ual pride, than to the sober exercise of the understanding in the obedience of faith. Men catch at any thing to escape from the sacred obligations of a day devoted to spiritual religion, and the care of the soul. The name of Paley, and his just reputation in matters of his own province, is seized with avidity. Some late pamphlets have detailed his statements with unwonted levity, and yet confidence of manner. The deplorable ignorance of theology manifest in these publications, to all who are versed in the inspired Scriptures, and who submit really to their authority, forms no hindrance to the diffusion of the poison amongst the young and uninformed. The youth in our universities, our tutors, our junior clergy, are not altogether free from the contagion. Open infidelity, semi-scepticism, profaneness, worldly-mindedness, unconcern for the soul, and a readiness to follow what is new and daring, all lean the same way. It seemed to me, therefore, to be the duty of those who adhered to the doctrine of the Bible, and the universal faith of the church, to come forward and enter their protest against the gigantic evil. This I have endeavored to do. I have interwoven, however, with the argumentative sermons, practical exhortations; and I have treated, in the last three discourses, the specific duties of the Christian Sabbath at length.

With regard to the authors to whom I have been indebted for aid, you will find most of them referred to, as I have had occasion to cite their authority. But the fact is, that the whole church of Christ, in the proper sense of that term, has maintained this fundamental point, in every age. Subordinate matters have, of course, been disputed: but the commanding truth of a day of religious exercise and holy rest, after six days' work, has through all the periods of our ecclesiastical annals, been acknowledged as of divine obligation.

Perhaps, the best single sermons, in a practical point of view, are those of Dean Milner, Archdeacon Pott, and Dr. Chalmers the last is in the most powerful and awakening manner of its author, and of itself settles the question. Some essays of the late Mr. Hey of Leeds, seem to me the clearest upon the controversy-he confutes Paley in a masterly and conclusive style. The most elaborate work on the whole argument, as handled in his day, is perhaps,

The Exercitations of Owen. The change from the last to the first day of the week is thoroughly defended, in his lucid and convincing way, by J. Edwards-to whom J. Mede's sermon should, by all means, be adjoined. Bishop Andrews on the fourth commandment, is an incomparable discussion-full of learning, the soundest judgment, and rich knowledge of the materials of his argument. Mr. Holden has, in a recent work, arranged most of the reasonings and conclusions of preceding writers. He gives a list of nearly one hundred and fifty. He has furnished a valuable compendium. The chief authors of any popularity, that have fallen in my way, who impugn the divine authority of the Lord's day, are Bishop J. Taylor,--whose mistakes are not confined to this topic, mighty and various as were his powers, and sound in many views his theology --and Dr. Ogden and Dr. Paley, whose names will not weigh greatly with those who are acquainted with many other of their opinions. The primary error of supposing the narrative in Genesis, to be by prolepsis or anticipation, is maintained by Archbishop Bramhall-who, in part, redeems the fault, by a bold and uncompromising defence of the divine authority of the Christian Sabbath. Baxter confines himself to the argument from the example of our Lord and the inspired authority of the apostles, which he enforces in one of his very best treatises-omitting, but in no way questioning, the proofs from the Old Testament. The judicious Hooker, Bishop Hall, Archbishops Usher and Sharpe, Bishops Stillingfleet and Pearson, Archbishop Secker and others, defend the generally received doctrine, in their own profound and impressive manner, though some of them treat it only incidentally. The learned Horsley has three noble sermons on the subject, in which he powerfully maintains the same view. I think he errs in considering the Sabbath an appointment more of a positive than moral character. Indeed, if I am not deceived in my judgment, this error pervades almost all our writers, to the treatises of J. Edwards, and Hey. They too much concede, that the fourth commandment is of a positive nature. That there is, as I have said, something positive in it, may be granted-from the nature of the case it could not well be otherwise-but the positive part is as little as possiblesolittle, that the grand duty of devoting some portion of

>

time to the immediate service of God is its main purport -the commandment is moral per se-arises from the fitness of things, and rests, like the other precepts, on the primary relation in which man stands to his Creator. The opinion of the reformers is uniformly in favor of the divine obligation of the Lord's day-Cranmer, Latimer, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, maintain it with one voice, though sometimes, especially at the early period of the reformation, they support certain festival days in common with it.

.

