pulling corn on the Sabbath, become circumstances of great moment, when recorded by the pen of an inspired writer.

34. It has been said, that Jesus by preaching in the synagogue on that day kept the Sabbath. If this argument be good for any thing, it shows that the Saturday, not the Sunday, ought to be kept. But in fact this proves nothing with respect either to the Saturday or Sunday; for in preaching on the Sabbath-day, he only did what he did on every other day of the week; and he evidently went into the synagogue because there the Jews were collected together. He was circumcised, and kept all the Jewish feasts and rites of the old law (unless the Sabbath be excepted): then if the Sabbath ought to be kept by Christians because he kept it, all the rites and ceremonies of the old law ought to be followed, because he followed them. This is the necessary consequence if persons reason consistently from cause to effect. As Dr. Paley correctly observes,

'If the command by which the Sabbath was instituted be binding upon Christians, it must bind as to the day, the duties, and the penalty; in none of which is it received.'

35. The fact is, that his conduct appeared to be so equivocal to many of the Jewish Christians at that time, that they continued to observe the Jewish law with all its burthensome rites and ceremonies, until the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem, acting under the direction of the Holy Ghost, and speaking by the mouth of St. Paul to the citizens of Antioch, abolished the whole except four things.

36. It appears from chapter the 15th of the Acts, that it was proposed that the Gentile converts should observe the law of Moses. Upon this a difference of opinion arose. Now there can be no doubt that if the Sabbath, or any other part of the old law were to be retained, it would have been here expressed: but the Apostles only require from the Gentiles to observe four things, which they call necessary, and expressly absolve them from the remainder; and the observance of the Sabbath is not one of the four excepted.

37. The Sabbath is a Jewish rite, not a moral law, and every such rite is expressly abolished. As the Decalogue, which is a part of the Jewish law, is not excepted, and depends on precisely the same authority as all the remainder, it must be held, unless it be specifically excepted as a CODE of law, to be abolished also: and the moral laws which are intermixed with the Jewish rites which it contains, must be held to depend upon their own truth or the commands of Jesus.

28. For it hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things:

29. That ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if you keep yourselves, ye will do well. Acts xv. 28, also xxi. 25.

38. It is here worthy of observation, that the part marked in Italics is no part of the Decalogue.

39. Again, in Acts xxi. 25, the question respecting the observance of the old law is alluded to, and it is expressly forbidden.

25. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded, that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

40. Here, as it is a part of the old law, it is actually expressly forbidden. The Apostles, acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and speaking of the old law-the whole of it—say, We have concluded that they observe no such thing.

41. How can words of prohibition be more clear than these? NO SUCH THING; save only, &c. If by explanation the Sabbath can be shown to be continued, there is no expression in any language which may not be explained to mean directly the reverse of what the speaker intended.

42. This is quite enough to decide the question; but we will see what St. Paul thought of it.

43. Of course all Christians of the present day will allow, that where a doubt shall exist respecting the meaning of the Gospels, or of Jesus himself, if St. Paul have expounded it or explained it, his authority must be conclusive and binding upon them. In the following two verses, St. Paul has actually declared that the Sabbath was abolished.

8. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.-Rom. xiii. 8, 9.

44. If there be any other commandment, it is what? Not the observance of the, or a, Sabbath. How can any thing be clearer than this? Besides, it is evident that in this letter of instruction to the Romans, he would have told them that they were to keep a day in lieu of it, if he had thought it imperative on them so to do. If St. Paul be authority, every commandment in Genesis or elsewhere in the Old Testament is expressly abolished.

45. But in the following passage St. Paul goes much further, and not only abolishes the Sabbath, but actually declares himself against the compulsory use of days altogether as necessary appendages or parts of religion. St. Paul could not fail to know that

the observance of days might be converted to the purposes of superstition, the same as all other forms and ceremonies had been by some of the Pharisees, and other hypocritical pretenders to superior sanctity, to the exclusion or neglect of true devotion and the moral law.

5. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord. And he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.—Rom. xiv. 5, 6.

46. Here, unless we distort the meaning of plain words, St. Paul abolishes the compulsory observance of days, or states the observance of them not to be necessary; but as the observance of certain days may evidently have no guilt in it, he says, If you think it right to keep them, it is well; but if you think otherwise, it is also well. In both cases, it is to the Lord, to use his mode of expression.

47. In the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, verse 16, is a passage in which St. Paul again expresses himself against the observance of fixed days, or Sabbaths.

48. Dr. Paley prefaces his quotation of this text with the following observation and no person but as degraded a fanatic as Johanna Southcote, or the modern ranters, will treat the opinion of the venerable Paley with disrespect. He says,

'St. Paul evidently appears to have considered the Sabbath as part of the Jewish ritual, and not obligatory upon Christians.'

