OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.

"That thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou"-Deut. v. 14.

When we consider these words to have been spoken by the Almighty, and the promises attached to the obedience, and the curse to the disobedience of his laws; we do well to remember that "God is not man that he should lie, neither the Son of man that he should repent, hath he said and shall he not do it, or hath he not spoken, and shall he not make it good:" and as he has bequeathed to us, his most holy word for our guidance and instruction, and has so marked the road to his mansions of glory by the precepts therein contained, "that he who runneth may read," ought it not to fill our hearts with cheerfulness, in running the race set before us "looking unto Jesus ?"

It is true, that by the generality of professing Christians, the Sabbath is observed by constant attendance at the temple of the Lord, and that we who do not come under the denomination of those afterwards spoken of, do more strictly observe the commandment in that particular; but it is to the concluding injunctions I would beg to call attention, as I think if they are not forgotten, they are too frequently overlooked. When we consider that in the old law, a breach of the Sabbath was punished by death, Numbers xv. 32 to 35, how ought we to feel, who employ our servants on the blessed day of the Lord, "man-servant, maid-servant, and cattle," to transgress his law? We who are engaged in religious institutions, and influential in societies, whose chief object is to disseminate the word of the Lord whom we profess to honour; how can we thus openly commit such a breach of his statutes, which he has commanded "to be observed throughout generations","for a perpetual covenant, as a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel for ever," Exodus xxxi. 16, 17, by commanding our servants to work on the day which the Lord has blessed, and sanctified, and consecrated, to his own service and his own glory? How much is it to be lamented, that in families whose members otherwise serve the Lord, the servant's business on the Sabbath day exceeds that of any one of the other six, and the preparation for the Sabbath (so well calculated to fit the mind, tossed by the billows of this world's anxieties, to enjoy that sweet season of calm, whispering into the ear of each believer "peace be still,") is disturbed by the view of another day's labour and anxiety, whilst the masters and mistresses have all the benefit-they all the toil. I would ask, is this line of conduct consistent with the words "no manner of work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, thy maid-servant, and thy cattle," &c. or do we think that such a plain and clear commandment is duly obeyed, by suffering our servants to attend their various places of worship? or will this relieve us from the weight of responsibility that adheres to us, by employing others as our instruments in violating God's most holy laws? Must we not deem ourselves guilty of inconsistency, in beseeching the Lord to incline our hearts

to keep this law, when at the same time we are determined to keep no such law?

I am sorry to say, that if the above-mentioned classes had been altogether omitted in the law of the Lord, we could hardly more effectually take advantage of such a state of things than in the present enlightened day.

How happy would it be if those who profess to follow the Lord, would determine that the bondage which has so firmly held our servants in the days that are past should now be removed, and that more should not be required from them than necessity calls for. This would deprive us of some luxury it is confessed: it is true, that while it would be a gratification to our servants to be enabled to worship their God with an heart, not as formerly, reproaching them with the actual breach of his laws, we could not have those luxuries which we formerly enjoyed; but does it not become the disciples of Christ to make the gratification of their appetites subservient to the will of Almighty God, and that they should enjoy his benefits only so far as they are sanctified to his most holy will and service? How can we pray for a blessing on those meats which in the very preparing for our use, our servants have been made to transgress the commandment of the Lord, no manner of work," &c.? How can we speak of the words of Jesus with fond delight, and ponder on the merits of his death with mingled feelings of sorrow and heartfelt gratitude, when we wound his holy spirit by acting exactly contrary to his divine command, and thereby give the enemies of the cross of Christ an opportunity to revile? The Almighty, in condescension to our many infirmities, having appointed one day out of the seven, and sanctified its most holy observance, how shall we presume to honour the day of the Lord, or vainly suppose that in otherwise keeping this law ourselves, we fulfil it toward our servants, to whom all the priviliges of the commandment belong as much as unto us?

66

It has been observed by some, that although a strict observance of the Sabbath as laid down in the law, was indispensably necessary under the Jewish dispensation; yet, under that of the Gospel we are freed from "the law of commandments and ordinances," and therefore not obliged to observe the Sabbath with that strictness with which it was formerly obeyed.

To such persons, I would answer, that it is true that our Saviour came to abolish "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," and by one offering of himself to set aside the ordinances instituted to prefigure the promised Messiah. For the law was a conductor to lead us to Christ, and by types and shadows, prefigured him who was to come, even the time, substance, and antitype. "Now when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the law to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons," Gal. iv. 4- -see also Hebrews x. 1 to 10. When he who was prefigured by sacrifices exclaimed "it is finished," those types and shadows were at an end, for the antitype was come.

But did Christ come to abolish the moral law contained in the decalogue? Certainly not.-See Matt. v. 17. As well might we aver, that the first commandment was abrogated by the death of Christ as the fourth, for both are contained in the decalogue, and if we admit the one to be binding, we must admit the other, and if we reject the one, we must reject the other; but the decalogue is duly admitted and received by the ordinances of our Church, and proved by various parts of Scripture as being equally binding on us at present as under the old law, for in the liturgy of our Church, we return our weekly response to the identical words which were given to the Jews from Sinai, and written with the finger of God.

We find this commandment referred to under the Gospel dispensation, and Jeremiah, whose prophecy was written so late as 588, B. C. confirms the commandment upheld in the other parts of Scripture, Jeremiah xvii. 21, 22, also 27-see Isaiah lviii. 13, 14. Now, I would ask, do we thus obey the precept of the Lord? do we prevent, as far as in us lies, the breach of the law of the Lord? do we, as we would quote other parts of Scripture which do not interfere with our luxuries, conveniencies, and interests, lay before our servants the whole will of Almighty God, and command them, "thou shalt do no manner of work, &c." for this is the word of the Lord which he has commanded.

