ii. 1.) "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples were come together, to break bread, Paul preached to them." "It is not said, that the disciples were called together as on a special occasion, but that they came together according to general practice. Hence it is evident, that Christians were accustomed to assemble for religious worship on the first day of the week; but the change from the seventh to the first seems to have been gradually and silently introduced, by example rather than by express precept." (Note, Scott on Acts xx. 7-12.) The Jewish converts still observed the seventh-day Sabbath and the Apostles took the opportunity, which the Sabbath gave them, for meeting the Jews and preaching to them in their synagogues; but it does not appear, from the history, that Christians in any other way observed it: so that all the authority and obligation of the original institution was thus virtually given by "the Lord of the Sabbath-day, to the sacred rest of the first day of the week."

"Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." (1 Cor. xvi. 2.) "The argument from this passage for the observance of the Lord's day as a Christian Sabbath, is very conclusive; for unless this were a custom in the apostolical churches, why should the first day of the week' be mentioned in this connection?" (Note, ibid. 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2.)

But it will be inquired, Did the primitive Christians regard the whole first day of the week as sacred time? Is it not said, that they held their assemblies in the evening? Could servants and slaves, or even the relations of idolaters or Jews, keep holy the Lord's day, as the Fourth Commandment required the Israelites to hallow the Sabbath?-To this I would answer, If the words of the Fourth Commandment itself be carefully examined, it will be seen, that a CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 186.

large proportion of the responsibility, as to hallowing the Sabbath, belonged to the heads of families; to whom especially the command is addressed. Many things, even in the families of Israelites, would be necessary to servants, and others in inferior stations, which were not necessary in their superiors; and the crime of rendering them necessary rested on the latter, especially in the case of slaves.

Thus it is in the West Indies: the slaves who embrace Christianity, I apprehend, all acknowledge the obligation of the Lord's day, and count themselves criminal if they willingly violate it; yet they are often compelled, by strong necessity, to do many things on that day which are inconsistent with the entire rest which it requires. One of them, being commanded by his owner to go and take him some fish on the Lord's day, and being told that he should be paid for it, answered, "Nay, if you force me to labour on the Lord's day, I will not take any thing for what I do."

But this partial violation must have been far more generally the case in countries where no Sabbath was at all acknowledged; except the seventh-day Sabbath among small numbers. It appears to me, that to observe the sacred day as it ought to be observed, in countries where Christianity is professed, would, in these circumstances, have been impracticable. The Lord "willeth mercy and not sacrifice :" the letter of the precept must bow to the spirit of it; especially in respect of those numbers who, in inferior stations, formed a part of heathen families. But, in proportion as heads of families embraced Christianity, and their numbers were multiplied, it is manifest, from all subsequent history, that the Christian day of rest was sanctified, and had in honour, as the allotment of time which "the Lord of the Sabbath-day" had demanded for himself; and by no means as merely a matter of expediency, and

ЗА

advantageous, in giving the opportunity of assembling in sacred worship." For in the first times of Christianity it gave no such opportunity, above what might have been enjoyed on any other day; nay, much less to the Jewish converts than the seventh day would have done. Yet it might be questioned, whether the Christian day of sacred rest were not more conscientiously observed, before the observance of it was made a part of the law or custom of many nations, than it ever has been since. Yet still this law and custom gives many and great advantages both to ministers and Christians in general, in hallowing the Lord's day: and I own, I cannot see the reason why Christian rulers should not be considered as performing an important duty, in restraining all those practices on the Lord's day which interfere with men's thus hallowing it; as much as Nehemiah did his duty in enforcing the observance of the Jewish Sabbath (Neh. xiii. 15—21); provided they do not interfere with the rights of conscience, in things more immediately pertaining to the worship of God, or the manner of performing that worship,-or enforce by penalty any thing beyond the external observance, and even that only negatively.

But the way in which the Apostle John speaks, in the book of the Revelations, on this subject, seems to me fully decisive. He evidently calls" the first day of the week" THE LORD'S DAY, (Kupiany yμspa, as St. Paul calls the Eucharist Kupianov deiπvov, THE LORD'S SUPPER.) Now, if "the first day of the week" be "the Lord's day," in the same sense that the Eucharist is "the Lord's supper;" the one the memorial of his resurrection, the other of his crucifixion; surely the observance of it is no matter of mere expediency, but of the highest possible obligation. The day is his; and that sufficiently shews in what manner it ought to be employed, as far as opportunity and ability will

permit. Surely the Lord's day should be wholly devoted to the Lord; and none of its hours employed in a secular, a sensual, or a dissipated manner. Compare the above expression with the words of the Fourth Commandment: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." In like manner, "The first day is the day of the Lord thy Redeemer. The Lord hath blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it." Has not the Lord Jesus blessed the first day, and hallowed it? Is not the same stamp of Divine authority given to the Christian day of sacred rest, under the New Testament, as was given to Israel's day of sacred rest, under the Old Testament? In this connection let us again consider the words of the evangelical prophet already quoted, and see if they be not even more peculiarly appropriate to the Lord's day, than they could possibly be to the Sabbath of Israel.

Can any reason be assigned, why the memorial of the creation, or of Israel's deliverance out of Egypt, should be honoured, and hallowed, and a delight, which does not apply with far more energy, to the observance of the Lord's day, the memorial of redemption, and the Redeemer's triumphant resurrection?

