To use the term day for day-light was as customary with the Jews as it is with us. Thus, Luke says, (xxii. 66,) "As soon as it was day, the elders of the people,-led Jesus into their council," though according to Eubulus, the Jewish day was then half expired; and all the preceding transactions (of the same day, according to him) are said to be done on the evening and the night, as if they belonged to the preceding day; just as we should now speak. So also Ezra is said (Neh. viii. 3) to have read in the book of the law "from the morning until mid-day," though, according to Eubulus, their mid-day was passed about the time of his beginning to read. Also the term next day is used in opposition to the evening before, though, according to him, it was a part of the same day. Acts iv. 3: "They put them in hold unto the next day, for it was now even-tide." And yet Eubulus refers to this passage as in his favour.* I have no doubt, therefore, but that when we read, Acts xx. 7, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, (ready to depart on the morrow,) † and continued his speech until midnight," the assembly began in the day-light of the Sunday, and that the next day was the Monday following; especially as there was then no persecution of Christians, to induce them to hold their assemblies in the dark. I shall conclude with a few observations of a more general nature, but I shall not enlarge upon them. 1. If the appropriation of one day in seven for the purpose of public worship was the practice of the apostles, we may conclude that it is not hurtful, but useful. And though we Gentile Christians are not bound by the Jewish ritual, we may safely infer, that if the sabbath, as observed by the Jews, necessarily led to evil, it would not have been appointed by God for them. And from its not being hurtful to them, we may safely infer that it cannot be so to us, since human nature is the same. That this observance was prevented from being hurtful to the Jews by any peculiar restrictions with respect to social intercourse, I have shewn to be a misapprehension of Eubulus. 2. In my opinion the cessation from labour on the Lord's Theol. Repos. VI. p. 368. (P.) +"It seems highly probable, that St. Paul partook of, and perhaps, from his sacred character, presided at one of these charity suppers, (which afterwards, when the custom of living in common became less necessary, acquired the name of lovefeasts; and which were, at one time, the great ornament of the Christian religion,) to take his leave of the disciples, the night before his departure from Troas." Letter to the Author of Thoughts, &c. pp. 45, 46. day makes a pleasing and useful distinction in our time; and, besides its excellent religious and moral uses, greatly contributes to the civilization of mankind. The expectation of it relieves the labour of all the preceding six days; and consequently that labour is done better with this interval than it would have been without it, to say nothing of the relief that it affords the labouring cattle. 3. Besides, I cannot help thinking that in this country the manufacturers labour to excess; and that it would be very desirable, would contribute to lengthen their lives, and make their lives much happier, if their labours could be moderated. The riches of this nation are procured by the premature exhausting of the strength and vital powers of the greater part of our manufacturers; though it is not denied that the intemperance of many of them contributes to the same effect. Like our horses, their lives are shortened and made wretched, by fatigue. 4. If the laws did not provide intervals of rest from labour, the labourers themselves would not fail to do it; and the intervals of their own providing would have a worse effect than the present. Our annual feasts, in every town and village in the kingdom, are far more mischievous than Sunday spent in the worst manner. For no ideas of religion being now annexed to them, licentiousness has no restraint. 5. If it were left to every individual to choose his own time for public worship and instruction, (if such a custom could be called public,) many would greatly abridge, and many would neglect it altogether; as we see to be the case with family worship, even where the obligation and use of it are acknowledged. The consequence would be, that secular concerns would engross their whole time, and the very appearance and profession of Christianity would be in danger of disappearing among us. But on such topics as these I forbear to enlarge, as it has been done sufficiently by Philander and Subsidiarius.+ That much evil arises from the manner in which Sunday is now spent by many, both of the lower and higher ranks in the community, cannot be denied; but I hope it is not without a remedy, and I am fully persuaded that the abolition of the observance of Sunday would be attended with much greater evil, I am, Gentlemen, Yours, &c. &c. HERMAS. • Theol. Repos. VI. pp. 113-116. + Ibid. pp. 342, 543. Remarks on Mr. Evanson's Letter on the Observance of the Lord's Day. * Mr. EVANSON is far from denying the expediency or propriety of public worship, or the use of public instruction; so that he differs very materially from Mr. Wakefield. But he would not have the Lord's day set apart for these purposes, and is of opinion, that this institution has no sanction, either in the practice of the apostles, or that of any Christians, till the third century. That the public assemblies of Christians were, however, from the times of the apostles, held on the Lord's day, and that a considerable part of this day was always devoted to the business of those assemblies, appears to me to be so evident, from the authorities produced by me before, † and especially that of Justin Martyr, that I do not think it necessary to argue the matter at large any farther. Let our readers fairly compare what each of us has written, and then judge between us. I do not see why Mr. Evanson should write with so much apparent peevishness on this subject, if