The Sabbath then, viewed in this special aspect, is continued in the Lord's Day-not as fulfilled in this day, but as having its symbolical character more fully brought out; for, as our author formerly observed, "the whole tenor of the divine revclation is clearly stamped with the character of advance." The force of the analogical argument just stated, will at once appear to every one who entertains clear and distinct views on the nature, design, and connection of the several dispensations. And this presumptive argument in favour of the continuance of the Sabbath under the gospel, will be strengthened by the consideration that this institution was coeval with man; that it survived the Fall, and characterised, as there can be no reasonable doubt, the Patriarchal worship; and that, though it was in one aspect, a part of the Jewish ritual law, it was also in its higher aspect, an integral part of that moral law which Jehovah himself announced, and which, engraven on stones, was enshrined within the ark of the testimony. The argument resulting from all these circumstances seems, even prior to direct proof, to amount to a high degree of moral certainty, that such an institution, deemed by divine wisdom so necessary under all the previous dispensations for the maintenance of religion in the world, will find a place under the new dispensation, changed it may be in its unessential feature, so as to harmonise with the perfection and glory of this dispen sation. But this presumptive argument, which appears to reach to high moral certainty, is absolutely confirmed by direct proof. The great fact of our Lord's resurrection is the crowning evidence of his divine mission; the irrefragable proof, also, that his work of redemption was completed; and the sure pledge of that rest which is "eternal and heavenly." Though our author speaks contemptuously of those "interpreters who can see anything really bearing on this question "in our Lord having appeared to his assembled disciples once, as he says, on the eighth day after his resurrection, we cannot but regard the fact that two such appearances are specially recorded, as significant. This fact, from which, in itself, we would hesitate to draw a conclusion, does seem, when combined with another fact, to possess no ordinary weight. This other fact is, that the Christian converts did, with Apostolic sanction, observe "the first day of the week "-the day on which the Lord rose from the dead, and on which he made these two recorded appearances to the disciples, as the day set apart for Christian worship, as, in short, the Christian Sabbath. Besides, the very constitution of the church manifestly required the appointment of such a day. The Jewish converts no doubt continued in general to observe the seventh day; this they seem to have 739 done along with the observance of the first day; and hence, a phrase by no means equivalent to ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ Κυρίου, “ the day of the Lord"-the day when the Lord will come-but meaning either, "the day instituted by the Lord," or at least, "the day belonging or relating to commemorative of, the Lord." The meaning of this phrase is clearly determined by that of the similar one τὸ κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, which evidently means either "the supper instituted by the Lord" (Alford), or "the supper commemorative of the Lord." As to the objections founded on Rom. xiv. 5, 6; Gal. iv. 10; and Col. ii. 16, 17, it would be easy to shew that in these passages the apostle is referring not to the Lord's day, the true Christian Sabbath, about which there was no difference of opinion, but expressly to the observance of the seventh day as still insisted on by the more zealous of the Jewish converts. This seems perfectly clear from a fact incidentally made known to us in i. Cor. xvi. 1, 2, and furnishing a remarkable instance of the danger either of founding conclusions on the silence of Scripture, or of applying Scriptural expressions to any other subject than the one immediately before the writer. It is there manifestly implied that "the Lord's day" was, with the apostle's sanction, observed in the churches of Galatia previously to the time when he wrote them his letter, charging them with Judaising—“with observing days, and months, and years." These objections have thus no force whatever. The statements on which they are founded admit of full explanation in consistency with the positive proofs to which we have referred in support of the Christian Sabbath as an institution of apostolic appointment, and designed specially to commemorate the resurrection of the Lord. The passages containing these proofs also warrant the conclusion that the observance of the Lord's day was now to take the place of the original Sabbath, which was thus not abolished in its essential character, but only by a change of the day connected with the great work of human redemption, and thus brought into harmony with the new dispensation. We can only here remark, that we have the clearest evidence of the observance of this stated day in the age immediately following that of the apostles, as also from that age down to the present time. Pliny in his letter to Trajan (100), refers to the practice of the Christians holding religious assemblies on a stated day; and Justin Martyr (140) still more particularly alludes to the same practice; and as he was writing to the heathen, he designates the day "Sunday" (io uga), the name then given by them to the first day of the week. But it is sufficient for our immediate purpose to have shown that the observance of the Christian Sabbath rests on no doubtful authority, but that it had its origin in the times of the apostles and was sanctioned by their authority, if not by the direct authority of our Lord himself. Our limits will not allow us to notice the remaining sections of this essay. They also contain not a few objectionable statements, especially in reference to "the use of the Old Testament" and to "the inspiration of scripture." These are momentous questions, and are not to be lightly handled. But the task which we proposed to ourselves is now, though imperfectly, accomplished. We might have proceeded in a more summary manner; but we were desirous to follow our author, as far as was necessary, step by step, and to expose, as we hope has been fairly done, the erroneous views which pervade these essays on the nature of those