considerable men, within our own memory, to abstain, from conscientious scruples, from all meats prepared with the blood of animals, and from the flesh of animals otherwise killed than by the effusion of their blood. The truth, however, seems to be, that the two ordinances, the observation of a Sabbath and abstinence from blood, although they were equally binding upon all mankind at the time when they were severally enjoined, differ nevertheless in this, that the reason of the Sabbath continues invariably the same, or, if it changes at all, it hath been gaining rather than losing its importance from the first institution. The reason of the prohibition of blood was founded on the state of mankind before the coming of Christ, and was peculiar to those early ages. The use of the Sabbath, as it began, will end only with the world itself. The abstinence from blood was a part of that handwriting of ordinances to which sin gave a temporary importance, and which were blotted out when the Messiah made an end of sin by the expiatory sacrifice of the cross. I have already had occasion to remark, that it was the great end of the numerous sacrifices of the Mosaic ritual, to impress the Jewish people (for a season the chosen depositaries of revealed truth) with an opinion of the necessity of a sanguinary expiation even for involuntary offences,-to train them to the habitual belief of that awful maxim, that "without blood there shall be no remission." The end of those earlier sacrifices, which were of use in the patriarchal ages, was unquestionably the same. To inculcate the same important lesson, in the earliest instance of a sacrifice upon record, respect was had to the shepherd's sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock, rather than to the husbandman's offering of the fruit of his ground; and for the same reason, by the prohibition laid upon the sons of Noah, and afterwards enforced in the severest terms in the Mosaic law, blood was sanc tified, as it were, as the immediate instrument of atone. ment. The end of the prohibition was to impress mankind with a high reverence for blood, as a most holy thing, consecrated to the purpose of the general expiation: but this expiatory virtue belonged not to the blood of bulls and of goats, but to the blood of Christ, of which the other was by God's appointment made a temporary emblem. As the importance, therefore, of all inferior sacrifices, and of all the cleansings and purifications of the law, ceased when once the only meritorious sacrifice had been offered on the cross, and the true atonement made, animal blood, at the same time, and for the same reason, lost its sanctity. The necessity, therefore, ment tioned in the apostolic rescript, so far as it regards the restriction from the use of blood, can be understood only of a temporary necessity, founded on the charitable con descension, which, in the infancy of the church, was due from the Gentile converts to the inveterate prejudices of their Hebrew brethren. Accordingly, although we read of no subsequent decree of the apostolical college, rescinding the restriction which by the act of their first assembly they thought proper to impose, yet we find what is equivalent to a decree, in the express licence given by St. Paul to the Christians of Corinth, to eat of whatever meat was set before them, provided they incurred not the imputation of idolatry, by partaking of a feast upon the victim in an idol's temple. With this exception, they had permission to eat what ever was sold in the shambles, and whatever was served up at table, without any attention to the legal distinctions of clean and unclean, and without any anxious inquiry upon what occasion or in what manner the animals had been slaughtered. Thus it appears, that the prohibition of blood in food was for a time indeed, by the generality of the restraint, binding upon all mankind: but, in the reason of the thing, its importance was but temporary; and when its importance ceased, the restraint was taken off,-not indeed by a decree of the whole college of apostles, but still by apostolical authority. The observation of a Sabbath, on the contrary, was not only a general duty at the time of the institution, but, in the nature of the thing, of perpetual importance; since, in every stage of the world's existence, it is man's interest to remember and his duty to acknowledge his dependence upon God as the Creator of all things, and of man among the rest. The observation of a Sabbath was accordingly enforced, not by any apostolical decree, but by the example of the apostles after the solemn abrogation of the Mosaic law. Thus, I trust, I have shown that the observation of a Sabbath, as it was of earlier institution than the religion of the Jews, and no otherwise belonged to Judaism, than as, with other ordinances of the patriarchal church, it was adopted by the Jewish legislature, necessarily survives the extinction of the Jewish law, and makes a part of Christianity. I have shown how essentially it differs from other ordinances, which, however they may boast a similar antiquity, and for a season an equal sanctity, were only of a temporary importance. I have shown that it is a part of the rational religion of man, in every stage and state of his existence, till he shall attain that happy rest from the toil of perpetual conflict with temptation-from the hardship of duty as a task, of which the rest of the Sabbath is itself a type. I have therefore established my first proposition, that Christians stand obliged to the observation of a Sabbath. I am, in the next place, to inquire how far the Christian, in the observance of a Sabbath, is held to the original injunction of keeping every seventh day; and which day of the seven is his proper Sabbath. And this shall be the business of my next discourse. SERMON XXIII. MARK ii. 27. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. THE general application of this maxim of our Lord, as a rule establishing the true distinction between natural duties and positive institutions, I have already shown. I have already shown you, that, rightly understood, whatever pre-eminence in merit it may ascribe (as it ascribes indeed the greatest) to those things which are not good because they are commanded, but are commanded because they are in themselves good, it nevertheless as little justifies the neglect of the external ordinances of religion as it warrants the hypocritical substitution of instituted forms for those higher duties which it teaches us to consider as the very end of our existence. In the particular inquiry which the text more immediately suggests, what regard may be due to the institution of the Sabbath under the Christian dispensation, I have so far proceeded, as to show, in opposition to an opinion which too visibly influences the practice of the present age, that Christians are indeed obliged to the observance of a Sabbath. It remains for me to inquire how far the Christian, in the observance of a Sabbath, is held to the original injunction of keeping every seventh day; and when I have shown you that this obligation actually remains upon him, I am, in the last place, to show in what manner his Sabbath should be kept. The spirit of the Jewish law was rigour and severity. Rigour and severity were adapted to the rude manners of the first ages of mankind, and were particularly suited to the refractory temper of the Jewish people. The rigour of the law itself was far outdone by the rigour of the popular superstition and the pharisaical hypocrisy,―if, indeed, superstition and hypocrisy, rather than a particular ill-will against our Lord, were the motives with the people and their rulers to tax him with a breach of the Sabbath, when they saw his power exerted on the Sabbath day for the relief of the afflicted. The Christian law is the law of liberty. We are not therefore to take the measure of our obedience from the letter of the Jewish law, much less from Jewish prejudices and the suggestions of Jewish malignity. In the sanctification of the Sabbath, in particular, we have our Lord's express authority to take a pious discretion for our guide, keeping constantly in view the end of the institution, and its necessary subordination to higher duties. But, in the use of this discretion, I fear it is the fashion to indulge in a greater latitude than our Lord's maxims allow, or his example warrants; and although the letter of the Jewish law is not to be the Christian's guide, yet perhaps, in the present instance, the particular injunctions of the law, rationally interpreted by reference to the general end of the institution, will best enable us to determine what is the obligation to the observance of a particular day,-what the proper observation of the day may be, and how far the practice of the present age corresponds with the purpose and spirit of the ordi nance. The injunction of the Sabbath, in the fourth commandment, is accompanied with the history and the reason of the original institution. Both the history and |