: "Here we have a principle on which we are to act; " that is (as I understand him), which suggests to us the like observance as proper for ourselves. But in like manner, are we not to act also on many of the Mosaic laws which are not in the Decalogue? Is ablution of the body less "a principle of revealed religion" than its repose on the seventh day?* Dr Hook's remark on the authority of Confirmation (in his 11th page) is adverted to also in Hessey's Bampton Lectures, p. 353.-The Facts and Fallacies of the Sabbath Question, considered Scripturally, without reference to its Social, Political, or Sanitary Character, by HENRY FULTON (2d ed., Dublin, 1856; 12mo, pp. 84: 3d ed., enlarged, Lond. 1858; 12mo, pp. 108). Mr Fulton agrees in the main with Archbishop Whately, but denies that the Christian Church is divinely authorised to ordain rites and ceremonies. He criticises publications of the Rev. Micaiah Hill, Dr Hugh M'Neile, the Right Hon. Joseph Napier, Professor Miller, and others.-The Sabbath; its Origin, History, and Obligations; a Letter to the Rev. W. Sinclair, Incumbent of St George's, Leeds, by JAMES PICKARD: 2d ed., with a Notice of the Rev. Mr Bolland's Reply (Leeds, 1856; 8vo, pp. 48). The name "James Pickard" is a pseudonyme.-Time and Faith; an Inquiry into the Data of Ecclesiastical History (Lond. *See above, pp. 97, 98; and Ency. Brit. xix. 602, 8th ed.

1856; 2 vols. 8vo). Contents: 1. Weeks. 2. The Western Hemisphere. 3. Time. 4. The Sacerdotal Age. 5. The Mosaic Sabbath. 6. The Rabbinical Sabbath. 7. The Old Testament. 8. Hebrew Interpretation. 9. Zodiacal Mythology. 10. The Christian Era. 11. The New Testament. 12. Christian Antecedents. 13. The Kingdom of Heaven. 14. Transitional Judaism. 15. The Vespasian Era. 16. Antichrists. 17. Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines. 18. Gibbon. 19. Transitional Episcopacy. 20. The Third Century. 21. Constantine. The 1st, 5th, and 6th chapters are headed thus:-I. " A septenary division of time not universal. The month of the ancient Greeks divided into decades; the Roman month into calends, nones, and ides. Markets held every ninth day, called the nundinae. The hebdomadal week traced to Egypt and India. Names of the days of the week in the Sanscrit, Persian, and other dialects. Mystical meanings attached to the numbers seven, five, four, and three. Chinese divisions of the month,-periods of five, ten, and fifteen days." V. "Etymology of the word 'sabbath.' Correlative terms derived from the Hebrew Ab, a father.' Sab, the Egyptian Saturn, or father of the gods. Early scruples about the terms 'Sun-day, Moon-day,' &c. Starworship condemned in the book of Job. Ancient religious festivals, a mitigation of the rigours of slavery. Primary meaning of the word translated 'holy' (kadosh), 'separate.' The 'holy' days of the Israelites holidays in a civil sense; often mentioned in connection with feasting, singing, and dancing. Simplicity of Mosaic forms of worship. Sabbath hours from sunset to sunset. Time of their commencement with modern Jews. Explanation of the penalty of death assigned to sabbath-breaking by the Mosaic law." VI. 66 Change in the national character of the Hebrews. Sketch of their history from the reign of Solomon to the Christian era. Synagogue worship not introduced till after the Babylonish captivity. Origin of the order of doctors of divinity, and of the custom of preaching from texts. Austerity of religious discipline produced by national calamities; re-action of opinion against ancient sabbath abuses. Tendency of all holiday customs towards licentiousness among the rude and ignorant. Necessity of watching their direction. Extreme views of Rabbinical sabbatarians. Their interpretation of the sabbath law rejected by Christ. The sabbath principle distinct from that of a fixed septenary form. The absolute sinfulness of work on a sabbath, not a doctrine recognised by Christians of all nations, nor by Mohammedans, &c. Physical impossibility of all keeping the same sabbath. Distinction drawn by Christ between the traditional and Divine in the Hebrew Scriptures. The same drawn by Josephus. Different versions of the Decalogue in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Laws engraved upon the tables of stone, afterwards copied and published with commentaries." In regard to the two reasons annexed to the Fourth Commandment in Exod. xx. 11, and Deut. v. 15 (above, p. 345), the author asks: "Which of these reasons appeared upon the tables of stone,' upon which the Commandments were

