teach them that human happiness is not to be hazarded by its pretended observance, he assured them that it was not an arbitrary appointment, nor intended merely as a test of man's obedience, like the forbidden tree in Eden; but for his benefit, to subserve together with the refreshment of his body, the improvement of his mind. "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."

Keeping in view what has been now offered, can it be supposed that our Saviour would have taken such pains in elucidating the sabbath, and in correcting the prevailing errors concerning it, if the period had been at hand for its final abolition? Or can we suppose that the evangelists would have been so particular in recording his remarks upon the subject, if at the time they knew that there was no longer a sabbath? To what purpose are those long discourses containing, in the whole through all the gospels, matter equal to several chapters to what purpose are they, if under the New Testament all days are alike? What instruction or advantage can Christians derive from the perusal of them? Why did our Saviour say, "the sabbath was made for man," words literally implying, all men, and agreeing to all men? Why too is it mentioned as a privilege, a general privilege? Why is it thus mentioned at the very time when this privilege is to be withdrawn, and men are to enjoy it no longer? Would it not have been more natural, and far more consonant to truth, for him to have said, "the sabbath

was made for the Jews during their state of bondage to the ceremonial law, as a part of that yoke which God in his wrath put upon their stiff necks; but from which I am now come to set them free?" However others may be impressed by these considerations, to my reason and conscience they bring a conviction of the continued obligations of the fourth command respecting the sanctification of the seventh part of time, as full and unwavering as though that command had been expressly repeated by our Saviour, as one of his own injunctions. Though no imaginable reason can be assigned for lessening that proportion of time originally reserved for the worship of the great Author of all time, yet a probable reason for the change of the sacred day from the last to the first day of the week, has been already suggested. The positive proof of this change may now be briefly stated.

As constituted Head over all things to the church, the authority of Christ to change times and seasons will not be denied. An intimation of his purpose to show his authority in the approaching change of the sabbath, seems to have been given to the Jews in that saying of his, "the son of man is lord even of the sabbath day." There is a force and meaning in these words, worthy of the high character of the speaker, when understood as alluding to that day which would hereafter be styled the Lord's. It is possible, if not highly probable, that this his meaning was explicitly announced to

his disciples on the very day of his resurrection. All four of the Evangelists are particular and express in their testimony that this was "the first day of the week." Why should such apparent stress be laid on this circumstance of day, if no matter of consequence was intended? His resurrection was the great event, but whether this took place on the first or any other day of the week, was in itself, perhaps, of no great moment, unless it were intended that the day should be thereby marked and signally distinguished from the other days of the week. "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples had assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst." John xx. 19. At this interview he made many important communications to the disciples; and that, among others, he now directed them for the future, to assemble on this day, is rendered probable by their being again actually assembled and his showing himself to them the second time on that day week, as in the 26th verse. conceivable that this second meeting been accidental; it has evidently the it has evidently the appearance of appointment. After his ascension, the disciples were again "assembled in one place, on the day of Pentecost," universally acknowledged to have been the first day of the week, when they received that miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, which qualified them for their mission to convert all nations.

It is hardly should have

That henceforward it was the custom of all christian societies wherever formed, to hold their religious assemblies on the first day of the week, appears from all history, both sacred and profane. We read in Acts xx. 7, that at Troas, " upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." He had come there on what we call Monday, and tarried seven days, apparently for no other purpose but for the opportunity of seeing the brethren assembled, and joining with them in the holy duties to which the first day of the week was now universally understood to be set apart. Having had this interview, he was "ready to depart on the morrow." From 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2, it appears that the churches, both in Galatia and at Corinth, were directed to make their pecuniary collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, on every "first day of the week," clearly implying that they were accustomed to hold their religious assemblies on that day. At the time when St. John wrote the Apocalypse, this day was generally known, and distinguished by the name of Lord's day. Rev. i. 10. "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." They who are predetermined not to find any day sacred to religion, may affect not to know what day is here meant ; but this title by St. John, as the similar one for the eucharist by St. Paul, sufficiently marks the appropriation of the day to the service of our Redeemer; and implies that the whole christian world at that time were

acquainted both with the day and with this its appropriation.

In all questions not explicitly determined by Scripture, the example of Christ, of his Apostles, or of the church in the Apostolic age, has been always deemed a sufficient directory for Christians, carrying with it an authority equivalent to an express command. If, too, any usage or practice of the first Christians but occasionally mentioned in Scripture, appear from the memoirs of the times immediately succeeding the age of the Apostles, to have been then universally observed in the church,-this has been always thought sufficient to establish the authority of such usage or practice. Upon this principle, the testimonies of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Cyprian, &c. must be decisive in ascertaining what day St. John called the Lord's, and its appropriation to his service.

To the epistles, apologies, and other writings of those fathers, and also the well known letter of Pliny to Trajan, giving an account of the Christians in his province, they may have recourse, who wish for farther satisfaction on this subject. After making quotations from all the above named authors and divers others, Mr. Baxter thus concludes; "If scripture history, interpreted and seconded by fullest practice and history of all the churches of Christ, and by the consent of heathens and heretics, and not contradicted by any sect in the world, be to be