ed.

The same doctrine is taught by the Apostle Paul in Romans, iii. 31.-Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid Yea, we establish the law. But an important branch of the law is made void through faith, if the gospel annuls the obligation of the fourth commandment.

Let us then weigh the import of those passages in the New Testament which have been thought by some to imply an abrogation of the fourth commandment; and consider whether they are capable of a sound interpretation which is consistent with these plain declarations of our Redeemer and his Apostle.

An opinion has been adopted, that the appointment of the first day of the week for the publick religious exercises of Christians, is a tacit abrogation of the fourth commandment which appoints, the seventh day for the celebration of the Sabbath. But it is obvious that this change is merely circumstantial, and does not interfere with the essence of the command. The last day of the week was undoubtedly appropriated by the fourth commandment; but it is remarkable, that the words may be applied to any day in the seven. We are enjoined to pursue our ordinary labours during six days, and on every seventh day to rest. This injunction is fulfilled, whatever day of the seven be the day of rest.

The reason given in this commandment for the observance of the institution is, that it pleased God to occupy six days in the creation of heaven and earth, and to rest from his work on the seventh day. Our regards are not diverted from a due consideration

It is worthy of observation, that during the Jewish Dispensation, another act of love on the part of our gracious. Creator, is mentioned as the reason for observing a sabbatical rest.-Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand, and by a stretched out

arm.

Therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbathday. Deut. v. 15. Hence we see, that the motive for observing one day in seven, as a Sabbath to the Lord, may be changed, without any change in the commandment.

Our Saviour seems to have alluded to a future change in the day of the week, to be appropriated to the Christian Sabbath, when he declared that he was Lord of the Sabbath. Mark, ii. 28. A consideration of the context will show, that this is the most natural interpretation of his words. He had been vindicating the conduct of his disciples, who, to satisfy their hunger, had plucked the ears of corn and eat them, as they went through the corn fields on the Sabbath-day, and had been showing that works of necessity and mercy were proper on the Sabbath. On this occasion he declared, that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, ver. 27, and then added-Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. The exercise of Christ's authority over the Sabbath, was a consequence resulting from the former declaration, that the Sabbath was made for man. Now it he designed to

inform us that the Sabbath would be abolished, the premises and conclusion are by no means coincident. The words of our Lord must then have this import: "The Sabbath was a gracious institution, designed for the benefit of man, therefore I will take away this benefit from him." Whereas, if we suppose that these words had respect to the celebration of our redemption, a mercy greatly superior to that of creation, or the deliverance from Egyptian bondage, the whole sentence is beautifully connected and of gracious import. It is as if our Lord had said, "Since the institution of the Sabbath was designed as a favor to man, and has hitherto directed his attention to the celebration of that love and power which created the heavens and the earth; and has also reminded the chosen nation of their deliverance from the most oppressive bondage; I will so regulate the day as to direct the attention of my disciples to the greatest of all mercies, the completion of my labours for their eternal redemption."

I am aware that a third sense may be put upon these words of our Saviour. They may be understood as expressive of a design to soften, (according to the ideas of some,) the rigours of the sabbatical institution. But I hope I have sufficiently shown, that our Lord introduced no new doctrine respecting the Sabbath, when he declared that works of necessity and mercy were consistent with the sanctification of that day, and that he did not in any other respect alter the law of that institution as delivered by Moses and the Prophets.* Indeed, the re

*See Thoughts on the Sabbath during the Jewish Dispensation.-Christian Magazine, Vol. II, page 344.

laxation of the fourth, or any other commandment, would prove a curse instead of a blessing to mankind. For the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Romans, vii. 12. If it had been the design of our Lord to abolish, under the Christian Dispensation, the institution of a Sabbath, I do not see how he could have spoken of it in terms of respect in relation to an event which he knew would not happen until forty years after the commencement of that dispensation.

But when he was privately giving his disciples an account of the dreadful calamities which would take place at the siege of Jerusalem, he directed them to pray, that their flight might not be on the Sabbath-day. Matt. xxiv. 20, since in that case, they must either have been inattentive to the peculiar duties of the day, through the multiplicity of worldly concerns which would then press upon them, or have neglected their own safety through fear of breaking the commandment.

The principal passages in the New Testament, which, at first sight, seem to favour the idea of the abolition of the Sabbath, under the Gospel Dispensation, occur, 1st, in Rom. xiv. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. And 2d, that in Colossians, ii. 16. Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days. But if the sense of these passages be determined by the context, it will appear that they were written with a reference to the ceremonial law, which was designed to be abolished by the Gospel Dispensation; and that they are

not contrary to the idea of a Christian Sabbath.

