even now, in what we call the unreformed countries, beyond the public services of the Church, little pains are taken to mark the day as anything more than a secular holiday, and to thousands it is not even that.

Now at the time of the Reformation we got rid of a great many saints' days, fasts and festivals, retaining only a few; but there was a strong desire to restore to its original position the Lord's day as a day of worship; and, therefore, the Reformers naturally looked about to find every possible argument to support a strict and rigid observance of the Lord's day; and most unfortunately, they selected the 4th Commandment, and put it into the services, and read it out in the ears of the congregation as an argument for keeping the Lord's day, or the first day, holy; and from that time dates all this confusion between the Sabbath and Sunday. Before that, I am not aware of any confusion in England between them. But since the Reformation we have had the Reformed Church setting up the Sabbath, and rehearsing this 4th Commandment in support of it, to the infinite confusion of religious, but thoughtful, people. And that continues to be done every Sunday.

95. Now, I believe that the Ten Commandments do substantially express, if properly explained in the ears of the people, sound moral rules for the conduct of life; and therefore I can have no objection to read them out and explain them as they ought to be explained and applied; but although I would read the 4th Commandment, which is a Jewish commandment, along with the

Q

rest, I cannot tell Christian people that they are bound by every letter and every syllable of that 4th Commandment. Why, what senseless difficulties are we exposed to by such a practice? The Archbishop of Canterbury drives up here in his carriage to preach in this pulpit, and when the time comes for reading out the 4th Commandment, those that sit in the seat of the unlearned say, 'Why, see, here is the highest functionary of the English Church actually driving his cattle out on the Lord's day, and breaking the Sabbath day.' Observe the dilemma, either the Archbishop breaks the Sabbath day-which is absurd-or Sunday is not the Sabbath, in which case it is absurd to call it so.

96. But let us for a moment judge the Sabbatarian by his own standard. Does he, can he keep the Lord's

day, Sabbatically?

If he stands by the letter of the Sabbath, we have still no authority to impose it upon him-granted; but we have as little authority to let him off one jot or tittle of what he has imposed upon himself. Suppose then we charge him with violating the Sabbath. The Sabbatarians do not really keep the Sabbath. They do not even keep the Lord's day Sabbatically. They do not really abstain from unnecessary work. There is a distinction between necessary and unnecessary work in the minds of some religious people. They say, 'Of course the Archbishop must come here in his carriage, because he could not walk all the way;' so it is quite fair to say that necessary work may be done, but that unnecessary work may not be done. But the

distinction you are trying to set up is unpractical, it will not work; you cannot, you do not even attempt to work it. I look out of my window on a Sunday morning, and see smoke issuing from all the chimneys of all the houses down the street. What does that mean? It means that so much unnecessary work is being done by all the people in that street, according to the Jewish way of looking at things. It means, that many who do not absolutely need it for their health, are going to have their tea and coffee hot as usual, and they are going to make their cooks and other servants go through a good deal of unnecessary labour. Do you, or do you not, believe that the 4th Commandment applies to Sunday? If you do, you are condemned. No one can tell me that a number of healthy persons in this church absolutely need hot food on the Lord's day; the distinction between necessary and unnecessary work is not one you mean to keep, then you had better not make it. If you rest on Sunday, you had better rest on other grounds; and if you work, you had better work on other grounds. It is better to be true than to seem good.

97. But a Sabbatical observance of Sunday is carried out at other people's expense, not ours; it weighs most heavily upon the poor; it does not weigh upon the rich man. The rich man goes out of town on Saturday night to his country house, and as he is walking in his beautiful garden, enjoying the sweet air and the profusion of his flowers on Sunday afternoon, down comes the excursion train and speeds by at the bottom of his

well-watered grounds, and he turns up his eyes and says, 'See these Sabbath-breakers, see these reprobates going forth to spend their Sunday in the country, instead of listening to their City missionary in Paradise Row. Where do they expect to go to, how do they mean to be saved?' I know as well as you that there are evils connected with such excursions, that when men and women are in high spirits and without much self-control, a deal of mischief is sometimes the result. But I say, that if people are naturally prone to let their bad passions loose, they will be doubly and trebly prone to do so when you tell them they are a set of Sabbath-breakers, and deny to them, upon religious grounds, the healthy recreation which you can afford to take without going down into the country by an excursion train. Will you tell your poor brethren that they have no right to breathe the fresh air on the Lord's day, whilst you have the right to go into your garden? Besides, if people do happen to be by the sea-side enjoying the invigorating influences of the salt breezes, refreshing their weary minds and bodies, even if they do not enter a place of worship, is it impossible for them to lift up their hearts to God and ask Him to keep them from evil? In the course of a long day the excursionist may steal into some church or chapel, and numbers actually do; numbers, I say, who go down to Brighton are accused of breaking the Sabbath, but many of these people practically do go to church when they get to Brighton. This is perfectly well known to the clergy who are generally on the look out for the congregation, and take account of the sort of

people who turn into their churches on Sundays. They know that excursionists do not think it absolutely necessary to give up all religious duties because they avail themselves of a little wholesome change by the sea-side.

I say, then, that our Sabbatarian notions about the Lord's day oppress every one more or less. Now-a-days a Sabbatical cessation from secular work is impossible, and where possible, often inexpedient; and although such cessation hardly touches the idle classes, it presses heavily upon the industrial and the poor, who by it are not seldom deprived of the necessaries of life-health, and innocent recreation.

98. And now, brethren, I am longing to tell you how I think you ought to observe the Lord's day. We have seen sufficiently that it ought not to be observed like the Sabbath, and that it is impossible really to do so in the present day. But are we then to say that all traces of such a holy day have been swept away, and that there is no religious observance due to the Lord's day; that no work need be left undone, and that all the ordinary occupations should go on just as usual? Is that what I mean when I denounce, as St. Paul, as St. Cyril, as St. Jerome, as Luther, as Calvin denounced, the Sabbatical observance of the Lord's day? No, ten thousand times, no! What is the Lord's day? Whence its origin and authority? I will give you a definition of it. I say it is an institution analogous to the Sabbath, but not identical with the Sabbath; that is, it is something of the same kind of day as the Sabbath, but the rules of