by the same learned person, in his controversy with Dr. Priestley,

"I would as soon mispend my time in attempting to prove that the sun shone at noon-day, to a person who should persist in affirming it to be then midnight-darkness, as I would contend with any one who will assert, that an express precept for a man to lay by money, in his own custody, signifies that he should deposit it in the custody of another person: or who, well knowing that, in the time of the Apostles, the hour of assembling together, both for their ordinary chief meal, and for the celebration of the Lord's supper, was in the evening, at the beginning of the Jewish day, persists in maintaining, that a predication which St. Luke informs us took place at that particular time, did not commence then, but at an hour when they never assembled for those purposes. I will, therefore, only remark, on the latter instance, that I am sorry to appear so ignorant to Dr. Priestley, as not to have known, that amongst the Jews, as in every other nation, the word day was used sometimes to denote the periodical revolution of twenty-four hours; at others to express day-light, in opposition to darkness or night. I am sure the force of my argument required that it should be so understood. And I only quoted the beginning of Acts iv. to convince Subsidiarius, whose head seemed to be prepossessed with modern English ideas, that though the word morrow, or morning, in our language signifies the next civil day, because our evening and subsequent morning are in different days, yet, amongst the Jews, when opposed to the preceding night or evening, it meant the same civil day; because, with them, the evening and following morning were in the same day.'

73. The texts here cited being disposed of, it is only necessary to observe, that there is not the smallest evidence to be found, either positive or presumptive, that the Apostles or disciples of Jesus considered the first day of the week in any way whatever different from the following five.

74. In the two first Epistles of John will be found many passages inculcating obedience to the commandments of God, and of Jesus in general terms, and specifying some ordinances as commandments, which are not to be found in the Decalogue, v. 15: whence it appears that the word_commandment cannot be construed to apply exclusively to the Decalogue, or to mean any one commandment in particular; especially one like the observance of the Sabbath, that is not binding by any moral law, one which must depend entirely, either in the old or new law, on a specific revelation, and not on the general principles of morality which have been acknowleged in all ages and nations,-one which is actually, as has been shown in the Acts, xv. 28, specifically abolished by Jesus, and one which, by the instances of the miracle of the pool of Bethesda and the reaping of the corn, is also abolished, if any rule of conduct can be deduced from his actions.

75. If there be two ways of construing the New Testament, or any work whatever, one of which makes it totally inconsistent with itself, and the other consistent, common sense dictates, that

the latter should be adopted. Now if we maintain that by commandiments all the Decalogue or the orders in Leviticus are meant, we expressly contradict the passage of the Acts, where all the old law is abolished except four particulars, and we make the book inconsistent with itself. But if we construe it, that in this passage of John the word commandment only means these which are excepted, and those given in addition by Jesus, the whole is consis

tent.

76. It cannot be said that by this the laws of morality laid down in the Decalogue are abolished, because if they did not remain firm on the general principles of the moral law of all nations, yet every law of morality essential to the welfare of mankind, is excepted from the abolition in various places; for instance, in 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, Gal. v. 19, 20, 2 Tim. iii. 2, where particular parts of the old law are alluded to and re-enacted, and in 1 John iii. 23, iv. 21, where new commandments of morality are given much superior to some of the old ones, and the meaning of the word commandment is actually explained.

77. By this reasoning we are no longer encumbered with some parts of the Decalogue, which, to say the least of them, it is not easy to explain in a manner satisfactory to the minds of young persons, and even of many serious thinking persons of more mature age; who find a difficulty in reconciling their minds to such passages, as that relating to a jealous God; a passage merely applicable to the Jews.

78. Some persons have supposed, that the word commandments in the Old Testament necessarily means the Decalogue, and the Decalogue exclusively. This interpretation cannot be supported, because the word commandment is used in its common usual sense as a command or order of God, before the Decalogue was given, as in Exod. xvi. 28.

And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

79. The pious Christian will not forget, that the moral law is not entirely dependent either on the law of Moses or of Christ; though they have confirmed it, yet it was binding on all mankind before Moses or Jesus were either of them born. Although there were no Jews or Christians, can it be supposed that the moral law, the law of right and wrong, was unknown to Abraham and the patriarchs before him? This would indeed be absurd enough. It must be also recollected, that the whole law of morality is not contained in the Decalogue; and yet the breach of this law, although in instances where it is not named in that code, is a sin, both to Jews and others.

80. Nor will a man be held blameless if he keep all the laws of the Decalogue, and commit some sins not therein named. For there are several HEINOUS SINS not named in that code. All the sins against the moral law prohibited in the Decalogue, and several others therein not named, are forbidden by Jesus and Paul over and over again. Therefore, as a code of law, what loss can the abolition of the Decalogue be? Is not the new law which God delivered by Jesus, as binding as that delivered by Moses?

