rejoice and be glad in it." That this is a prophecy respecting Christ, no one acquainted with the New Testament can be ignorant. It is frequently applied to him in the gospels and epistles. Now, what is the teaching of this passage? It teaches us that in the Saviour's time there was to be a day set apart to his honour, a day which the Lord has made, that is, of the Lord's appointing-that on this day the gates of righteousness were to be opened for the admission of the righteousand that it was to be a day of prayer, and praise, and sacred rejoicing. Moreover, this psalm asserts, that this sacred day was to be that on which the stone, rejected by the builders, was to become the head-stone of the corner. And what day is that, but the first day of the week, on which the Lord Jesus arose triumphantly from the grave? His crucifixion was his rejection by the builders; his resurrection was the "Lord's doing," in making him the head-stone of the corner. And the day on which he was made the head-stone of the corner was, therefore, to be a day of joy and sacred observance, according to the prediction; to which prediction the fact beautifully corresponds; the apostles and apostolic churches all observing this day of the resurrection as a day sacred to the Lord. This leads me to notice,

Fourthly. The example of the apostles and apostolic churches. In the twentieth chapter of John, we read of the disciples meeting together on two successive first days of the week, and on each occasion, Jesus presenting himself in the midst of them. Why did Jesus present himself among them on these occasions-on these first days of the week, and not on the seventh day?—the day peculiarly appropriated to religious worship and solemn assemblies among the Jews? Obviously, I think, to give his sanction to the religious observance of this day-to intimate that on this day he would, in an especial manner, fulfil his promise to his praying people, "Wherever two or three are met together in my name, there will I be in the midst of them." Accordingly we find, so far as we have historic information on the subject, that the first day of the week was, ever after, religiously observed by the apostles, and the churches planted by them. Thus, the disciples were assembled together on the day of Pentecost, which was the first day of the week, (and assembled for devotional exercises,) when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them from on high.* Thus, also, Paul waited seven days at Troas, for the first day of the week, to meet with the church, for the observance of the Lord's supper, for preaching and prayer. And thus, also, Paul instructs the Corinthians to lay by them on the first day of the week, their contributions for the poor saints; ‡ which shows that on this day they were accustomed to assemble together. And we know from uninspired writers, from the very days of the apostles, that

the first day of the week was observed by the Christian church at large. "That the custom of assembling for public worship on the Lord's-day was extensively adopted by Christians at a very early period, is thus clearly proved." Such is the admission of W. S.; but he adds, "Still the custom, however ancient or general, was founded on human consent, not on Divine command." This is a mere assumption. I maintain, that if the first day of the week was observed, as W. S. admits it was, by the early churches, with the sanction of the apostles, whom God had appointed and inspired for the regulation of his churches, then it was observed by Divine authority. And the very text which W. S. quotes from Galatians, to show that no such day was divinely appointed, completely upsets himself. "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years; I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." Now if the first day of the week were observed by the primitive churches without Divine warrant, would Paul have sanctioned its observance at the very time he was so seriously cautioning the Galatian churches against the observance of times and seasons? Would he have sanctioned the very thing he condemned? Would he have recognized will-worship, while the forcible interrogatory of Jehovah stared him in the face, "Who hath required this at your hands?" Who will affirm it?

The passage in the fourteenth chapter of Romans, "One man esteemeth one day above another; another man esteemeth every day alike; let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," is not a "declaration" that in Gentile churches at least, neither the Jewish nor Christian Sabbath was then established by Divine authority. The apostle in this connexion treats of Jewish scruples, and Jewish observances; and by a comparison of it with Col. ii. 16, and Gal. iv. 10, we may draw the conclusion pretty clearly, that μépa here relates to days which the scruples of Jewish Christians deemed sacred, and has no relation to the μépa Kupiov (the Lord's-day) which all agreed to keep holy.”—Stuart in loco. The fact that the Lord's-day, under some peculiar circumstances, as when Christians were persecuted, or enslaved, could not be observed by them, makes nothing for the theory opposed. W. S. was only losing his time and wasting his ink in adducing it. There were seasons during which they could not meet for the public worship of God; is it therefore not a moral duty? There have been seasons during which parents could not educate their children, nor children relieve the distresses of their parents or provide for their own households; are these, therefore, no moral duties? Who will say it?

The Saviour's walking on the first day of the week is no proof that it was not intended to be religiously observed; for I have no idea that the Lord's-day should be observed with all the ceremonial rigidness of the Jewish Sabbath. Before concluding this article, I shall glance at one argument more in defence of the Divine authority of the Lord's-day.

Fifthly. The appropriation of a day to the Lord under the designation of the "LORD'S-DAY." "I was," says the apostle John, "in the Spirit on the Lord's-day."-Rev. i. 10. From this passage we gather, that when John wrote the book of Revelation, about sixty years after the crucifixion, of Christ there was some day peculiarly distinguished from all the rest by the title of the "Lord's-day." What day that was we are at no loss to determine. It was "the day which the Lord has made," on which the Saviour rose from the grave, and which was religiously observed by the apostolic churches—the first day of the week.

The first day of the week was generally known as the "Lord's-day" in primitive times. It was never, I believe, called the Sabbath. Thus Ignatius, near the close of the first century, exhorts the Magnesians, "Let us no longer Sabbatise, but keep the Lord's-day on which our Life rose." So Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished A. d. 204; "He that truly observes the Lord's-day, glorifies therein the resurrection of the Lord." And likewise Athanasius, in the beginning of the third century, declares, "We observe the Lord's-day because of the resurrection." Various quotations of this nature may be seen in "Lord Chancellor King's Primitive Church," and "Coleman's Christian Antiquities."

