bulk of the Jewish nation until this day. The Gentiles also were under no obligation to observe a seventh day for the purpose of rest, as the Jews were; but as the apostles had always been used to offices of public worship one day in seven, and the propriety and use of the custom was never questioned, it cannot be supposed that they would voluntarily abandon so useful an institution, or that they would not recommend it to their disciples

b "

Though the last sentence is perhaps objectionable, as seeming to exclude the agency of the Spirit in the apostolical directions, the passage, coming from so keen and sceptical a writer, is a valuable acknowledgment. That the apostle refers solely to the Levitical ordinances is plain from the whole scope of the chapter, and from the circumstance, that the seventh day festival of the Christians was not called " the sabbath," but "the Lord's day." These appellations were never confounded in the apostolic age, and in speaking of the former, no one would ever suppose that the latter was included. The sabbath days, then, to which St. Paul alludes, were not the Sundays of the Christian wo ship, but the Saturdays and other feasts of the Jewish calendar. The same

Notes on all the Books of Scripture, in loc. See Danzius, De Festo Septiman. abrogato, apud Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talmud-illustrat.

inference results from the very phraseology used by him; for, extending the prohibition against judging others" in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon," he can only refer to the Mosaic statutes relating to these matters; and it would be as unreasonable to suppose that the Christian sabbath was prohibited by the mention of the "sabbath days," as that the use of bread and wine in the eucharist was condemned by the expressions "in meat, or in drink."

In this part of his epistle the apostle is guarding the Colossians against the errors and superstitions which Judaizing and corrupt men were endeavouring to ingraft upon the simplicity of the Gospel. He admonishes the converts of their freedom from the ceremonies of the Jews, their circumcision, their distinction of meats, their new moons, their holy days; all which were obscure adumbrations of " things to come," of spiritual blessings in the church, which is the body of Christ, and now perfectly useless to those who enjoy the reality of what they were only the shadows. The sabbath, in being incorporated with the Levitical rites, received a peculiar and especial object, together with peculiar ceremonies and laws for its celebration; and, so far as it was peculiarly Judaic, it is abolished in Christ. Its penal sanction, its rigorous rest, its appropriation

as a sign, in short, all that accommodated it to the Hebrew church, is done away; but there is no reference to the Paradisiacal institution of the sabbath. The primæval command is not implicated in the apostle's declaration; it is to the Jewish sabbath alone to which he refers; and while the festivals of that religion are pronounced to be transient shadows, the original institution, which is not even glanced at by the apostle, must remain in full force.

These observations are for the most part applicable to the other texts adduced in opposition to the permanency of the sabbatical institution, namely, Rom. xiv. 5, 6. and Gal. iv. 10, 11. in the former of which the apostle says; "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 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." Here St. Paul is speaking of the Levitical festivals, the new moons, the sabbaths, and other holy days, for which the Jewish converts naturally entertained a regard, while the Gentile believers as naturally deemed them entitled to no respect. This was the subject of controversy, and the apostle exhorts every one to be firmly persuaded in his own mind, and, while differing in practice, to exercise mutual charity and forbearance. In

the other passage above referred to, he says to the Galatians," Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." He alludes to the weekly sabbaths, the new moons, the festivals, and the sabbatical and Jubilee years of the Jews, the observance of which the apostle delicately condemns, in expressing his fears lest, after all his labour, the Galatians did not understand the liberty and privileges of the gospel. That in both these passages St. Paul is speaking of the Jewish festivals must be evident upon a bare perusal of the context, and it is acknowledged and illustrated by almost every commentator; his decision, therefore, respecting the Mosaic holy days cannot be extended to the Paradisiacal and Christian sabbaths.

From this review of the texts in the New Tes-. tament, which have been appealed to by our adversaries, it may be confidently asserted that the sanctity of the seventh day has not been abrogated either by Christ or his apostles. But there is another objection derived rather from the spirit of the gospel than any express declaration, and as it is not unfrequently made, even by writers of the first respectability, it would be improper to pass it over without remark. The objection is, that positive institutions of religion have no inherent excellence; that they only make a part of

the discipline by which creatures in their first state, of imperfection, weak in intellect, and strong in. passion, must be trained to the habit of those. virtues which are in themselves valuable; that they are but a secondary part of the will of God, and must be considered to be of secondary rank as branches of man's obedience; that they are no otherwise pleasing to God, than as they are beneficial to man by enlivening the flame of genuine religion in his bosom; and that, while the primary duties of religion are the very end for which man was originally created, and, after the ruin of the fall, redeemed, the positive precepts are only the means appointed to facilitate and secure the attainment of the end. The sabbath, therefore, being merely a positive and ceremonial institution, cannot be of universal application, nor be placed upon the same footing with a moral duty.

Such is the objection, and, notwithstanding the eminent names by which it is urged, I am of opinion that it contains more of subtilty than solidity. The distinction between moral and positive laws is in many cases very difficult to be defined. A moral law, having its foundation in right reason, and the eternal fitness of things, is obligatory upon the consciences of all intelligent creatures; positive laws, on the other hand, have no fitness or authority antecedently to their promulgation, and, independently of such promulgation, are in