"They were all

They were not day of meeting

The first day of the week has been continually marked since the day of the resurrection. Our Lord appeared to his disciples on two of those days, and the disciples seem to have fallen into a regular habit of meeting on that day; for so early as the feast of Pentecost it is said, together with one accord in one place." summoned or collected together; but the having then been fully established, as well as the time and place, every man came of his own accord, and not one was wanting. There must have been a very large number, for the report of the miracle quickly spread through all Jerusalem. It is remarkable, in St. Peter's discourse on that occasion, how often he alludes to the resurrection. On that day three thousand souls were added to their number; and these persevered afterwards in the constant practice of what they had learned that day in the religious observance of the first day of the week in honour of the resurrection: “and they continued stedfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers :”—breaking of bread signifies the celebration of the eucharist.

I give the following excellent remarks from the learned Bramhall, interposing some remarks of my own. My readers will please to bear in mind, that while he was writing them, he considered the sabbath as abolished; and yet I conceive, that some of his arguments, proceeding on that very supposition, prove directly the reverse.

Notwithstanding that I consider that I have abundantly proved the permanency and continued existence of the sabbath and its union with the Lord's-day, yet I am still obliged, for the sake of perspicuity, to use both expressions, and particularly in considering the quotations from Bramhall and Heylyn, from whose opinions I dissent.

Bramhall, folio edition, page 915. All parties do acknowledge the change to be an apostolical tradition. I find

no cause to doubt that the change was made by the authority of Christ. It is true, that we find no express precept recorded in holy scripture, for the setting apart the first day of the week for the service of God: neither is it necessary that there should be an express precept for it found in holy scripture to prove it to be of divine right. The perpetual and universal practice of the catholic church, including all the apostles themselves, is a sufficient proof of the divine. right of it; that at least it was an apostolical institution and ordinance,-not temporary for an age or two,-not local for a place or two,-but universal. I say, at the least, an apostolical institution,-for the resurrection of Christ upon this day, and his divers apparitions to his apostles on this day; and all this at such a time as they were assembled together in their usual place of prayer, and in all probability whilst they were performing the duty of the day,—did at least evidently point out to them this day for his public worship, and ratify their assembling upon this day to do him service.'

'Athanasius saith, "Anciently the sabbath (or Saturday) was in high esteem, which solemnity the Lord translated to the Lord's-day:" and Epiphanius, in his Sermon on Christ's resurrection, preached upon the day of his resurrection, says, "This is the day which God blessed and sanctified, because in it he ceased from all his labour, when he had perfectly accomplished the salvation both of those in the earth, and those under the earth." And Augustine saith that "the Lord's-day was consecrated by the resurrection of Christ."

From the above quotations from Athanasius and Epiphanius, it appears that they considered the sabbath as transferred to the Lord's-day,--and, most probably, if we could look through the writings of all the early fathers, we should find many testimonies to the same effect.

But it is not at all material to me,' continues Bramhall,

or to the divine right of the Lord's-day, whether it was consecrated by Christ himself, or by his apostles, directed by his Spirit. That it is an apostolical tradition, no man can well deny; and that it was no temporary nor local constitution, which is mutable, but perpetual and universal, both of the duty which is required,—that is, the worship of Christ,—and the ground whereupon it is required,—that is, the resurrection of Christ, - the uniform practice of the catholic church doth prove sufficiently. Whensoever, wheresoever the Christian faith was propagated, the observation of the Lord's-day was propagated with it. Joseph of Arimathæa taught them the observance of the Lord'sday in Britain, in the very reign of Tiberius Cæsar; St. Matthew, or the Eunuch, read them the same lecture in Ethiopia; and St. Thomas, in India; and, although many of their converts have had little or no communion with the rest of Christians until of late years, yet, from their conversion until now, they have observed the Lord's-day religiously. From whence we may safely infer, that if it was not instituted by Christ himself, which is much more probable, it was an apostolical constitution, and not a free custom intruded into the church in long tract of time; nor yet a constitution of one single apostle, but of all the apostles, or the apostolical college,—and that, speedily after the resurrection of Christ.'

It is St. Augustine's rule, "that whatsoever the universal church doth hold,-which was not instituted by councils, but always retained,—is most rightly believed not to have been delivered but by apostolical authority. Such an universal tradition is the Lord's-day." The same father speaketh yet more expressly as to the day itself. "The apostles and apostolical men decreed (sanxerunt) that the Lord'sday should be observed with religious solemnity." By apostolical men, in St. Augustine, we ought to understand,

not ordinary pastors, endued with apostolical qualities, but such persons who, though they were not of the number of the twelve apostles, yet were employed by Christ as apostles, in the planting of churches, and in the governing of them. These twelve prime apostles, and the secondary apostles, who were their cotemporaries, whom he calleth apostolic men, this is the apostolical college, and these, according either as they had been directed by Christ, after his resurrection, but before his ascension, or were inspired by the Holy Ghost, were those who decreed the religious solemnisation of the first day of the week, or the Lord's-day. Therefore, with good reason, doth Basil reckon this an apostolical tradition that, "upon the first day of the week, they made their prayers, standing upright." Here are two apostolic traditions twisted together: first, for the time of their holy assemblies-upon the first day of the week; secondly, for the gesture, that was standing,—and both in memory of the resurrection of Christ. Neither was this the tradition of one single apostle, but a tradition of the whole apostolical college. This appeareth by the uniform observation of the Lord's-day in all churches. Neither was it a new, upstart tradition; because no apostolical church doth take any notice of any new or later introduction of the Lord's-day among them, but derive it from their first conversion.'

To this,' he says, it is objected that there is no precept of Christ or his apostles for the abrogation of Saturday, and solemnisation of Sunday, recorded in Holy Scriptnre.' He finds it very difficult to answer this objection, and is at length driven to the argument that the establishment of the Lord's-day is a virtual abrogation of the Saturdaysabbath.' But he has not given us any reason why the establishment of an entirely new festival, which he contends was totally different from the sabbath, should be a virtual

abrogation of that with which it had nothing to do. The above admission is most important. He finds it very easy to establish the apostolical institution of the solemnisation of the first day of the week; but cannot find any tradition or trace whatsoever of the abrogation of the Saturdaysabbath. And why does he find this so difficult-so impossible? In truth, because it was not abolished, but intended to continue under the Christian dispensation, although not on the same day, but by uniting it with the Lord's-day. I have proved that the letter and the spirit of the command were the observance of a seventh, and not of the seventh. And as the command was not for a particular day, so neither was a direct command necessary for the change : but that the apostles, who certainly had the power, did change it, he himself has satisfactorily proved. So that his difficulty and embarrassment on this objection, which he freely and frankly owns, do really prove the very point for which we have been contending, and put the finishing hand to the rectifying of the error into which this eminent and good man had unfortunately fallen.

He further endeavours to obviate this objection, by showing that the moral duties of the sabbath were transferred to the Lord's-day, such as the command for the collection, on that day, for the saints, both in the churches of Galatia and Corinth. This he considers as a proof that the sabbath was abolished ! But what think you, my intelligent friend ? Methinks I hear you promptly answer, that you consider this, also, a strong proof of the contrary: not that it proves that the duties were transferred from the sinking sabbath, but as an additional proof that the sabbath itself, and along with it its moral duties, were so transferred. I have elsewhere given reasons why the apostles transferred the day only by degrees; and why it was both prudent and necessary, so long as the Jewish polity continued, to observe the