return unto God through Jesus Christ: and let the true believer be thereby excited to labour for the full assurance of hope unto the end; that so, not a difficult, but an "abundant entrance may be administered to him into the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ."

For the Christian Observer.

PART III.

THOUGHTS ON THE SABBATH,

Under the Christian Dispensation. THE appropriation of one day in seven. to the worship of God, and other religious exercises, having been made a branch of the moral law, as summed up in the Ten Commandments; and that law being confessedly, with respect to nine of the Commandments, of universal and perpetual obligation: nothing more is needful to prove the authority of the fourth Commandment, under the Gospel dispensation, than to shew that it has not been abrogated in the New Tes

tament.

Our blessed Saviour, in his Sermon on the Mount, hath assured us, in the most explicit terms, that it was not his design to abrogate any part of the moral law.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fuifil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Matt. v. 17, 18. He also denounced a curse upon any one, who, by his conduct and doctrine, should set aside the law. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Matt. v. 19.

Our Saviour was undoubtedly speaking of the moral law, as contained in the Ten Commandments; for, immediately after these declarations, he proceeded to expound the sixth, seventh, and third Commandments, as parts of that law of which he was discoursing, with a view to remove the false glosses which the Jews had put upon them, and to shew their spiritual nature and their extent. The perpetual obligation of the whole moral law cannot be expressed in stronger terms than those which our Lord

has used. If it had been his design to rescind a tenth part of the law, he surely would not have declared, in this solemn manner, that not one jot or tittle of it should be rescinded.

The same doctrine is taught by the Apostle Paul in Rom. 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 not 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 public 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 of God's love in creating us, by the alteration of the day appropriated to the Sabbath; though we are thereby directed to the celebration of a blessing superior to that of creation.

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

ment.

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 shew, 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 eaten them, as they went through the cornfields on the Sabbath-day, and had been shewing, 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, v. 28. 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 if 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 had this im

port: "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 a Sabbath was designed as a favour 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

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 shewn, 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 relaxation 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. Rom. 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, with 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 xxiv. 20. since in that case, they must might not be on the Sabbath-day, Matt. culiar duties of the day, through the either have been inattentive to the pemultiplicity 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,

1. in Rom. xiv. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let

Jewish dispensation, Christian Observer, p. See Thoughts on the Sabbath during the 418.

every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. And 2. that in Colos. ii. 16. Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an 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 them. selves, 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 synod, 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 lawful ness 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 you, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things; another who 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 institutions 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 upon 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 public assemblies for religious worship; on which they should break bread in remembrance of Christ's death and on which public collections should be made for the benefit of their distressed brethren. To this day they gave the venerable title of 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 passage 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 hand writing of ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing 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. Col. 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 con

ceive, 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 honourable, now to be esteemed of so carnal 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 shew 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 the 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 not a branch of Christianity) must fall short of the pious Jew in the spiritual frame of his mind on that day; and, as far as the exercises of that day have influence, in the general spirituality of his disposition. The Christian will not, indeed, neglect the public services of religion, which the laws and customs of his country may have appointed for the day; but then one will go to his farm, and another to his merchandize; or, at least, his thoughts and conversation will be engaged by these subjects, or his time spent in some unprofitable amusement, unless he performs what he must conceive to be a work of supere. rogation.

Every one, however, who has made the trial, must be sensible of the advantage which his mind derives from the employment of himself in religious exercises, of one kind or other, during the whole of the Sabbath-day. The influence of such conduct upon the temper of our minds, during the remainder of the week, is not small. On the contrary, a total neglect of the pe

ON THE PEACEABLE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL.

THE introduction of a more peaceable spirit into this violent and contentious world, was one of the great objects intended to be effected by the Gospel. Our Saviour, in delineating the character of the members of his kingdom, declares, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God;" and the Apostle, in exact agreement with his Master, speaks thus to all Christians, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."

Here, however, an objection arises. It may be said, has not Christianity been the cause of much contention and warfare? Has it not produced innumerable heats and animosities among the several sects professing it? Do not individuals often violently dispute on the subject of Religion? Are not even many orthodox persons far from peaceable in their spirit? And has not the Gospel, therefore, on the whole, obstructed the peace of the world rather than promoted it?

It must without doubt, be admitted, that even real Christianity has been the innocent cause of many disputes, by creating a new diversity of opinion. This point may be thus explained. Suppose to yourself a family, all the members of which forget God, violate his laws, and agree to tolerate in each other the practice of every species of iniquity; and then imagine a part of this corrupt society, (and at first only a small portion of it) to become sensisible of their wickedness, and to begin to lead a new life, and to wish to bring the remaining members of their body to the same sentiments. Is it not evi

dent that a certain kind of family discord will now arise; the good by their conduct, and perhaps also by their words, reproving the wicked, and the wicked becoming exasperated at the reproof? And to whose fault ought the new contention to be charged? The wicked, no doubt, will impute it to those who have introduced the novel opinions which are the subject of dif ference, and who pretend to be better than their neighbours; but is it not more fair to affirm that the wicked are in fault, who determine to retain their wickedness; especially if the good should be of a far more peaceable spirit than their accusers, and if this peaceableness should evidently be one of the new tempers which they have acquired? The application of this remark is easy. Let the world be considered as one great but corrupt family, and the introduction of Christianity as the entrance of true goodness. In this manner the Gospel, we grant, has served to break the peace of the world, and thus has that saying of our Saviour been verified: "Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth; I am not come to send peace, but a sword."

But another observation remains to be made in answer to the objection. Many false Christians have appeared, and these have caused no small part of the evils, which are often charged to the account of true religion. Moreover many real Christians have various imperfections cleaving to them: some in contending for the doctrines of the Gospel, have exhibited little of its spirit; others in magnifying faith, have undervalued love and obedience: and not a few have chosen rather to copy the forwardness and presumption of Peter, than the meekness and lowliness of Christ.

Many persons have apparently thought that religious commotion or stir is in itself good and desirable. They forget that the Gospel is the Gospel of peace, and should never even be preached in a spirit of hostility and disputation. They do not recollect that reconciliation and peace with God, and peace and love among men, are its