Now let W. S. mark well this title of the first day of the week, “the Lord's-day." Does not this name imply that the day, so designated, is the Lord's in a peculiar sense? True, every day is the Lord's. But here is a day which he separates from the rest and distinguishes by a peculiar title-a title indicative of his peculiar property in that day above all other days. It is the Lord's-day in a sense in which no other day is so. But how can this be unless that it is sacred to him? a day which is to be specially devoted to his service? As the "Lord's supper" means a sacred meal of his appointing, which is to be observed as sacred to him, and to him alone, and which must not be alienated from his service to any other use; so the Lord's-day must convey the same ideas of peculiar consecration to the Lord, and appointment by his authority. It is the Lord's, and not mine-not man's. Therefore let not man desecrate or devote to secular pursuits the day which the Lord has selected, appointed, and consecrated to himself, as a day of solemn convocation and of hallowed commemoration of the most joyous and triumphant events.

What now is the sum of all I have advanced? That a day of sacred observance was given to our first parents in Paradise immediately on their creation-that, given to them, it was given to all men, "it was made there for MAN," and not for the Jews only—that it is absolutely necessary to the existence and perpetuation of true religion in the world, and so is, in the nature of things, binding on man, apart from any express command,—that it was incorporated with the Decalogue as part and parcel of the moral law-that prophecy clearly intimates that such a

day was, by divine appointment, to be observed in connexion with the resurrection of Christ, the day on which he was to become the "head-stone of the corner," that, in accordance with this prophecy, we find the primitive Christians, under the sanction of inspired authority observing the first day of the week as commemorative of this glorious event and finally, that this day is claimed by the Lord Jesus Christ as peculiarly, pre-eminently, and exclusively HIS -the "LORD'S DAY." These are our reasons for maintaining the moral obligation of the "Christian Sabbath." Do we, then, make its observance to rest on "human authority?" Or, what is worse, are we guilty of the heinous sin, as W. S. asserts we are, of "affixing to a human commandment the forgery of the divine signature ?" W. S. should have hesitated before he made such a solemn charge against the churches of Christ and the vast majority of the most eminently pious and learned divines of every age. And while I feel no objection to the honest avowal of his opinions, on this or any other subject, I cannot help conveying to him, in the spirit of kindness, my impression, that a tone of less severity and of greater modesty would, in the close of his article, have been far more becoming him, be his acquirements, as a theologian, however great. And while W. S. tells us that it is "high time to distinguish between the old and new covenants," the writer would beg in return, to tell him, that it is high time to distinguish between what is merely ritual and what is moral, what was temporary under the old dispensation, and what was, in its own nature, permanent, between the form and the substance, the person and the costume the person wears. Attention to these things may lead W. S. to revise his opinions respecting the "Lord's-day."

Apologizing, Mr. Editor, for trespassing so much on your valuable pages, and with feelings of kindness towards W. S.,

I remain, my dear Sir, yours sincerely,

Cork.

I. J.

CORRESPONDENCE ON THE JAMAICA MISSION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.

SIR,-An Ex-director has brought again under the notice of your readers the following statement of mine::

"In the year 1832, all the Baptist meeting-houses in the western district of our Jamaica Mission were destroyed. Just at that time, sir, your Society commenced its labours on the island, and commenced them in the very heart of the Baptist Mission.”

The reply to this passage includes three points: I. A question of time. II. A question of place. III. Some severe remarks respecting Mr. Knibb.

I. A question of time. Now by the phrase, "Just at that time," I did not mean the day, or week, or month, or year, in which the destruction took place; but the time during which our mission was in great depression and difficulty owing to that destruction. The words in question, I admit, were not sufficiently definite. I beg leave, therefore, to substitute for the original sentence, the following:

In the year 1832, all the Baptist meeting-houses in the western district of our Jamaica mission were destroyed. While they lay in ruins, the London Missionary Society commenced its labours on the island, and commenced them in the very heart of the Baptist Mission.

II. A question of place. "In the very heart of the Baptist Mission." Surely an Ex-director should have been prepared to point to the map, and show that this part of the statement is incorrect, instead of which he has recourse to reasoning, and his reasoning is this-The Baptists received the Pædobaptist missionaries with Christian cordiality, THEREFORE, the latter did not settle in the very heart of the Baptist mission. It is quite clear that the Ex-director is no logician.

When the London Missionary Society determined to send missionaries to Jamaica, Mr. Dyer, the secretary of the Baptist mission, suggested to Mr. Ellis, the secretary of the London Missionary Society, (and who always displayed an excellent spirit,) the desirableness of some arrangement to prevent interference with stations already formed, and to afford the means of religious instruction to those who were destitute of it; at the same time stating that there was ample scope in Kingston, and one or two other large towns, and in the interior; a suggestion which seems also to have been made by Mr. Thompson. Mr. Dyer pointed out the south side of the island as that least provided for. Mr. Ellis agreed to take tea at the Baptist mission-house with Messrs. Dyer, Gurney, Burchell, and Knibb, that he might point out the stations proposed, and endeavour to obviate difficulties. Four of these gentlemen met according to appointment, Mr. Gurney being unable to reach Fen Court before Mr. Ellis (who had to go into the country) had left. When Mr. Ellis pointed out certain stations on the north side of the island, as some of those the London Missionary Society proposed to occupy, it was immediately explained to him, that they were on the very localities in which the members of the Baptist churches resided, that is to say, in the very heart of the Baptist Mission. It was also explained to Mr. Ellis, that many districts at a great distance from any place of worship were left unoccupied. After going through the details, Mr. Ellis said that he saw it would not do; but that a gentleman whom he named as standing high in the Society had determined on those stations, and that it was impossible at present to obtain any alteration. He added these remarkable words, "Leave it to me, and I will work them right and left, and get them out of your way."