49. If St. Paul have evidently decided the question, surely Christians may safely rest upon his authority: he says,

16. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days;

:

17. Which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ. 50. By the use of meats or drinks, he must allude to the use of them on fast-days, because the use of them on other days no man ever said was wrong. The same argument must apply to the neglect of feast-days regulated by the state of the moon. The same of the Sabbath; for it is not maintained that there was any guilt in keeping a day of rest: the offence was in breaking it and here St. Paul must be construed to mean, Let no man condemn you for the breach of the Sabbath. It seems absurd to construe it to mean, Let no man condemn you because you choose to keep a Sabbath or day of rest. If it be so construed, then it must also be said, (to be consistent,) Let no man condemn you for merely taking necessary food. If it do not mean, Let no man condemn you for taking meat on some days when it is forbidden, it is actual nonsense. But in a few verses he seems to explain bis own meaning.

20. If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

21. (Touch not, taste not, handle not:

22. Which all are to perish with the using,) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

23. Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

51. In the next chapter he goes on to direct the Colossians to seek those things which are above.

Mind the things above, not the things below, &c.

52. The whole of this train of reasoning is consistent with itself, and also with what he has said in the Epistle to the Romans,

xiv.

He who regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord; and he who regardeth not the day, to the Lord he regardeth it not.

53. The whole of St. Paul's preaching goes to inculcate that the observance of feasts and fasts is a matter merely optional, and that the observance or non-observance of them is no offence, and consequently he is directly against the compelling their observance by law.

54. In the whole of the Epistles, there does not seem to be a single clear, unequivocal passage in favor of the Sabbath. In almost numberless places breakers of such of the commandments as are in themselves moral rules, independent of the law of Moses, are condemned in the strongest terms: for example, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10. Gal. v. 19–21. 2 Tim. iii. 2.

55. But in not one of them is a Sabbath-breaker named. How does this happen? The reason is sufficiently plain. The breach of the Sabbath under the old law was a breach of the covenant with God, and therefore a high offence; but the Sabbath being abolished, under the new law it was none.

56. Although Dr. Paley does not agree with the author entirely respecting the Lord's-day, he makes several admissions, which, coming from him, are very important. He says,

A cessation upon that day (meaning Sunday) from labour, beyond the time of attendance upon public worship, is not intimated in any passage of the New Testament; nor did Christ or his Apostles deliver, that we know of, any command to their disciples for a discontinuance upon that day of the common offices of their professions.'

57. Upon this it may be observed, neither is the necessity of attendance upon public worship intimated particularly on that day, in preference to any other. Nothing is said upon the subject, therefore nothing can be inferred. So that the proof of the necessity of attendance on divine worship must be sought for else

where. In fact, the non-inculcation of public worship in the passages alluded to above, proves nothing either for or against it: only it goes to prove that it was not particularly ordered on the first day, more than on the seventh or any other day, and leaves the times for its observance open to be fixed on what days the government, or the rulers of the churches think proper. What is said bere must not be construed as a wish to prohibit all public worship; but only to place it on a correct footing as a right of discipline, and to discourage the fashionable pharisaical doctrine, that all merit is included in praying in the synagogues, and at the corners of the streets, and making long speeches at Bible Society meetings, &c.

Again, Paley says, 'The opinion, that Christ and his Apostles meant to retain the duties of the Jewish Sabbath, shifting only the day from the seventh to the first, seems to prevail without sufficient proof; nor does any evidence remain in Scripture (of what, however, is not improbable) that the first day of the week was thus distinguished in commemoration of our Lord's resurrection.'-Mor. Phil. p. 337. Ed. 8vo.

58. Certainly in Scripture there is no evidence.

59. In this view of the doctrines of St. Paul the author is happy to have so learned and respectable a divine as Michaelis of his opinion. And indeed as the opinion of Michaelis is not objected to by Bishop Marsh, his translator, in his usual way by a note, where he disapproves any thing, the author seems to have a right to claim him also.

Michaelis, chap. xv. s. 3. says, 'The Epistle to the Colossians resembles that to the Ephesians, both in its contents and in its language, so that the one illustrates the other. In all three, the Apostle shows the superiority

In the four Gospels, no person can point out a single passage which, in clear unequivocal terms, directs the observance of public worship. One text may be shown where it is tolerated:

Where two or three are gathered together in one place, I will grant their request.

And one where it is discouraged, at the least, if it be not expressly prohibited; and where such persons as may not think it necessary are expressly justified for its non-observance :

5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.

6. But thou, when thou pray est, enter into thy closet; and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.-Matt. vi. 5, 6.

Except these two texts in the Gospels, the author knows not one which alludes to public worship;-a thing with pageantry, &c. &c. as much abused sometimes by Christians, as ever it was by Jews or Heathens. The attendance of Jesus in the synagogues can no more be cited to support it, than his observance of the passover and other Jewish rites can be cited to support the rest of the laws of Leviticus abolished by the Acts.