This shows that the day which the former passages prove to have been used as a day for their assembling together for public worship, was also appointed for the act of charity here mentioned; a further proof of its appropriation to religious purposes generally.

Lastly, we find in the Book of Revelation a day distinguished by the title "the Lord's Day;"" which shows that at the time when the Apocalypse was written, "the Lord's Day" was a day generally known among Christians; and the name itself shows on whose account it was observed, and to whom it was considered sacred. Now this name is invariably applied by the earliest Christian writers to signify the first day of the week, as consecrated to the Lord's service as the day on which he rose from the dead. Thus, for instance, Ignatius is, I believe, universally interpreted as speaking of the Lord's Day in his Epistle to the Magnesians. Mileto, Bishop of Sardis, composed a book entitled, "Concerning the Lord's Day." Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, in his Epistle to the Romans, says, "This Day, being the Lord's Day, we have kept holy." It is also very evidently spoken of under this title, by Clement of Alexandria. And by Tertullian expressly; "On the Lord's Day," he says, "we consider it a sin to fast, or to pray kneeling." The name is also to be found in Cyprian and Origen; but it is unnecessary to trace it further.

2

From these passages of Scripture, then, it is very clear that

рен όταν έλθω, τοτε λογιαι γίνωνται. 1 Cor. xvi. 2. Perhaps a better translation of these words than that in our authorized version would be, "Let every man lay by him for (or against) the first day of the week," &c.; that is, for the collection which was then made at the time of their being assembled together for public worship, as we learn from the earliest Christian writers, as we shall see presently. For otherwise, if each man's store was laid by him, there must have been a collection when the Apostle came, as much as if this had not been done.

1 Εγενόμην εν Πνεύματι εν τη Κυριακη ημέρα. Rev. i. 10. We may add here, that the Codex Wechel. reads the passage in 1 Cor. xvi. 2. just referred to, Kara μiar oallaτων την Κυριακήν.

2 Μηκετι σαββατιζοντες αλλα κατα Κυριακήν ζωήν ζωντες, εν ή και ἡ ζωὴ ἡμων ανέτειλεν δι AUTOU. IGNAT Ep. ad. Magnes. § 9.

3 Пeps Kupians. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 26. Where Eusebius also mentions his having written a work TIps тou marxa, which shows that the former work did not apply to that subject,

4 Την σημερον Κυριακὴν αγίαν ήμεραν διηγαγομεν. Euseb. Ηist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 23.

5 The Gnostic, he says, Κυριακήν εκείνην την ήμεραν ποιεί, ότ' αν αποβάλλη φαυλον νόημα και γνωστικόν προσλάβη, την εν αυτω του Κυρίου αναστασιν δοξάζων. Strom. lib. vii. p. 877. ed. Potter. (Sylb. 744) We may note also the following passage in the "Excerpta Theodot" usually printed with the works of Clement.-Huey OUT TREUμATINO avaTavis Kupaan ev oydoads n Kupiann croualetai. § 63. p. 984. ed. Potter. (Sylb. p. 798 D.) The passage is evidently somewhat corrupt, but sufficiently clear for our present pur pose

Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare. Tertull. De cor. mil. c. 3. p. 102. ed. 1664. The name is also to be found in the "Questiones et respons. ad. orthod." (q. 115.) attributed to Justin Martyr, in which it is stated that the custom of standing at prayer on Sunday, is said by Irenæus, in his work, II Tu Пarxa, to have been a custom of the Church from the times of the Apostles.

on the first day of the week the Apostles and primitive Christians were in the habit of assembling together for religious purposes, and of considering the day more or less sacred to Christ, calling it the Lord's Day.

And with respect to this matter of fact, if the testimony in Scripture had been less, the records of the primitive Church would have been sufficient to show us its practice in this respect, (though not to trace it quite so far back,) and thus to recommend the practice to us.