If I mistake not, the Lord's day, as the season of sacred rest in the times of the Messiah, was itself foretold in prophecy. "The stone, which the builders refused, is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day that the Lord hath made: we will rejoice and be glad in it.” Ps. cxviii. 22-25. What day, it may be asked, did the Spirit of God who spake by the Psalmist, intend? Must not we answer, The day on which the crucified Redeemer began his triumphs and victories, even "the Lord's day." And if so, shall we not hallow that day, thus given, thus set apart, "this

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE most satisfactory explanation I have seen of the first passage alluded to by Es, Gen. ii. 4 -6, is that given by Willet in his Commentary on Genesis. He thinks that the negative used in the former part of the verse, is to be supplied in the latter; a construction the more probable as it is perfectly consistent with the idiom of the language. There is an analagous form of expression in Exod. xx. 4, where the negative particle, which is used in the beginning, is understood throughout. Though questioning the accuracy of the

authorised version be liable to diminish the confidence in it, of those particularly who are unacquainted with the original language; yet, when the rules of construction, and the opinions of learned men, justify us in adopting that interpretation which the consistency of the sentence requires, we should seize with alacrity the opportunity of wresting an argument from the sceptic, and enlisting it in the cause of Revelation: but I fear that it requires a far more than human power to convince one "who, having trusted to his own wisdom, has become a fool," and has submitted to believe the monstrous absurdity of a spontaneous creation.

In reference to the second passage, Ephes. ii. 2, the word anp, which occasions the principal difficulty, is certainly twice used by

* Christian Observer for April, p. 212.

Homer, to signify darkness; but it is rather extraordinary that in both instances the feminine article is prefixed: there is, however, a passage in the Seventeenth Idyllium of Theocritus, where it is evidently used to signify the infernal regions Τὰ δὲ μύρια τῆνα

:”

Αἔρι πᾷ κεκρύπται, ὅθεν πάλιν ουκέτι νόςος. But there is still a difficulty attending το πνεύμαλος: our translation seems to refer it to τον αρχονία which is impossible, neither will it make sense if put in apposition with της εξεσίας 18 αέρος. The scholium on this verse appears to be the most probable interpretation "Toy ἕξεσιαν λαχανα 18 ἐν τῷ ἀέρι πνευμαλος; ἤτοι τῶν πονηρῶν πνευματῶν: this would have been more satisfactory if the expression in the original had been τῶν πνευματῶν 12 depos: it is, however, easy to conceive TVεUualos to include all those beings who partake of the véuμa Tovypov, and that it should πνέυμα πονηρον, be placed after dos to be near dépos that part of the sentence to which it more immediately belongs. Under this supposition, the passage may be rendered thus-" According to him who hath dominion over the infernal spirits, his agents with the children of disobedience."

S.

Another correspondent, who signs himself, takes the same view of these passages with S., with the additional remark, that "the expression in Ephes. ii. 2, seems to refer to a Jewish tradition, that the air was inhabited by evil spirits;" and "Satan," he adds, "is called by Jewish writers, 'lord of the winds.""

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. To investigate the revealed will of God, as handed down to us in the sacred Scriptures, is, doubtless, a most effectual method of ascertaining the nature of Divine truth; provided the investigation be conducted with a spirit becoming the importance of the subject. But I

apprehend, that unless there appear a palpable and gross deviation from the true import of the original, when compared with parallel texts; and this after a very careful and conscientious inquiry; little benefit, or rather much injury, will arise to mankind, by proposing alterations in the generally received and approved translation. In the present day especially, pretenders to religious information are so much more common than disciples in Christian principles and practice, that in order to repress the vanity which too often arises from knowledge when unaccompanied with piety, I would earnestly recommend a candid and liberal construction of the received translation, rather than the adoption of new readings and latitudinarian conjectures.

A moment's consideration will be sufficient to shew, that it is necessary to guard very carefully against any infringement upon the character of the Scriptures, as now publicly authorised and distributed. If a doubt is suffered to exist respecting the general truth and faithfulness of the translation, it will tend to loosen that just and proper confidence which now forms the basis of the hopes and joys of many unlearned but pious minds, and may, perhaps, eventually lead to the admission of flagrant deviations from the true import of the most plain and obvious passages.

I might, perhaps, be justified in referring to page 346 in your last volume; and, while pointing to the weight of learning and piety engaged in the received translation of the Bible, might fairly deduce this conclusion, that the host of great and good men there on record, though fallible like ourselves, and by no means possessing our advantages, cannot be supposed to have fallen into many errors of such magnitude as to render it necessary that the correction of them should be attempted, eveu at

the risk of endangering the safety of that invaluable treasure which we have the happiness to possess.

Having thus adverted generally to this subject, I would, with all possible respect for the learning and research of your correspondent H. S., take occasion to observe, that while the translation of the passage in Genesis, which he proposes to adopt, appears, at first sight, to convey a meaning very different from what has been generally received, the real sentiment of the original text is, in fact, neither lost sight of nor misapprehended in our present mode of reading. "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen." (Gen. xxii. 14.) As if it were said, " According to the current observation, made on this remarkable transaction to this day, or, agreeably with the generally received opinion, founded thereon, and in use at the time of Moses, that where faith in the promises of God is exercised, a corresponding provision, as heretofore in the mount of the Lord, will be seen or experienced as it respects the recipient; or will be provided, as it respects the Agent or Giver." This will appear to be a sentiment, naturally intended to be recorded, by the grateful, and obedient Patriarch, when he affixed a name to the place where he had received so signal a mark of the approbation of his Lord, and had obtained by his constancy the name of "the father of the faithful.”

In support of this opinion, I beg leave to cite the Latin translation of the same passage, together with the translation used by the French Protestants, in both which, the verbs providere, and pourvoir, seem properly adapted, by their etymological signification, to convey the full and enlarged sentiment of the text. Propterea vocavit Abraham nomen loci illius, Jehova providebit: ex quo dici solet