the punishment of death. Exod. xxxi. 15. Numbers xv. 32. Deut. xiii xxx, xxxi. 14—18.

25. And that such was the intention of the mission of Jesus is clearly proved by the result, with which we are all acquainted, as well as by the decision of the Apostles detailed in the book of their Acts, by which the whole of the old law is abolished, except four things, which are called necessary.

26. The Apostles must have known from Jesus what was his intention; besides, acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit, they could not err. When Jesus abolished the old law, of course he abolished every part of it which was not expressly excepted.

In Matt. v. 17, Jesus says, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, &c. but to fulfil it.

27. This expression appears peculiarly clear and appropriate; and it seems extraordinary, that the learned and ingenious Unitarian, Mr. Evanson, should have found any difficulty in it.

28. According to the account given of Jesus in the Gospels, it was evidently not his inclination to surrender himself to the Jews, until a particular period, when his mission had become fulfilled; for this reason it was, that he repeatedly withdrew from them privately, when their rage threatened his life for the same reason, he constantly spoke equivocally when he saw there was danger in speaking clearly, until the last moment, when he openly avowed himself to Pilate to be the Messiah. The question whether he came to abolish the old law was evidently a snare; and if he had answered it in the affirmative, he would have been instantly liable to suffer death, according to the law given by God in Leviticus, and which he came to abolish; but the answer he gave was ambiguous to the Jews at that time, although clear to us now, if the correct meaning of the words be attended to.

29. God entered into a covenant with the Jews to continue until the coming of the Messiah.'

30. Suppose I enter into a covenant with a man, to take a farm of me on certain terms for seven years. At the end of this time, is the covenant abolished? No. Are the terms or laws on which he held the farm abolished? No. The law or terms, as well as the covenant, are fulfilled, not abolished; and, as the lawyers would say, the demise is determined. The word fulfilled is the proper and true word to use, and if the word abolished or destroyed had been substituted, it would have been wrong and untrue; and as the institution of the Sabbath was a part of the revealed law, or commandment of God, and was in no other way obligatory than the remainder of the old law, of course it falls under exactly the same rule, and as it was not excepted, was with it fulfilled.

See Matt. v. 17.

S1. It has been said that the instances produced of Sabbathbreaking by Jesus and his disciples, are of so trifling a nature, that nothing can be implied from them. On the contrary, they were evidently done for the sake of agitating the question of the Sabbath; and if something important did not depend upon them, they are much too trifling to have been noticed at all. In each of the cases they are named evidently for the sake of affording an opportunity to record the expression of Jesus to the Pharisees, which came from him in the conversation which followed his act. The removal of the bed was no part of the miracle, and was totally and absolutely unnecessary, and directly in defiance of the old law. The act of pulling the corn, allowed by Deut. xxiii. 25, was equally an unnecessary act; for if it belonged to his disciples, their residence must have been within a few minutes' walk; and if it did not, it must have been in the centre of a populous country; and if it were further than about one mile (a Sabbath-day's journey) from the place where Jesus rested the preceding night, he must have been guilty of a breach of the Sabbath, of a most remarkable and unequivocal description, in travelling further than allowed by the law on the Sabbath-day.

:

32. In order to form a judgment of the great consequence, which ought to be attached to the act of breaking the Sabbath by Jesus, it will be useful to consider, in what light it was viewed by the old law, and by the Jews with God's approbation the reader will then see, that the act of Jesus must in him be considered of the first consequence; not as a trifle, as we at this day consider reaping corn or moving a bed. The following verses will set this in its proper light. Numbers xv.

32. And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath-day.

33. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation:

34. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done unto him.

35. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

36. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

33. If the character of Jesus be considered, it is very absurd to contend, that any act of his, recorded by the pen of an inspired writer, ought to be lightly estimated: this is actual profaneness in a Christian. It is incumbent on every believer in his divine mission to look upon each action of his life as an action recorded for the purpose of example, or of affording an opportunity of inculcating some doctrine: and as such, the moving of a bed, or travelling, or VOL. XXVII. Pam. NO. LIII.

L

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, bis 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 his own meaning.