The results of our examination of the principal writ- ers of the two centuries after the death of St. John may be thus summed up. The Lord's day (a name which has now come out more prominently, and is connected more explicitly with our Lord's resurrection than be- fore) existed during these two centuries as a part and parcel of apostolical, and so of scriptural Christianity. It was never defended, for it was never impugned, or, at least, only impugned as other things received from the apastles were. It was never confounded with the Sab- bath, but carefully distinguished from it (though we have not (juoted nearly all the passages by which this point might be proved). It was not an institution of severe sabbatical character, but a day of joy {xapfto- avvij) and cheerfulness (£i''0po(T(')r>;), rather encouraging than forbidding relaxation. Rehgiously regarded, it was a day of solemn meeting for the holy Eucharist, for united prayer, for instruction, for almsgiving; and though, being an institution under the law of liberty, work does not appear to have been formally interdicted, or rest formally enjoined, Tertullian seems to indicate that the character of the day was oi)posed to worldly business. I'inally, whatever analogy may be supposed to exist between the Lord's day and the Sabbath, in no [lassage that has come down to us is the fourth com- mandment appealed to as the ground of the obligation to observe the Lord's day. Ecclesiastical writers reiter- ate again and again, in the strictest sense of the words, " Let no man, therefore, judge you in respect of an holi- day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days" (Col. ii, 16). Nor, again, is it referred to any sabbatical foun-
dation anterior to the promulgation of the IMosaic econ- omy. On the contrary, those before the Jlosaic sera are constantly assumed to have had neither knowledge nor observance of the Sabbath. As little is it anywhere as- serted that the Lord's day is merely an ecclesiastical in- stitution, dependent on the post-apostolic Church for its origin, and by consequence capable of being done away, should a time ever arrive when it appears to be no lon- ger needed.
If these facts be allowed to speak for themselves, they indicate that the Lord's day is a purely Christian insti- tution, sanctioned by apostolic practice, mentioned in apostolic writings, and so possessed of whatever divine authority all apostolic ordmances and doctrines (which were not obviously temporary, or were not abrogated by the apostles themselves) can be supposed to possess.
3. But, on whatever grounds " the Lord's day" may be supposed to rest, it is a great and indisputable fact that four years before the CEcumenical Council of Nictea, it was recognised by Constantine, in his celebrated edict, as " the venerable Day of the Sun." The terms of the document are these :
" Imperator Constantimis Avg.Eclpidio.
"Omnesjndioes urbanieque plebes et cunctarnm artinm offlcia veuerabili Die Solis quiescaut. Ruri tameu positl agroruni cuUnra; liber6 licenlerque inserviaut, quoniatn frequenter evenit ut non aptius alio die frumeuta sulcis aut vinefe scrobibus mandeutnr, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas coelesti provisione concessa." — Bat. A'on. Mart. Crispo II et Constantino II Coss.
Some have endeavored to explain away this docu- ment by alleging, 1st. That " Solis Dies" is not the Chris- tian name of the Lord's day, and that Constantine did not therefore intend to acknowledge it as a Christian institution. 2d. That, before his conversion, Constan- tine had professed himself to be especially under the guardianship of the sun, and tliat, at the very best, he intended to make a religious compromise between sun- worshippers, properly so called, and the worshippers of the "Sun of Righteousness," i. e. Christians. ScUy. That Constantine's edict was purely a calendarial one, and intended to reduce the number of public holidays, "Dies Nefasti" or "Feriati," which had, so long ago as the date of the " Actiones Verrinse," become a serious im- pediment to the transaction of business; and that this was to be effected by choosing a day which, while it would be accepted by the paganism then in fashion, would, of course, be agreeable to the Christians. 4tlily. That Constantine then instituted Sunday for the first time as a religious day for Christians. The fourth of these statements is absolutely refuted, both by the quo- tations made above from Avriters of the 2d and 3d cen- turies, and by the terms of the edict itself. It is evi- dent that Constantine, accepting as facts the existence of the " Solis Dies," and the reverence paid to it by some one or other, docs nothing more than make that rever- ence practically universal. It is " venerabilis" already. It is probable that this most natural interpretation would never have been disturbed had not Sozomen as- serted, without warrant from either the Justinian or the Theodosian Code, that Constantine did for the sixth day of the week what the codes assert that he did for the first {Eccles. Hist. i,8 ; comp. Eusebius, 17/. Const, iv, 18). The three other statements concern themselves rather with -what Constantine meant than with what he did. But with such considerations we have little or nothing to do. He may have purposely selected an ambiguous appellation. He may have been only half a Christian, wavering between allegiance to Christ and allegiance to Mithras. He may have affected a religious syncretism. He ma)' have wished his people to adopt such syncre- tism. He may have feared to offend the pagans. He may have hesitated to avow too openly his inward lean- ings to Christianity. He may have considered that community of religious days might lead by-and-by to community of religious thought and feeling. He may have had in view the rectification of the calendar. But all this is nothing to the purpose. It is a fact, that in