tion, Lord's day, marking the time of receiving the revelation, be not plain language, there is no dependence to be put upon language at all. As well may it be said, that the Apostles' banishment was figurative, that Patmos is figurative, that the testimony of Jesus Christ is figurative, and that the name Jesus itself is figurative. There are no bounds to absurdity, when obstinacy will think itself justifiable in availing itself of anything that an ungoverned imagination can suggest. Instead of plying such an objector with arguments, I should judge the most wholesome discipline for him would be to warn him against the perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds.

Among the various ways by which Satan has attempted to rob us of this precious ordinance he has suggested, that if the respecting the Lord's day so far as to meet, cannot be denied, no more of it ought to be sanctified than what is employed in the meetings. But if Satan quotes Scripture, Scripture can be retorted on Satan to his confusion. It is the Lord's day: if so, the whole of the day is his. How it is to be employed privately, is to be learned from our Lord's lessons on the nature of the Sabbath. There is no doubt, that if some have erred by rejecting the observance of this day, there are others who have erred by insisting on pharisaical strictness. Many Christians would certainly have taken part with the Pharisees in their charges against Jesus for breaking the Sabbath. They hold it in such a way as to make it a yoke and a bondage, not a privilege and a blessing. Such persons ought to study the reasons by which our Lord justifies his conduct to the Scribes and Pharisees on this subject. They will find that no work of love to the human race is improper on this day; and that every thing belonging to a church, however much it may lead into temporal matters, ought to be attended to on it. If the priests in the temple service did the work of the shambles, and were blameless, nothing that concerns a church of Christ can profane the day which he claims as his The view in which many keep the Lord's day condemns Jesus Christ as a Sabbath breaker.

own.

Some take offence at the name Sabbath, as applied

to the Lord's day. There is no doubt but the names, Lord's day, and first day of the week, are those by which alone it is designated in the New Testament; but it appears to me that this fastidiousness is too nice. Sabbath imports a day of rest; such a day is the Lord's day; and if it agrees to the idea imported in the name, why refuse it the name? Besides, it appears to me evident, that the Lord's day includes the commemoration both of the finishing of creation, and of redemption. The original Sabbath was never abolished, therefore must still exist. It can be found no where, but in the first day of the week. It is asked if the Lord's day is a Sabbath, why not so called? For a very sufficient Another day had already engrossed that name, and therefore, although it deserved that name ever so well, the irreversible foundations of the laws of language, would not permit it to be given. In the age in which the New Testament was written, the Sabbath always referred to the seventh day. They discover more precipitancy than deep research, who deny this name as applicable to the Lord's day. Some people arrive at the perfect knowledge of the Bible, as Gil Blas got to the bottom of medicine, not by mature study, but by adopting hastily a few insignia of perfection.

reason.

ON HUMAN CERTIFICATES

OF THE

EXCELLENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

CHRISTIANS have discovered a great propensity to sanction the wisdom of God by the wisdom of men. The Scriptures, on the contrary, oppose these; and, instead of coveting the patronage of the wisdom of this world, they cast upon it the utmost contempt. So far, therefore, as Christians do otherwise, they are carnal, and walk as men. That the Scriptures are suited to the capacities of all men, and that they are the power of God to the salvation of the learned and wise as well as the unlearned and unwise or illiterate and ignorant, is a truth that reflects glory on them; yet, that they should be so agreeable to the natural taste of learned men, as to recommend themselves to their constant perusal, is neither agreeable to fact nor to the nature of their contents, except these are grossly perverted and mistaken. These reflections may frequently occur from the writings of Christians; they are at present excited by some things in the article of Buck's Anecdotes, entitled the Scriptures. Speaking of the book of God, he says "It is so sublime in its language, so noble in its doctrine, yet plain in its precepts, and excellent in its end, that the man must be ignorant and depraved indeed who lives without reading it." I acknowledge that there are many specimens of sublimity in the Scriptures, especially in the Old Testament, that it is impossible to find parallels in any of the writings of men; but it is equally true that there is much, especially in the language of the apostles, that cannot bear the test of criticism, according to the rules of human eloquence. I am convinced that the rhetorical excellencies of many parts

of Scripture would recommend them to the admiration of the learned, were they to be found on any other subject, but fact proves that there are many who live without reading them, who cannot be called ignorant in any other sense than as referring to the gospel. The nobility of its doctrines, instead of being an inducement to wise men to study the Scriptures, is the very thing that prevents them from looking into the Bible, and would prevent them, had it all the elegance required by the rules of all critics from Longinus to Doctor Blair. If any such delight in reading the Scriptures, it is under some misconception of that which is the glory of the Christian; and such parts of them as have the least reference to the foundation of a sinner's hope.

"I walk," says Queen Elizabeth, "many times in the pleasant fields of the holy Scriptures, where I pluck up the goodlisome herbs of sentences by pruning, eat them by reading, digest them by musing, and lay them up at length in the high seat of memory by gathering them together; so that having tasted their sweetness, I may less perceive the bitterness of life." A few words of the preciousness of Jesus would have been more convincing evidence that she well understood and valued the Bible, than all this farrago of quaint and incongruous metaphor. I cannot tell in what part of the sacred volume that celebrated queen learned to persecute the saints of God. Her pride, her ambition, her haughtiness, her cruelty are not convincing proofs that she had drank in the spirit of Christ.

It would, indeed, be pleasing to learn, that "the book which Sir Isaac Newton studied with the greatest application was the Bible;" if it was also ascertained that his love to it originated in the belief of the doctrine of the cross, and of salvation to the guiltiest of men, by faith in the atonement of Christ. But if it is true, that he denied the divine nature of the Son of God, I class him infidel as Thomas Paine.

I am as little edified with the certificate of Mr. Locke, though it appears plausible. "Mr. Locke," says our author, "justly esteemed one of the greatest masters of reason, being asked, a little before his dissolution, 'What was the shortest and surest way for

a young gentleman to attain a true knowledge of the Christian religion in the full and just extent of it?" made this memorable reply-'Let him study the holy Scriptures, especially the New Testament. Therein are contained the words of eternal life. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter.' And again—‘The only way to obtain a knowledge of the Christian religion in its full extent and purity is the study of the holy Scriptures." For my part, instead of considering these words memorable, I look upon both the question and answer as peculiarly silly. Where could a knowledge of Christianity possibly be obtained but in the Scriptures? It might as well be asked, how shall we obtain a knowledge of the Scriptures? No real knowledge, more than a just and full knowledge, of Christianity can be obtained from any other source than the Scriptures. These accounts and defences of Christianity, independent of the inspiration of the Scriptures, can serve the cause only of Antichrist. Mr. Locke's words seem to pay the highest compliment to the Scriptures; but that they are consistent with entire ignorance of the truth is clear, from the words of the same author, except he is inconsistent with himself. "God," says Mr. Locke, "had, by the light of reason, revealed to all mankind who would make use of that light, that he was good and merciful. The same spark of the divine nature and knowledge in man, while making him a man, showed him also the way of atoning the merciful, kind, compassionate Author and Father of him and his being, when he had transgressed that law. He that made use of this candle of the Lord, so far as to find what was his duty, could not miss to find also the way to reconciliation and forgiveness when he had failed of his duty. The law (meaning the law of nature) is the eternal immutable standard of right, and a part of that law is, that a man should forgive not only his children, but his enemies, upon their repentance, asking pardon and amendment. And therefore he could not doubt (see Leland, 1, 148) that the author of this law, and God of patience and consolation, who is rich in mercy, would forgive his frail offspring, if they acknowledged