hand, and national vanity on the other, much must be omitted, and many things exaggerated; not to speak of what poetry may have invented. There may have been such a king as Fingal. There may have been such a prince as Ossian; and he may have been a great poet. Nay, I will go further, and admit, that there is a strong probability of these things; for I can no more believe that Macpherson fabricated these poems, than that Ossian composed them all. I will even admit, that it is probable that fragments of songs composed by one Ossian may have been preserved for hundreds of years by oral tradition, and that we have some of these in English in Macpherson's book. Many passages there are of great beauty, pathos, and sublimity,-worthy of the son of the "mighty chief of Morven, the first of a thousand kings." But bare probability is the utmost that the evidence can produce in the mind of a serious inquirer after historical truth. And this is all that popish oral tradition can effect; and that only with regard to things not contrary to scripture; so that no wise man will build any article of faith or ordinance of worship upon such an uncertain foundation.

We do not receive the apostolic writings upon authority so vague, as Dr. Milner would insinuate; for besides their being written at first, which puts them out of the rank of oral traditions, the substance of them was speedily incorporated with other writings, which remain to this day as witnesses of the fact, insomuch that a modern author is said to have boasted, that though the New Testament were lost, he could almost make it up from the works of the Greek and Latin fathers. I will allow this to be a figure of speech bordering on the hyperbole ; but it is founded upon the fact, that the works of the fathers of the first four centuries, whose genuineness nobody denies, are full of quotations from the very Bible which we possess. I am not referring to these fathers as authorities for any doctrine, but merely as competent witnesses of the fact, that the scriptures were received by all Christians before the church of Rome was distinguished above other churches; and, therefore, we do not receive them on the authority of either her or her traditions.

That faith in the word of God which constitutes a man a Christian, is founded on higher authority than even the tradition of written testimony, which produces only a rational conviction, not a divine faith. But this, I hope, will appear a sufficient answer to Dr. Milner's assertion, that we are obliged to admit of tradition, (in his sense of the word, of course,) in order to admit of scripture itself. For an illustration of the other topic, how we know the Bible to be the word of God independently of human testimony, I refer the reader to Chap. CXXXIV. in Vol. II.

I conclude this branch of the subject with remarking, that popish authors claim great merit, on the part of their church, for having kept the Bible so carefully for us, for so many ages, and for giving it to the world at last but these writers forget that the word of God was not given to the churches to be kept up, but to be given away and published and it appears to me, that in using this plea of merit, the church of Rome appears in as awkward a predicament as the "wicked and slothful servant" did, who boasted that he had hid his lord's talent in a napkin.

I come now to consider the things which Dr. Milner says Protes

งา

tants have received from tradition. "The first precept in the Bible," says he, "is that of sanctifying the seventh day." He proves this at length by the first institution of the Sabbath, and by the fourth commandment in the decalogue, a thing which no Protestant requires to be proved. Then he proceeds:-" On the other hand, Christ declares that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.' Matt. v. 17. He himself observed the Sabbath; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, Luke iv. 16. His disciples likewise observed it, after his death: they rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment, Luke xxiii. 56. Yet, with all this weight of scripture authority for keeping the Sabbath, or seventh day, holy, Protestants of all denominations make it a profane day, and transfer the obligation of it to the first day of the week, or Sunday. Now what authority have they for this? None whatever, except the unwritten word, or tradition of the Catholic church; which declares that the apostles made the change in honour of Christ's resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Ghost, on that day of the week." Letter XI. page 96.

Dr. Milner must have been thinking of the manner in which Papists keep their holy days, when he spoke about Protestants making the seventh day, or Saturday, a profane* day. It is well known that the holy days of the church of Rome are the most wicked and profane of all the year, at least after mass, which is always celebrated early; but consistent Protestants, I mean real Christians, have no profane days; but consider themselves bound to live to the glory of God as much on one day as another; and while following their lawful business on ordinary days, they are as really obeying the commandment, as when they meet for religious worship on the Sabbath.