In order to a right understanding of these passages, it is necessary to remember, that the Gospel Dispensation did not supersede the Jewish by a sudden transition, and immediately. render the Jewish observances unlawful to all who received Christ as their Saviour. It was the design of God, that a gradual change should take place; so that, on the one hand, no violence should be done to the consciences of those, who had been educated in the observance of the ceremonial law; and on the other, that the Gentile believers should not be brought under the yoke of the Jewish ritual. The Apostles themselves, if we may judge, by the conduct of Peter, were not fully informed at the day of Pentecost, of the intended abolition of the ceremonial law; for he conceived himself bound by the Jewish doctrine of clean and unclean meats, when he was invited to go and preach the Gospel to Cornelius, who was a Gentile; though afterwards we find Peter declaring in the first Christian synods that the ceremonial law was a yoke, which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear. Acts, xv. 10. St. Paul, indeed, seems to have had a full display made to him at once of the whole system of the Gospel; yet he continually taught the lawfulness of Jewish observances to those who had been educated as Jews, and himself conformed to them upon all proper occasions.

Many contentions must have arisen during this state of things, amongst the Christian converts, respecting the authority of the Jewish ritual; and to such contentions, the Apostle is evidently referring in the passages above

cited.-Him that is weak in the

faith, receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things; another wha is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not, and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth. One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike. If we understand this last clause as relating to the institution of the ceremonial law, it will then be agreeable to the scope of the context, and will contradict no other part of the New Testament, but if we conceive of it as intended to cast a slight on the Christian Sabbath, we shall then set it in direct opposition to the declarations of our Saviour, as well as to the doctrines and conduct of the Apostles. They acted, no doubt, by the divine direction, in appointing the first day of the week, instead of the last, to be the day on which Christians should hold their publick assemblies for religious worship, on which they should break bread in remembrance of Christ's death; and on which publick collections should be made for the benefit of their distressed brethren. To this day they gave the venerable title, THE LORD'S DAY, a title which has been handed down in the Christian Church through every succeeding age, as appropriated to the Christian Sabbath.

The same reasoning is applicable, to the passages which I have quoted from the Epistle to the Colossians. It is evident from the context, that the Apostle was speaking of the ordinances of the ceremonial law, for the neglect of which no Christian was to be condemned. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nail

ing it to his cross. Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days. Colossians, ii. 14, 16. In this passage the Apostle is clearly speaking of burdensome ordinances; of something that was against them, and contrary to the spirituality of the Gospel, But can any pious person conceive, that the spending of one day in seven in spiritual services, in the delightful employment of social worship, and other religious exercises, could be ranked by the holy Apostle amongst the things which were against Christianity, and contrary to it? Was that institution, which the people of God had been commanded to call a delight, holy of the Lord and honorable, now to be esteemed of so carṇal a nature as to be ranked amongst the things, which Christ took out of the way, nailing it to his cross? Were those holy persons, who had been accustomed to adopt the language of the Psalmist, I was glad when they said unto me, let us go up to the house of the Lord, now taught to esteem a day spent in such services, as a part of that yoke, which neither the Apostles nor their fathers were able to bear? We must destroy all just ideas of the effects, which the preaching of the Gospel was intended to produce, before we can adopt such an interpretation of the Apostle's words. Whereas, if we suppose him to mean, that no Christian ought to be condemned who had relinquished the Jewish ritual, and joined in transferring the sabbatical institution from the seventh to the first day of the week, in honour of the resurrection of our Redeemer, the passage becomes void of difficulty, or contradiction to other passages of the New Testament.

No farther arguments, I trust, are necessary to show the nature and obligation of the Christian Sabbath; but I cannot dismiss this part of my subject without mentioning one reflection, which has often forcibly impressed my own mind.

It is acknowledged on all hands, that Christians are favoured with a clearer knowledge of the divine will than had been vouchsafed to mankind before the coming of Christ; that the motives to love and serve God are increased under the Gospel Dispensation; and that a more abundant effusion of the Holy Spirit has been granted since the glorification of Christ.

It might, therefore, be reasonably expected, that the character of pious Christians should be somewhat superior to that of pious Jews; that the clearer views of the love and mercy of God in our redemption, and of our infinite obligations to our Redeemer, should produce greater delight in those holy exercises which are so well calculated to call forth our gratitude and excite our love. Yet if a sabbatical institution, as described by the prophet Isaiah, is not binding upon Christians as it was upon the Jews, this comparison must be reversed; and the employments of the Sabbath must have been more spiritual under the Jewish than under the Christian Dispensation.

I see the pious Jew abstracting himself every seventh day from the cares and concerns of this life, joining in the ordinances of worship with a delight, which would render every other employment on that day insipid; and directing his pleasures and conversation in conformity to the peculiar duties of that holy season. Whereas, the pious Christian (if the observance of the Sabbath is