How cheering is it to look forward to the time, when all those precepts of the Lord will be honoured by those professing to be his children? when all that opposes the will of our blessed Saviour, though dear to us as a right hand, shall be cast from us; when we shall worship him whom not having seen, we love in the beauty of holiness, when the very cattle which have participated, in the consequence of man's disobedience, shall enjoy the day of the Lord as a rest from their burdens, and thus far partake alike in the bounty of the Lord, with creatures created for higher ends and more glorious attainments. "When the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the deep; then shall the earth break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands; instead of the thorn shall come up the fir-tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle-tree; and it shall be a sign to the Lord, which shall not be cut off."

Ωμοδροποσ.

ON THE MILENNIUM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-May I request insertion in this number of your Examiner for the following brief observations on the reply of a "Connaught Curate," to my remarks on the personal reign.

I have been grieved to find that your correspondent has departed, in a great measure, from the spirit in which the controversy has been hitherto carried on in your pages, and conceived it necessary to support his system, by descending to personal invective and

abuse, and by adopting language most unsuitable, in my humble judgment, to the character he bears of a professor and minister of the religion of Christ, I cannot at all admit that such a course is necessary for the investigation of truth, and I would entreat of those who take a part in the controversy, to avoid by all means, such unholy weapons.

His first charge is, that in my quotations from the 17th Genesis, there is "the slime of a Romish controversialist" that it is "singularly garbled, and sedulously weeded of every thing that was likely to set the promise in its true light"—and again, that it is "tongue-clipped." Such is the beautiful and becoming language, with which your friend from Connaught, had adorned the pages of the Christian Examiner. He also charges me with ignorance of the writings of the Fathers, and the commentaries of the learned, with not having read the Old Testament or examined the New. These are all weighty charges, and I am anxious, with your permission, to clear myself as well as I can. And first, as to garbled and tongue-clipped quotations, I request that you will take the trouble of reading over the whole passage in Gen. xvii. as transcribed by your correspondent, and judge for yourself whether my quotation from it is garbled. I have given an entire paragraph, without alteration or "clipping," and while I did not think it necessary to swell out the article, by referring to the covenant of circumcision, and quoting more than was necessary, I must maintain that the promise of an everlasting possession of the law of Canaan is fairly and fully quoted. As to my ignorance of the writings of the Fathers and of the learned, as well as of the Old and New Testament, I must to the first plead guilty, and to the last, my plea is non est factum, to use a forensic term.

I may, perhaps, be permitted to make an observation with respect to the article on the personal reign. I must confess, that it was written under very great disadvantages, for I was altogether ignorant whether you would think proper to give insertion to any article of the kind, or to open your pages at all to the controversy. My opinion, and that of many of my friends was that you would not-with this impression, therefore, I felt the importance of brevity in any remarks I should make, that you might have some inducement to insert them, knowing that Editors are often better pleased with the shortness of an article than with its real merit. This circumstance will, I hope, account in some degree for the want of fulness in the arguments and proofs of the article in question. They are in fact merely glanced at.

In alluding to the passage, Gal. iii. 16, your correspondent asserts, that the Apostle makes no reference to the promise in Genesis xvii. 8, but that on the contrary, his allusion is to the promise of the seed of the woman who was to bruise the serpent's head, and to the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. In reply to this, I shall quote the Apostle's argument, and then we shall see whether he alludes to either of these promises. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises

made, he saith not, and to seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ, and this I say, that the covenant which was confirmed in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect, for if the inheritance be of the law it is no more of promise, BUT GOD GAVE IT TO ABRAHAM BY PROMISE," Gal. iii. 16, 18. From this it is evident, that the seed spoken of was the seed of Abraham; that the promise was that made to the patriarch four hundred and thirty years before the law of Moses, and therefore, was not made in the garden of Eden; that an inheritance was the substance of the promise, and not a blessing to the nations; and finally, that it was made not of, or concerning the seed of Abraham, but to him. God promised Abraham that his seed, viz.: Christ, should possess an inheritance, and "the promise that he should be THE HEIR OF THE WORLD, was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith," Rom. iv. 13. Now, let me ask, where is this promise? Is it not that I have quoted in 17th chapter of Genesis, and again let me ask, was it ever fulfilled? Was either Abraham or his seed ever heir of the world? Did Christ ever yet get the promised inheritance?

I differ entirely from the worthy Curate's remarks about the Jews, and indeed I might say from his whole system of theology, as far as he has given us his views. I shall not, however, occupy your pages on that point; but I cannot conscientiously pass over his flippant, and I would say dangerous, remark, that "all the promises of God are conditional." Does the "Connaught Curate" mean to say that the promise of eternal life, through a crucified Saviour, was conditional? I would bear my feeble testimony against such erroneous doctrine, wherever it may be brought forward, and I am sure that I shall have the hearty concurrence and co-operation of the Editors of the Christian Examiner. "All the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him amen, to the glory of God by us." St. Paul, in Rom. iv., after stating that the promise was to Abraham, through faith, and not through the law (in the passage I have quoted,) says, "therefore, or for this reason, it is of faith that it might be by grace," or gratuitous, or unconditional, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed."-v. 16.

66

With respect to the typical character of the priesthood of Melchizedec, I must still maintain that it was a royal priesthood, and that the Apostle refers to it as such. Does he not expressly say, that by the interpretation of his name, he was King of righteousness, that he was literally King of Salem, and figuratively King of peace? And why does he so accurately explain all these matters in treating of Melchizedec's priesthood, if it were not to show that in this respect. also he was an eminent type of our Saviour ?* In Zechariah, vi. 16, we are told that he should be a priest upon his throne, and we know that the throne he was to

* See Valpy's Note on Heb. vii., and Jones's Cyclopædia, article Melchizedec.