dispensations which the Most High has in His infinite mercy vouchsafed to man-to vindicate also in some measure the authority of the Old Testament scriptures, which are even to us, who live under the light of the gospel, treasures of heavenly wisdom, righteousness, and love-and to uphold, that blessed institution which, looking back to the earthly paradise, from which man, created holy and happy, was driven in consequence of sin, also now looks forward to the heavenly paradise, where, redeemed from sin and death, man shall enter into God's own Rest, and be filled with all the fulness of God. Meantime, let us who are on our pilgrimage, ever look to the written word as our "light" and our lamp; " and while we strive to serve the Lord continually, let us appreciate the Christian Sabbath, ceasing not merely from sinful works, but from those works which are lawful on other days, and devote the sacred season to special communion with God and His Son, thus strengthening our faith, promoting the divine glory, and experiencing some foretaste of that Sabbath which remains to the people of God. Our own individual spiritual interests, and the welfare of Christ's Church, and the progress of the gospel in the world, are all more closely bound 66 up with the due observance of the Lord's day than many may be apt to suppose; and perilous, in the extreme, is the condition of any man or church, when either he or it, under the plea of not "relegating to particular times and places" the service which the Lord requires, despises or wilfully neglects his day and sanctuary, devoting the day to idleness, recreation, the business of the world, or even to mere intellectual pursuits, and thus setting at defiance the solemn and ever-binding command, "REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY.' ART. II.-The Tenth Century. WHEN we look back over the eighteen centuries and a half which have passed away since the commencement of our era, we discern many well-known epochs at which we are wont to pause as resting places or land-marks in the extended survey, and with which every intelligent reader of history is tolerably familiar. But, like the stages in a long and tedious journey, it is the periods near the two extremes which are observed the most closely and remembered the longest, while those in the intermediate space flit somewhat vaguely and indistinctly before the mind, and the impressions which they leave behind are much less vivid and palpable. But this indistinctness in our view of the middle ages does not result merely or chiefly from the weariness of the student of history as he toils through Ye lot was then or thick darkness in which these events are enveloped, the record of the events of well-nigh 2000 years, but mainly and through which we must look at them, and also from the comparative paucity of objects which are really fitted to arrest the darkest the attention of ordinary observers. And it must be at once fines o acknowledged, that of all these dreary centuries, there is none which has been stigmatised by common consent as so emphatically and pre-eminently dreary and dismal as that which stands midway between the commencement of the Christian era and our own times,-viz., the Tenth. One writer characterizes it as ferreum, and another distinguished annalist heaps upon it in one page the complimentary epithets of plumbeum, obscurum, infelix. But, admitting the justice of this representation, which, indeed, we are not disposed to controvert, does not the very circumstance of such a description being appropriate, invest the epoch with a peculiar interest? If it is the darkest period of modern history, the age in which the human mind perhaps ་ reached its nadir, and in which the condition of society sunk to its lowest point of depression, it seems to us to deserve notice on that very account, and all the more that it does not usually meet with much attention from the majority-we do not say of the reading public merely, but even of well-informed men. Some eminent historians, indeed, such as Hallam and Guizot, incline to the opinion that another and previous century-the seventh-might, perhaps, successfully dispute the right of the tenth to the bad pre-eminence which has usually been assigned to it, and might present quite as strong claims to the distinction of being the lowest and most degraded in the 4 scale of civilization and intelligence, and that in reality there had been actual, though hardly apparent progress ever since the age of Charlemagne, i. e., since A. D. 800. We shall not discuss a question which it would require more balancing of evils than we have time for, and more elaborate investigation than might seem, at first sight, to be necessary to settle conclusively. The nadir may not have occurred in literature precisely at the same time as in religion and morals; nor, perhaps, in any of these contemporaneously with the lowest point in political and social economy; nor again, as regards any one of these several departments, may the period of deepest depression have been exactly the same in every country of Europe. All this we believe to be true. But the tenth century must be grievously maligned if it shall be found, as a whole, to contrast favourably with any other portion of the dark ages, for we are much mistaken if it is not to it that the mind habitually turns when desirous of contemplating the period of deepest gloom. We propose to take a rapid survey of the scene which this epoch exhibits, and shall endeavour to present to the reader the more prominent features of the age, especially its religious and ecclesiastical condition. It would be quite hopeless to attempt a full exhibition of all the various aspects of the period-social, political, literary, and moral-which offer themselves to our notice. We intend, indeed, to touch upon all these, but we must touch upon them lightly, reserving the greatest share of our attention and the largest portion of our space for ecclesiastical affairs. We shall begin with the political aspect of the time. The physical geography of Europe was essentially the same a thousand years ago as now, but the political geography,—how dif ferent! The same mountains, the everlasting hills, reared their summits under the same sky; the same rivers rolled their waters through the same valleys to the same seas; but as regards communities of men, and the composition and limits of empires, all is changed. Let us examine a map of Europe |