The testimonies we have already adduced, when speaking of the name by which this day was known, show its observance by the Church at that period. I will, therefore, here only add one more from Justin Martyr. "Upon the day called Sunday, all, both of those that live in cities, and those that live in the country, meet together in one place; and the gospels of the Apostles, or the writings of the Prophets, are read as time will permit. Then when the reader has ceased, the president' addresses them, by way of admonition and exhortation to the imitation of the excellent things they have heard. Then we all rise up together and pray; and, as I have already said, when we have finished praying, bread is brought, and wine and water; and the president offers, to the best of his ability, prayers and thanksgivings; and the people add their voice in consent, saying, Amen; and there is a distribution and communication of the Eucharist to each one, and it is sent to those who are not present, through the deacons. But the wealthy, who please, give according to their pleasure, each one what he pleases, of that which belongs to him; and the collection is deposited with the president, and he assists the orphans and widows, and those who, from sickness, or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in prison, and foreigners dwelling among us; and, in a word, bestows his care upon all that are in need. But we all meet together on Sunday, because it is the first day; that in which God, having produced a change in darkness and matter, made the world; and that Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead on that day."

1 Τα απομνημονεύματα των Απιστολήν, which he elsewhere explains by the words α καλείται ευαγγελία.

2 Ο προεστως

3 Όση δύναμις αυτά. These words have been sometimes considered a proof that the pravers and thanksgivings were extempore; but in the former part of the Apology (§ 13. p. 51.) the same words are used with reference to Christians generally, (85n duvaus“ alovu,) and therefore seem rather to refer to the conduct and dispositions of the worshipper, than the words uttered. See further proof in L'Estrange's Alliance of Divine Offices, pp. 207, 8. ed. 1690.

4 Justin. Mart. A pol. 1. § 67. ed. Bened. pp. 83. 4. See also the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, 15, and the well-known letter of Pliny to Trajan.

Other testimonies might easily be added; and if any one is inclined to dispute whether this was the practice of the Church at that time, we refer to these testimonies, without any injury to our argument, as conclusive evidence that it was, and hence draw an important argument for its observance by all Churches to the end of time.

But this is a point on which we must take higher ground, and therefore proceed to

The second question relating to this subject, namely, that which respects the necessity of such an appropriation of the day by all Churches as a divine institution.

That it is necessary, we are agreed; and the proof, as it appears to me, rests upon two grounds, first the practice of the Apostolical Church, and, secondly, the sanctification of one day in each seven by God himself, which day the practice of the Apostolical Church appears to show was transferred under the Christian dispensation from the seventh to the first, in honour of our Saviour's resurrection. Both these, then, may be derived from Scripture; nor could the necessity of the practice be established, as it appears to us, but upon Scripture testimony.

First, the practice of the Apostolical Church. This, as we have seen, is manifested by Scripture. And the practice of the primitive Church shows that they regarded it as of perpetual observance. And I suppose it hardly needs to be argued, that in such a matter the fact that a day was set apart for public worship by the Church when it included the Apostles, is quite sufficient of itself to render it incumbent upon all Churches to follow their example.

And we thus place it upon the ground of Apostolical and primitive practice (in the absence of an express Apostolical command) in contradistinction to the foundation upon which our opponents would place it, namely, certain patristical statements of what our Lord or his Apostles orally delivered, in which we cannot place the same reliance as in those which concern the practice of the Church to which they were eye-witnesses. I may observe, also, that I have yet been unable to find one testimony during the whole of the first three centuries, in which it is stated that any such command was delivered by our Lord or his Apostles; nor, as it appears to me, do we need any. I am quite ready to admit, however, that as the testimonies of several Fathers in favour of a doctrine is to a certain extent an argument in favour of it, so may we derive a confirmation of our views respecting the Lord's day, from the statements of several of the Fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries, as Eusebius, Athanasius, Ambrose, &c., that this day was specially commanded to be observed by our Lord and his Apostles. I will only observe, that a more strin

gent proof with me would be that passage in Clement of Rome, a contemporary of the Apostles, where he says that "we ought to do all things in order whatsoever the Lord commanded us to perform, at the times appointed, and to be careful that our offering and public services are performed; and he has commanded these to be done, not at chance times and without order, but at certain fixed times and seasons," &c. Which passage, when coupled with the practice of the Apostolical Church, and coming from a contemporary of the Apostles, has great weight.

But the necessity of the practice is usually placed upon still stronger grounds, viz. the sanctification of one day in each seven by God himself, from the beginning, which day, the practice of the Apostolical Church appears to show, was transferred under the Christian dispensation from the seventh to the first, in honour of our Saviour's resurrection.