written? If Christ had been asked the question, he would probably have answered, 'neither:' he would perhaps have told us that they were both Rabbinical commentaries upon a law originally copied from the tables of stone, and that, as commentaries, and those of unknown writers, no other weight was to be assigned to them than that of pious intention" (vol. i. p. 114). As already mentioned (p. 359), the part of this treatise which relates to the Sabbath is reprinted from the Westminster Review. An abridgment of it has been published under the title of History of Sunday (Lond.: Groombridge and Sons, N. D.; 8vo, pp. 21).-Two Letters to John Sperling, Esq., on the Lord's Day Question, by the Rev. HENRY ALFORD [now D.D., and Dean of Canterbury] (Lond. 1856; 8vo). See also his edition of The Greek Testament, with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary, &c. (Lond. 1856–61, 4 vols. 8vo); notes on John xx. 26; Acts xx. 7; Rom. xiv. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2; Gal. iv. 10; Col. ii. 16; Heb. iv. 1-11; Rev. i. 10; and, as to the Jewish Sabbath, notes on Matt. xii. 6, 8; xxviii. 1; Mark ii. 27; Luke xiv. 1.; John v. 10, 11, 17. Commenting on Rom. xiv. 5, he says: "One man (the weak) esteems (selects for honour, xgive ažiav Tuns) one day above another day; another (the strong) esteems (ἀξίαν τιμῆς) every day. Let each be fully satisfied in his own mind.' It is an interesting question, what indication is here found of the observance or non-observance of a day of obligation in the apostolic times. The Apostle decides nothing; leaving every man's own mind to guide him in the point. He classes the observance or non-observance of particular days with the eating or abstaining from particular meats. In both cases he is concerned with things which he evidently treats as of absolute indifference in themselves. Now the question is, supposing the divine obligation of one day in seven to have been recognised by him in any form, could he have thus spoken? The obvious inference from his strain of arguing is that he knew of no such obligation, but believed all times and days to be, to the Christian strong in faith, ALIKE. I do not see how the passage can be otherwise understood. If any one day in the week were invested with the sacred character of the Sabbath, it would have been wholly impossible for the apostle to commend or uphold the man who judged all days worthy of equal honour, who as in verse 6 paid no regard to the (any) day. He must have visited him with his strongest disapprobation, as violating a command of God. I therefore infer, that Sabbatical obligation to keep any day, whether seventh or first, was not recognised in apostolic times. It must be carefully remembered, that this inference does not concern the question of the observance of the Lord's-day as an institution of the Christian Church, analogous to the ancient Sabbath, binding on us from considerations of humanity and religious expediency, and by the rules of that branch of the Church in which Providence has placed us, but not in any way inheriting the divinely-appointed obligation of the other, or the strict prohibitions by which its sanctity was defended. The reply commonly furnished to these considerations, viz., that the apostle was speak

ing here only of Jewish festivals, and therefore cannot refer to Christian ones, is a quibble of the poorest kind; its assertors themselves distinctly maintaining the obligation of one such Jewish festival on Christians. What I maintain is, that had the apostle believed as they do, he could not by any possibility have written thus. Besides, in the face of narav uigav ['every day'] the assertion is altogether unfounded." From the words of the apostle in Col. ii. 16, 17, he draws the same conclusion: "We may observe that if the ordinance of the Sabbath had been, in any form, of lasting obligation on the Christian Church, it would have been quite impossible for the apostle to have spoken thus. The fact of an obligatory rest of one day, whether the seventh or the first, would have been directly in the teeth of his assertion here: the holding of such would have been still to retain the shadow, while we possess the substance. And no answer can be given to this by the transparent special pleading, that he was speaking only of that which was Jewish in such observance the whole argument being general, and the axiom of verse 17 universally applicable."* In a note on Rev. i. 10 (iyevóμnv ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ), he observes that ἐγενόμην means not merely "I was," but "I became" in the spirit, "i.e., in a state of spiritual ecstasy or trance, becoming thereby receptive of the vision or revelation to follow. That this is the meaning is distinctly shown by the same phrase occurring in ch. iv. 2; where after seeing the door open in heaven, and hearing the aváßa âde, he adds, εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι [' and immediately I was in the spirit']." By "the Lord's day" in ch. i. 10, Dr Alford understands "the first day of the week, kept by the Christian church as the weekly festival of the Lord's resurrection. On any probable hypothesis of the date of this book," he adds, "this is the earliest mention of the day by this name. This circumstance, coupled with an exegetical bias, has led certain modern interpreters, of whom, as far as I know, Wetstein was the first, to interpret the words of the day of the Lord's coming, ǹ μgα Toũ xvgíov.† So Züllig, and in our own country, Drs S. R. Maitland and Todd." After amply refuting the notion of Maitland that there is nothing in the works of the ante-Nicene Fathers on which to ground the assumption that the weekly festival is meant, Dr Alford proceeds to express his astonishment how any even moderate Greek scholars can persuade themselves that the words ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν can mean " I was transported by the Spirit [or, in spirit] into," in the face of ch. iv. 2: and xvgian husga, "the day of the Lord's coming," in the face of the absence of a single precedent, and of the universal usage of the early church. "No such rendering," says he, "would ever have been thought of, nor would it now be worth even a passing mention, were it not that an apocalyptic system has been built upon it." -The Christian Sunday not the Jewish Sabbath; Three Discourses, by

*Dr Hessey disputes the soundness of this reasoning, in his Bampton Lectures, pp. 178, 427.

† See above, i. 105.