he did not himself, in some measure, feel the force of my reasoning upon it; nor why a question of this nature cannot be discussed by any Christian, with the perfect calmness and good humour of which I set him an example. It was particularly unworthy of a scholar and a gentleman, to observe, as Mr. Evanson does, that in quoting a passage of Ignatius, which I gave at length in the margin, I omitted to translate a particular clause in it relating to the dignity of Christ; § because it was unfavourable to my principles as an Unitarian, though it had nothing at all to do with the question that I was then discussing. He calls my conduct in this case, "a prudent caution, considering my avowed religious principles, and that I was quoting his authority to prove what was the religion of the apostolic age." But what is this to the purpose, unless the question between us had been concerning this particular article of religion, and on this we had no difference; Mr. Evanson being an Unitarian as much as myself? That I should trouble my reader with a translation of "Letter to the Rev. Dr. Priestley," annexed to the Arguments, 1792, pp. 121-175. + Supra, pp. 332–334. more of the passage than I had occasion for, I do not see. That Mr. Evanson should insinuate that there was any unfairness in my conduct on this occasion, I am concerned to see, not on my own account, but on his. That, as a defender of Unitarianism, I am not afraid of any quotation from Ignatius, has sufficiently appeared by my writings on the subject; and on this head, I doubt not, Mr. Evanson himself is well satisfied. Though I shall not go over the whole field of argument with Mr. Evanson, I shall briefly reply to any remark of his that has the appearance of being new. Not being able to deny that the officers in the Christian church, in the age of the apostles, received some consideration in temporals for their labour in spirituals, he says, whatever that might be, "I find not the slightest reason to believe, that any resident preacher of the Gospel was maintained as such, at the expense of his fellow-christians, before the latter half of the third century, when corruptions multiplied apace, and the fatal predicted apostacy was advancing with large and hasty strides." * Now, not to insist on the case of Timothy, who appears to have devoted his whole time to the work of the ministry, and therefore to have had a just claim to a full maintenance; and that, for any thing that appears, there would be the same occasion for other persons doing the same service, and receiving the same recompence, in other places; I would observe in general, that the want of writings immediately after the time of the apostles, makes it difficult to prove the existence of any practice among Christians in that period by positive evidence: but that an universally acknowledged practice (among all the discordant sects into which Christians were then divided) in a later period, without any hint, or visible cause, of a change, is a strong presumptive evidence that the practice existed from the beginning. The objectors should say, when, and by whom, or from what particular cause the supposed innovation arose. Who was it that persuaded all the sects of Christians, who had not before been used to have any public instruction, to appoint orders of men unknown to the apostles, and give them salaries out of the fruits of their own labour, when before this time, whatever of this kind had been done, had been performed gratuitously? Such changes as these require to be accounted for in a more satisfactory manner than by saying they arose from mere • Arguments, p. 127. (P.) superstition or priestcraft. If these things did operate as causes, what were the circumstances which favoured their operation? I shall now come to Mr. Evanson's more particular authorities, or rather to his objections to mine. He complains of my translation of a passage in Ignatius, in which he is represented as recommending the observance of the Lord's day in preference to that of the Jewish sabbath. That trans lation I took without suspicion from Archbishop Wake; but upon examination, I am satisfied that Mr. Evanson had no reason to complain of it. "No longer observing sabbaths, but keeping the Lord'sday, in which also our life is sprung up by him." That the word any, life, which is omitted in the old Latin version, is a spurious reading, for uspav, a day, expressed or understood, is evident from the reference to it in the following relative; viz. in which, that is, "in which day our life is sprung up by him," which makes good sense; but the phrase, "the Lord's life, in which life our life sprung up," is not so. Mr. Evanson says, † that Cavres xara signifies "living according to," which I do not deny, and that, "if the phrase 'living according to the Lord's day' has any meaning, I do not preit is evidently beyond his comprehension.' tend to vindicate the strict propriety of this Greek phrase, nor that of many others, especially those that are found in authors not classical; but the word day is not the less necessary to a consistent sense of the passage. If the word life be the true reading, it ought at least to have been followed by in whose life, not by in which life. If we may be allowed to interpret the lesser epistles of Ignatius by the larger, interpolated ones, this sense will be much more evident; for in them the corresponding passage is as follows: "Let us no longer keep the sabbath after the Jewish manner, rejoicing in idleness; for he that doth not work should not eat, and the Scripture saith, 'In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread;' but let each of you keep the Sabbath spiritually, rejoicing in meditation on the law; not in the rest of the body, but admiring the workmanship of God; not eating things prepared the day before, drinking cold liquors, walking a measured space, and rejoicing in dancings and noisy, senseless diversions; but after the sabbath let every lover of Christ make a festival of the Lord's |