day, as a distinct people, for wise and gracious purposes, on which it is beside our present purpose to enlarge. But how it can be said, that their Religion was given to them "exclusively"when its privileges were extended to men of every nation, colour, or superstition, who submitted to and performed all its requisitions-I am at a loss to comprehend! And equally unable am I to account for another of your author's assertions; viz. that the Jewish Religion was "superseded and annulled" by the Christian. I have always understood that Christianity was but a more advanced stage of the same Religion as was promulgated to the Jews; that it abolished only its externals, but retained the same object of adoration; obeyed the same Divine authority; required the same qualifications of contrition, confession, and faith, in the worshippers; and trusted in the very same Redeemer for pardon and reconciliation for the Jew believed in the Messiah promised; the Christian believes in Him who hath fulfilled all the promises of the Saviour of Mankind. Hence it would appear, that Christianity is rather the perfection, than the abolition of the Jewish Religion; for they are substantially the same: and, therefore, there can be nothing very "irrational" in the "conduct" of those who scruple to violate any of the Ten Commandments, unless it can be proved from the New Testament that they have been annulled.

It may be asked why the Saviour did not enjoin the strict observance of the Sabbath, if he intended the day to be kept in conformity with the Commandment. But, before this objection can

have any force whatever, it must be proved that it was necessary for our Lord to repeat the Commandment, word for word, and sentence by sentence, in order to ensure the obedience of His Disciples to the duty in question. But this it was not; for Christ saw that the persons whom he addressed were already strict observers of the Sabbath, and most tenacious of the slightest interruption to its sacred duties. Nothing, therefore, remained for him to do, but to sanction the celebration of the day by his own example, and correct what was amiss in those who professed obedience to the command of Moses; and, consequently, we find that he did both.

For the first: It were tedious to cite all the passages from the Four Evangelists, which declare that our Lord paid attention to this hallowed day, according to the command of God: nor is it requisite; for one of them, St. Luke, informs us, (ch. iv. 16,) that it was "His custom” to go into the Synagogue on the Sabbath-day.

For the second: He found the Pharisees had so disguised the Commandment by their false glosses and traditions, as to persuade themselves, and the people, that it was requisite to refrain from works of mercy, and even from acts of necessity, on the Sabbath-day. But, instead of acting from a tenderness of conscience, their motives were those of the basest hypocrisy; substituting numerous Services and privations that were not required, for that Spiritual observance of the day which alone could prove acceptable to God. In this manner did they "make void the Law by their Traditions ;" and render the Sabbath a bur

densome and painful duty, rather than a refreshing day of rest. Our Lord, with a bold and decisive hand, drew aside the veil, unmasked their dissimulation, and declared--what ?—not that they should run into the opposite extreme, and violate the command of Moses, but that they should celebrate the Sabbath as the Law required, without any adjuncts of their own: (Matt.xii. 9-13.)

But a Query arises here; which, if Philo-kalon, is unable satisfactorily to solve, will leave the whole of his reasoning with a very slender support. Since the Saviour did all that could be necessary to ensure the continuance of the Sabbath in his Church; had He, on the other hand, intended to make any alteration in the observance of that day, was it not absolutely requisite for Him to state that alteration, and not leave us to guess at the particular clause or clauses of the Commandment that might be omitted, with impunity? I think every candid mind will allow that it was requisite: otherwise it would expose our Heavenly Teacher to the imputation of leaving His Disciples in the dark, as to His intention on a point of such moment. And, since he has not done so with respect to any single passage of the Commandment, but has left the whole as He found it (except, indeed, that He has freed it of its numerous perversions), the only fair and legitimate inference can be, that He intended the Law regarding the Sabbath to remain in His Church unaltered.

Since, then, our Lord sanctioned the Sabbath by a personal observance of its duties, and took such pains to correct the abuses which the Jewish

Rulers had introduced-while He made no alteration in the Law itself that commanded the observance of that day-can we be reasoning on the principles of sound logic, to infer that we are at liberty to employ Heathen at our houses-i.e. to let "the stranger work within our gates" on Sunday-merely because it is not prohibited in the New Testament as well as in the Old? And can it be fairly concluded, from the Saviour's omitting to repeat the Fourth Commandment, that we may reject the whole, or such part of it as it suits not our convenience or inclination to observe?

66

29

I would beg once more to refer your Correspondent to the Redeemer's express command to the multitude and to His Disciples," contained in Matthew xxiii. 3: "All, therefore, what> soever they (the Scribes and Pharisees, ver. 2) bid you observe, that observe and do:" and the reason for this command is given in the second verse-they "sit in Moses' seat. This does not seem to accord with Philo-kalon's assertion, that the whole of the Jewish Religion, as well the Preceptive as the Typical part, is annulled and superseded by Christianity: and, to my view at least, it amounts to a command to observe the Sabbath according to the Jewish Religion; for this, it is well known, was one of the principal laws which the Scribes and Pharisees enforced. It will avail nothing to say, that this command may have been addressed to the People as Jews, for it was given to His Disciples at the same time: and had He meant the latter to be free from any part of the law in question, on their renouncing Judaism;

He would have told them so, and they would not have failed to publish the same to the Churches which they afterwards established: but not a single passage to this effect is to be found, throughout their Writings.

I never before heard or saw it gravely stated, that we were not at liberty to employ workmen when we please, without incurring "the guilt of those crimes" which the vicious may commit when we cease to keep them at work. But I think it unnecessary to swell this Paper, by a reply to the latter part of your Correspondent's Letter; else it were easy to shew, that the man who is really disposed to gambling, drunkenness, and the like, will surely pursue his vicious propensity at one time, if not at another: and a caviller might contend, that knowing a workman or servant to be so inclined, would furnish a good reason for his dismissal altogether; since, by giving him employment, you (doubtless, unintentionally) add fuel to the flame of his passions, for you enable him thereby to provide himself with the means of illicit gratification.

But, having shewn it to be the Christian's duty to observe the Sabbath in this particular as well as every other, he has nothing to do with the consequences. Let him obey the Commandment of God, and he will keep his own "conscience void of offence," whatever happen to those whom he may forbid to work upon his premises on this hallowed day.

Philo-kalon, however, may not have given it a thought, that his arguments on this point, make the Jews equally guilty with Christians, for dis