To refer to the authors where references to the question, or brief discussions occur, would be endless. Lightfoot, Watts, Doddridge, Walker of Truro, Scott, and most practical writers, have something valuable. I have found interesting papers in the 8th volume of the British Review, in the Encyclopædia Britannica, and the Eclectic Review of the last year. The Bishop of Down and Connor has also recently published an excellent pamphlet on the subject, chiefly in refutation of the idea of an anticipated narrative, which he has treated with more force of argument than Hey or Dr. Dwight. This last name deserves especial notice Dr. Dwight, as well as his illustrious countryman, Edwards, has honored the American School of Theology -rapidly rising into importance-with a most convincing and able discussion of the question in all its branches, both theoretical and practical-this perhaps forms the best of our modern treatises; though it would be unjust to Dr. Humphrey of Amherst College, to withhold a tribute of applause from his excellent Essays. I spare a direct reference to one or two publications in our own country of a late date, because I trust maturer reflection will lead the writers to withdraw statements which are alike insulting to revelation and injurious to the youthful student.

But I will not proceed. I have said so much, to show you that I have not been inattentive to the opinions of others-and likewise to suggest a course of reading to any of you who may have time for such an inquiry. The points upon which I hope I may have thrown new light, are the direct moral character of the fourth commandment -the importance and dignity given to the Sabbath even during the vigor of the Mosaic economy-the real bearing of our Lord's conduct and doctrine-and the way in which

the change of the day was introduced by Christ and his apostles. These are not, however, essential to the main argument-whether I am right or wrong in my particular suggestions, the glory and obligation of the day of God remain the same.

And this leads me to notice the authority of revealed truth as connected with this subject, and forming its only true support. For it is on this footing I place the doctrine of the Lord's day-it is a part of God's merciful revelation of his will to man. I am assured that you will agree with me that in the pulpit, and in the measures pursued in our several parishes, we can have no hope of success, unless we place the duty on its only firm footing, the express command of Almighty God. Expediency may obtain a decent compliance with custom, but will never subject the affections. Expediency may carry a man once to church, but it will not carry him there twice, it will not regulate his family duties, it will not suppress the Sunday recreations, the Sunday News-papers, the Sunday parties, the Sunday dinners, the Sunday journies, the general Sunday secularities. Expediency may conceal or control some outward enormities, it cannot implant principles of religion, it cannot inspire love to God, it cannot check weariness and inattention, it cannot animate to prayer, it cannot change the human heart.

To do this we must invoke the power of the supreme Potentate, and all those aids and operations of grace which he has promised as the accompaniments of his own truth. That is, we must ascend from human to divine agency. And here we see the importance of admitting duly THE AUTHORITY OF REVEALED TRUTH. Let me pause and take advantage of the occasion to urge on you this great topic generally, and not merely as it refers to the point before us.

The authority of religious truth, as revealed in the Bible, rests on the infinite perfections of God who communicates it, on the relations in which man, his accountable and fallen creature, stands to him, and on the implicit obedience which his Creator and Judge demands. Revealed truth comprehends every thing needful for us to know in order to glorify God and attain salvation-it is inspired and dictated by the Holy Spirit-it is the remedy for the disorders

of a ruined world-it is a system of infinite grace, in the person and incarnation of Jesus Christ offering himself a sacrifice for sins, and in the gift of the Holy Ghost as the source of life and holiness-it is a scheme of redemption formed "before the ages," and gradually developed in successive dispensations, according to the good pleasure of God.

Revealed truth therefore is not so much many doctrines, as ONE STUPENDOUS DOCTRINE OR FACT, branching off into various parts. It is identical, indivisible, immutable, eternal and has been acknowledged in all its essential characters by the whole spiritual church. Like the various prismatic colors, though divided off into its several rays, it yet constitutes one splendid, pure, and unmixed effulgence. Receive this divine truth on the authority of God and by the grace of his Holy Spirit, and it works as the sovereign remedy of human woe. It illuminates, sanctifies, consoles, blesses the heart. It unites to Christ and to God in and through him, by the communion of the Holy Ghost. But if it be taken only upon the authority of man, it is weak, disjointed, incomplete, inefficient.

View this grand discovery in its different branches, and you will see how they constitute only one doctrine, founded on one stupendous fact.

The fall and condemnation of man, his accountableness, his impotency to any thing spiritually good, the deep, and, in a proper sense, total corruption of his nature, the misery and blindness, the disorder and enmity of the world, the propensity of the human heart to flesh, and self, and earthly pursuits, and its inability to recover itself to God and holiness-this is one part of essential truth-this is the case which redemption has to meet.

The person, glory, incarnation, sufferings and propitiation of the Son of God; his supreme divinity, pardon and justification by faith only, in his obedience unto death; acceptance and adoption through him; his mediatorial kingdom; his intercession at the right hand of the Father; union with him as the head of his church; love to him, gratitude, dependance, endeavors to honor him and imitate his example these are another division-the centre of religious truth, that on which all redemption rests-salvation itself.