But while thus asserting the duty of Christians to serve God every day, I am far from denying the special obligation of the Sabbath. There was divine wisdom and goodness in the appointment of a day to recur at short intervals, when we should have the privilege of withdrawing from secular affairs, and be allowed, without the interruption of these, to apply our minds to the contemplation of heavenly things, to observe divine ordinances, and enjoy the benefit of Christian fellowship. The obligation of sanctifying such a day, or devoting it to the service of God, with a special reference to spiritual things, is not only admitted, but maintained, by serious Christians of every denomination.

The proportion of time to be so consecrated, is fixed by divine authority to be one day in seven. The seventh day was originally appointed for the reason assigned at the institution of the Sabbath, and repeated in the fourth commandment. Because on that day God rested from all his works, it was a significant memorial of his rest, as well as a suitable portion of time for his creatures to rest from their labour; for it had respect not only to the spiritual exercises of rational and immortal beings, but also to the recruiting of the physical strength of man and the inferior creatures, which would soon be exhausted by hard labour, without the stated and frequent recurrence of a day of repose. But, except as a memorial of the rest after the creation of the world, there is no stress laid upon one particular day of the seven more than

* I am aware that this word is used in the sense of secular, or not sacred; as we say, profane history; but I must protest against such a word coming into use in reference to any part of Christian practice.

another. The commandment does not say, "Remember the seventh day;" but "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy;" that is, remember the day of rest, as the word signifies; then the seventh day is mentioned, from its connexion with the first creation, as the proper day to be observed by the church under that dispensation; and so it was observed by the Jews in all their generations, and by Christ's disciples, after his crucifixion, but before his resurrection; for after that event, we have no notice of them observing the seventh day, or Jewish Sabbath. Thereafter, the first day of the week was that on which the disciples came together for prayer. Christ in person consecrated this day by meeting with his disciples once and again before his ascension. The day of pentecost was the first day of the week, as we learn from the appointment of that festival, which was ordained to be the day after the Sabbath, Lev. xxiii. 16. On this day the disciples were met, before the Holy Ghost came upon them, and, therefore, that day was not ordained in honour of his descent. So far as the history of the apostles goes, they continued to observe the first day of the week; and Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, mentions that as the day of their stated meeting. 1 Cor. xvi. 2.

It is true, there is no positive precept which enjoins the keeping of the first day instead of the seventh; but apostolic example is as good as precept. We are sure that what the apostles did, and instructed the churches to do, must have been agreeable to the will of God; for they acted, as well as spoke and wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These considerations, I hope, will be found sufficient to expose the impudence of the assertion, that we have nothing but the authority of tradition for observing the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath.

Dr. Milner then mentions some circumstances relating to the observance of the Sabbath, in which we do not exactly follow the rule prescribed to the Jews; such as keeping it from evening to evening. "Again," says he, "it is declared in scripture to be unlawful to dress victuals on that day, Exod. xvi. 23, or even to make a fire, Exod. xxxv. 3." And then he gives us to understand, that we learn by the traditions of the church that these circumstances were only of temporary obligation. With regard to the first, that of keeping the Sabbath from evening to evening,-this was merely prescribing an entire day according to the mode of calculating other days; and therefore it is observed by Christians when they keep a whole day according to the same rule.

Dr. Milner's other remark seems intended to inform us, that there is less strictness required in the observance of the Christian, than there was of the Jewish Sabbath; and this we learn by the tradition of the church; and I grant there is a very prevalent tradition to that effect, which influences the opinion and even the practice of many Protestants. But I am not aware of any foundation for this in scripture; and, therefore, I must object to it as a human tradition, calculated to make void the law of God. I know, indeed, that by the law of Moses the Sabbath-breaker was put to death; but that does not infer that more strictness of observance was required; for we know that conjugal infidelity was also punished with death, which certainly does not infer that Christians may be less strict in that respect than Jews were.

The law of Moses ordained also that idolaters should be put to death. Happily for Papists, this is not obligatory upon Christians; and yet there is no less strictness required in keeping ourselves from idols. The truth is, there was a system of jurisprudence, or municipal law, bound up with the ordinances of worship, and the law of the ten commandments; for in Israel the nation and the church were identical. The distinction of church and state was unknown. It was not a civil establishment of religion; but a divine establishment of polity, -the head of which, both in spirituals and temporals, was Jehovah the God of Israel. It follows as a thing of course, that with the consummation of that dispensation, both the ritual and municipal branches of the law terminated; and left for us under the New Testament, nothing of the nature of precept but the original law of the ten commandments, which Christ exemplified and magnified by his obedience and suffering, and delivered as the rule of conduct to all the subjects of his kingdom;-not in any respect mitigated, or requiring less strictness than before; but requiring the entire devotion of the heart and life to the service and glory of God;-not as the price of any spiritual benefit, but as an expression of love and gratitude for spiritual blessings already received by the gospel.