81. It is well known that the version of the Pentateuch called the Septuagint, was anciently translated from the Hebrew into the Greek language, by certain Jews, either for the use of Ptolemy Philadelphus, or of their countrymen residing at Alexandria. When these persons came to the translation of the word Jehovah, they found themselves in a difficulty; for it was an acknowleged doctrine of their religion, never disputed by any of their prophets or priests, that this name, by which God had thought proper to designate himself in the third verse of the sixth chapter of Exodus, ought never to be written or spoken on any occasion, except the most awful and important. And it is the use or abuse of this particular name of God, to which the Jews always understood the command of the Decalogue to apply, which we render by the words, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. But which ought to be rendered, Thou shalt not take the name of JEHOVAH thy God in vain. This word, Jehovah, was inscribed on the golden plate on the forehead of the High-priest, when he entered the Holy of Holies, and also on his breast-plate and lest it should suffer any change, it was written in the Samaritan letters, those in which the Pentateuch was originally written, and from which it was translated into Hebrew by Ezra, after the Captivity. In the time of St. Jerom, it still continued written in many Hebrew and Greek Bibles in the Samaritan character. When the Jews came to this word in their translation, in order to avoid the profaneness of writing it literally, they adopted the word Kúpios, or Lord; and thus got over the difficulty. But this contrivance does not in any way alter the nature of the command of the Decalogue, which still continues in all its original force applicable to the Jews and to all Christians too, if they maintain the Decalogue to be excepted from the abolition of the other commandments of God in Exodus and Leviticus. Christians say this interpretation of the word is only an idle superstition of the Jews. It is no more idle superstition to them, than is the prohibition to sow blended corn, or plough with an ox yoked to an ass. It is an idle superstition to the Christian, because Jesus abolished it in not excepting it. If Jesus did not abolish the Decalogue as a code of law, then we must no more write the word Jehovah : for the Decalogue applies

ན

།

solely to the use of the word Jehovah, and not to our disgraceful and odious habit of profane swearing, to which our modern translators have applied it. Does the considerate and unprejudiced Christian really think, that Jesus intended this doctrine respecting the use of the word Jehovah to be continued by Christians? What has been said respecting the word Jehovah in the Decalogue cannot be disputed; and when Christian priests call the construction given to it by the Jews an idle superstition, they surely can neither be praised for their piety nor for their prudence. The reverence for the peculiar name Jehovah commanded to the Jews, was one of those things not intended to be continued under the Christian dispensation, and therefore was not excepted by Jesus when he was abolishing the Jewish code. And the very circumstance shows that the Decalogue as a code of law was not intended to be continued. In translating the Old Testament, Christians do wrong in not translating the word Jehovah literally. The Jews were not only excusable in translating it by the word Lord, but they would have been sinful if they had translated it literally.

82. Persons must not entertain the idea, that because the ten laws in the Decalogue were intended solely for the Jews, the laws of morality were not binding on others. They were bound by them just as much as if the Decalogue had never been promulgated. If the Decalogue AS A CODE of law were binding on the Gentiles, then were they bound to keep the Sabbath; and surely no one can pretend that that was ever intended, or that a single word in all the Bible can be shown expressive of disapprobation of the conduct of the Gentiles in not keeping it. Persons reasoning correctly, must remember that the observance of a Sabbath is not a moral law, but a rite of discipline.

83. The Decalogue was no more binding on the Jews, than any other of God's commands. There can be no distinction or preference of one command to another. All the commands of God are alike entitled to instant unqualified obedience. Nor can any doctrine so contrary to the character of God be deduced from the giving of the Decalogue by him to the Jews, as that, of one command being more worthy of obedience than another.

84. The state of the case with the Decalogue is precisely like what often takes place with the English law. The Parliament, for reasons sometimes good and sometimes bad, passes a declaratory act to declare what the law is, or perhaps to increase the penalties for an offence. This act then becomes a part of the English code. It afterward passes an act to repeal this act; by this the law reverts to its original state, as if no such act had ever been passed. This was the case with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity; an act was passed to declare or to increase the penalties for impugning

it; that act has been repealed; but the judges have declared, that though that act has been repealed, it is still, at common law, an offence to impugn the Trinity, and that it is punishable by them. Thus, when the Decalogue as a code of law was abrogated, the laws of morality reverted to exactly what they were in the time of Abraham; and as such they remain to Christians, unless Jesus added any thing to them; and this we know that he did; for he expressly says, A new commandment give I unto you, Love ONE

ANOTHER.

85. At this day no Christians will maintain that the laws of Moses are any longer obligatory on them; and yet Jesus has not expressly made any declaration to that effect. He obeyed them all strictly, with the exception of that law relating to the Sabbath, which he took various opportunities of violating; and most absurdly, this is the only part of the ceremonial, or not strictly moral law, which is now attempted to be retained by the modern Pharisees. His doctrine was so equivocal respecting the old law, that the Apostles themselves did not understand it, even after they had received the Holy Spirit. For we find the inspired Peter defending the old Jewish law at Antioch; and this must have been many years after the death of Jesus; because the Apostles remained at Jerusalem some years before they separated on their missions to the Gentiles, if the early fathers are to be believed, twelve years.

86. If there be yet any persons who believe that the Sabbath was not abolished by Jesus Christ, they are requested to observe, that they are bound to keep it as the Jews kept it; they can neither light a fire nor cook meat on the Sabbath; and for the punishment to which they render themselves liable, if they do, they are referred to Numbers xv. 32-36, already quoted.