[976] See Heylyn’s Hist. of the Sabbath, part ii. chapter vi. sect. 8; Morer’s Lord’s Day, pp. 216, 217, 228; An Inquiry into the Origin of Septenary Institutions, p. 55; The Modern Sabbath Examined, p. 26, Whitaker, Treacher, and Arnot, London, 1832; Cox’s Sabbath Literature, vol. i. pp. 165, 166; Hessey, pp. 141, 142, 198, 341, and the authors there cited.
[977] Morality of the Fourth Commandment, pp. 32, 36, 39, 40.
[978] In fact, the story told by Twisse that Barclay is not to be believed in what he says of Calvin because he was treacherous toward King James I., who for that reason would not promote him at his court, appears to be wholly unfounded. The Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. iv., p. 439, eighth edition, assigns a very different reason. It says: “In those days a pension bestowed upon a Scottish papist would have been numbered among the national grievances.” That is to say, public opinion would not then tolerate the promotion of a Romanist. But this writer believes that the king secretly favored Barclay. Thus on page 440 he adds: “Although it does not appear that he obtained any regular provision from the king, we may perhaps suppose that he at least received occasional gratuities.” This writer knew nothing of Barclay as a detected spy at the king’s court. Of his standing as a man, he says on p. 441: “If there had been any remarkable blemish in the morals of Barclay, some of his numerous adversaries would have pointed it out.” M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 663, says that he “would doubtless have succeeded at court had he not been a Romanist.” See also Knight’s Cyclopedia of Biography, article Barclay.
[979] Cox’s Sabbath Laws, &c. p. 123; M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. v. pp. 137-140.
[980] Quoted in Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, p. 200.
[981] Id. p. 201.
[982] Westminster Review, July, 1858, p. 37.
[983] Westminster Review, July, 1858, p. 37.
[984] Hessey, p. 203.
[985] Dr. Priestly, as quoted in Cox’s “Sabbath Laws,” p. 260.