Now, when Christ taught his disciples that this law was much more strict than they were aware of, and that it extended to the very thoughts of the heart, is it to be supposed that he made a special exception in prejudice of the fourth commandment, "Thou shalt remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy?" Certainly not; for the sanctification of that day is enjoined in the strictest manner, in the summary which Christ gave of the first table of the law, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and strength." Christ did indeed reprove the Pharisees for their affected hypocritical strictness about the Sabbath. This was not because he was less strict than they; but because he saw that their professions were insincere and inconsistent. He told them that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, though it should require great labour, such as the lifting an ox out of a pit; that the law had always admitted of this, and other acts of humanity and mercy; and that the Jews had been in the habit of doing so without blame, when occasion required.

Those precepts about the Sabbath therefore, such as the length of a journey, and other matters, not expressed in the commandment, are not binding upon us; but the commandment itself I hold to be binding in all its extent and original strictness.

CHAPTER CXCII.

THE OLD AND NEW DISPENSATIONS COMPARED. REASON WHY THE SABBATH SHOULD BE MORE STRICTLY OBSERVED BY CHRISTIANS THAN JEWS. FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF PRACTICES SAID TO BE DERIVED FROM TRADITION. EATING OF BLOOD, CONTRARY TO EXPRESS COMMAND. REFRAINING FROM WASHING THE FEET OF OTHERS, WHEN THIS 18 ENJOINED. ASSERTION CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY CHANGE TO TAKE PLACE IN THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH WITHOUT OPPOSITION. ARGUMENT ILLUSTRATED BY THE CASE OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.

SATURDAY, March 16th, 1822.

In my last number I replied to Dr. Milner's assertion, that we had nothing but the authority of tradition for observing the Sabbath on the first, instead of the seventh day of the week; and also to what he says about the obligation of observing it, being less strict under the New Testament dispensation than it was under that of Moses. I showed, that for the observance of the first day we had the example of the apostles, and of the churches which they planted, which is of equal authority with any precept; and as for the sanctifying of the Sabbath, I endeavoured to show, that the fourth commandment remains in full force, and in all its original strictness.

In comparing the two dispensations, we find, indeed, that in this, as in other respects, the law of Moses lays more stress upon things external and visible, than the New Testament does, which regards more the spirit of the thing than its outward circumstances. But this, so far from being a reason why we should pay less respect to the Sabbath, is rather an argument for greater strictness, seeing that by the greater spirituality of the new dispensation, we are brought into more intimate contact with spiritual and heavenly things. This strictness does not consist in measuring how far we may lawfully travel; or in forbearing to kindle a fire, which in some climates is as much a work of necessity. as putting on one's clothes; but it consists in the abstraction of both body and mind from our ordinary worldly employments; devotion of heart to the service of God; personal attendance on the ordinances of his worship; and as much labour as we are capable of in doing good to fellow-creatures, especially by communicating the knowledge of Christian doctrine to our families, to our neighbours, and all to whom we have access.

Serious Christians regard the service of the Sabbath not as a burden but as a privilege; and the more strictly they observe it in the spirit of it, the greater blessing they find it. This is a matter of experience and individual consciousness, which will not be comprehended by those who require arguments to convince them that they may not lawfully take liberties with that holy day, or that think they need not keep it so holy as the Jews did. We are able to judge of the state of religion in any society from their observance of the Sabbath. If they are spiritually minded, they will punctually and cheerfully attend to the exercises proper for the day; but if they are carnal, they will begin to say, "What a weariness is it?" and, by and by, they will make it, in more senses than one, what Dr. Milner calls, a profane day. This has been eminently the case in the church of Rome for hundreds of years. Popish counVOL. II-71