It will not, I suppose, be denied, that the sanctification of the seventh day by God himself from the beginning must be proved by Scripture authority, or not at all, however it may be confirmed from other sources; and if such sanctification be proved, then it seems to follow that when the Apostles, who were guided in such matters by the Spirit of God, abrogated the seventh day Sabbath, and devoted the first day of the week to the purposes of religion, as we have shown from Scripture they did, they substituted that first day for the seventh as a day to be sanctified by us.

And without attempting here fully to discuss this point, which would occupy us too long, I shall only refer our opponents to what "the judicious" Hooker says on the subject, which may show them that I have here placed this matter precisely upon the foundation on which he has rested it. "The moral law," he says, "requiring a seventh part throughout the age of the whole world to be that way employed, although with us the day be changed in regard of a new revelation begun by our Saviour Christ, yet the same proportion of time continueth which was before, because in reference to the benefit of creation, and now much more of renovation, thereunto added by him, which was Prince of the world to come, we are bound to account the sanctification of one day in seven a duty which God's immutable law doth exact for ever." (Eccl. Pol. bk. v. c. 70.)

And then proceeding to notice other days which ecclesiastical precept and usage had appropriated as festival or sacred days, he justly animadverts upon the folly of those who thought that the

1 Παντα τάξει ποιειν οφειλομεν, ὅσα ὁ Δεσποτης επιτέλειν εκέλευσεν κατά καιρούς τεταγμε τους τας τε προσφοράς και λειτουργίας επιτελείσθαι, και ουκ είκη η ατάκτως εκέλευσεν γίνεσα θαι, αλλ' ωρισμένοις καιροίς και αρχές. Ep. ad. Corinth. i. § 40 ed. Jacobson. yol. i. pp.

136. 138.

Church had no right to require the observance of such days, while at the same time he manifestly considers all those days to stand upon a very different footing to that which had express Apostolical and divine sanction for its observance. (See the whole of c. 71.)

But if we consult the Fathers on this point, we shall find them altogether at variance as to the observance of one day in seven as a holy day from the beginning, and three of the earliest and best authorities among them, namely, Justin Martyr,1 Irenæus,* and Tertullian, distinctly maintaining that the Patriarchs before Moses did not observe any such day, which would completely cut away the ground from under us in this argument for the necessity of observing the Lord's day, because by such statements they make it merely a Jewish ordinance.

The third point involved in this matter is that which relates to abstinence from our usual worldly occupations on this day.

The proof of this is, I need hardly say, to be found in what we have just been endeavouring to show, namely, that the observance of the first day of the week under the Christian dispensation, corresponds with the observance of the seventh under the Old Testament dispensation, the two days being alike dedicated to the service of God, and differing in the precise mode of observance only according as the dispensations differed from each other.

But that a unanimous consent of Fathers can be shown for this, is a point which I must leave for our opponents to prove. I should have no wish to disturb it if it could be proved, nor have I any inclination to enter here upon any attempt to disprove it, but the passages I have referred to in the note below, may be worth considering before any such assertions are ventured respecting it.

1 Dial. cum Tryph. § 19. p. 119. ed. Ben.

2 Adv. hær. lib. iv. c. 30. ed. Grab.

3 Adv. Jud. cc. 2 and 4.

For the first three centuries we have unfortunately nothing definite on the point; but after that period there occur passages which, if we pretend to rest the point in question upon the unanimous consent of the Fathers, will need some skill in interpreting to reconcile them with others. Thus Constantine himself directs,"Omnes judices, urbanæque plebes, et cunctorum artium officia venerabili die solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi agrorum culturæ libere licenterque inserviant: quoniam frequenter evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis, aut vineæ scrobibus mandentur, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas cœlesti provisione concessa.' -Cod Justin. lib. iii. Tit. 12. De feriis 1. 3. ed. Lips. 1705, vol. ii. col. 194. The direction of the Laodicean council την κυριακην προτιμώντας, είγε δύναιντο, σχολα C. (Conc. Laod. can 29. in Bibl. Justell. p. 52.) may perhaps be reconciled by supposing the words e duvaro to refer to slaves and persons under the power of another, but this, be it observed, is not the explanation given by Balsamon and Zonaras. The third Council of Orleans decrees, "Quia persuasum est populis die dominico agi cum caballis aut bobus et vehiculis itinera non debere, neque ullum rem ad victum præparare, vel ad nitorem domus vel hominis pertinentem